PickUrPoison

About

Username
PickUrPoison
Joined
Visits
26
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
678
Badges
1
Posts
304
  • First look: Benchmarks put Apple's entry-level $4999 iMac Pro to the test

    VRing said:
    Apple isn’t even using a W-2145, let alone downclocking one. 
    The W-2140B is essentially a downclocked version of the W-2145. The same way the W-2150B is a downclocked W-2155.

    These are straight up weaker versions of their regular counterparts.
    That said, I’m confused about the comments re: thermal throttling. From the article:

    In the multi-core benchmark, the 8 cores ran at 3.9 gigahertz, which seems to be the top CPU frequency when maxing out all CPU cores. 

    and, during 10 consecutive multi core tests:

    After the second test, each additional run would cause the iMac Pro to thermal throttle when the CPU reached roughly 94 degrees celsius, which caused the clock speed to drop from 3.9GHz to about 3.6GHz for a second or two. This allowed the CPU to drop below 92 degrees, and the clock speed to rise back to the maximum 3.9GHz. 

    The base frequency of this processor is only 3.2GHz.  So multicore performance seems well beyond spec. 

    That doesn’t explain the single core at 3.9 but if it can do 3.6 to 3.9 with all cores, 4.2 with single core would seem to be attainable wrt thermals. There may be some further optimizations possible, trading off fan speed (which was described as inaudible and seemingly near idle) with maximum clockspeed under various load conditions. 

    Looks very promising so far. 

    Well beyond spec? What are you talking about. Turbo should be sustained. None of this looks promising.

    Even the overall performance is disappointing. A 1950X scores 3100 in Cinebench R15, meanwhile, the W-2140B scored 1680.


    1) A W-2145 is a 3.7/4.5 part, the W-2140B is a 3.2/4.2 part. Are you saying Apple should also offer the faster, more expensive chip? Fine, but that would be a $5,200 or $5,300 machine, not $5,000. You don’t get something for nothing. Apple is unlikely to offer 2 different speeds of 8-core though, so don’t hold your breath. 

    With your logic, you might just as well say Apple should only offer the 18-core at $7,400. 

    2) The part is spec’ed at 3.2GHz base frequency. In 2 different multicore tests, it benched at either 3.6-3.9GHz or a solid 3.9GHz. 

    A 3.2GHz part running at 3.9GHz with all cores at 100% is promising. The fan seemed not to be running. As I said, with an optimization of fan speed, 4.2GHz on one core would seem to be within the thermal capacity, since it’s easily beating its 3.2GHz base speed—upon which TDP is defined. 

    3) Mac workstations are typically purchased by those who want to use MacOS, so your comparison of this 8-core machine to a 16-core machine, which can’t run MacOS, isn’t particularly relevant. TCO isn’t maximized by simply buying the cheapest hardware available.
    macpluspluswilliamlondonchiaGG1watto_cobradewmejony0
  • Editorial: No, the new 2019 Mac Pro isn't a fairy tale come true

    crd said:
    The problem I see is that pc tech has already improved since this computer was announced.  Cascade x with $1000 18 core CPU’s w/ 256gb ram max will be out soon.  Improvements on the amd side side too.
    Newer isn’t necessarily better. The Cascade-X CPUs aren’t usable for the Mac Pro, due to their low max memory and lack of ECC support, and an insufficient number of PCIe lanes (the 18-core max is also an issue). Those CPUs aren’t even suitable for iMac Pro, due to the memory restrictions. (But the new iMac Pro will use the Xeon W-2200 series, which are much the same as the Cascade-X HEDT CPUs you reference. The Xeons cost a little more, but they support up to 1TB of ECC RAM.) 

    re: AMD, Apple has yet to show any interest in them. That could change in the future, but I’m not holding my breath. 
    dysamoriafastasleepcat52roundaboutnowargonautwatto_cobra
  • Renders reveal purported 2018 iPad Pro with near edge-to-edge display, iPhone-like antenna...

    anome said:

    Renders really don't cut it. Most of these renders are just hopeful speculation by people who are hoping to get some attention by putting out their ideas.

    I can't remember the last render (as opposed to actual photo) that was even close to the final product. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. (And possibly if I'm right, for that matter.)

    As for this one, what no notch? All the stuff we've seen has suggested a notch, including internal graphics in iOS 12. Seems unlikely they would get all the other details right, but miss that.

    Aside from one of those speculative renders you mention—which had small, iPhone X-like bezels and a notch—no rumors ever suggested a notch on the iPad afaik. Instead Apple is camouflaging it by using a notch-sized bezel width (9mm) all the way around.  The asset found in iOS 12 did not have a notch, rather it shows a pretty good sized bezel. 

    SpamSandwichcornchiprepressthisirelandwatto_cobra
  • Apple restocks iPhone SE on clearance site, all models available

    Aaaaaaaaand they're gone.

    This must be a planned exercise to gauge demand for the small phone.
    Apple had the SE for sale for two and a half years, I’m pretty sure they’re pretty hip to how well it sells; that’s very likely exactly why they cancelled it. 

    If this were anything other than attempt to clear out old stock of a phone soon to be going into its fourth model year, Apple wouldn’t be selling a $450 product at the fire sale price of $300—an almost unheard of 33% discount. 

    I know it sucks for fans of small phones, but there just isn’t a very large market for them. It’s not just Apple; even at the sub-$250 ASP of Android phones, there’s very little demand (and hence no manufacturer interested in supplying one). 
    netmagecanukstormcommand_fDAalseth
  • Mockups of 'iPhone 12' demonstrate flat sides and smaller dimensions

    Are those ports USBC?
    No, Lightning. 
    caladaniancornchip
  • Review: The 2018 i7 15-inch MacBook Pro is much more than a spec bump

    MarcoRdt said:
    "The MacBook Pro's speakers were always excellent." Unfortunately, that is not at all the case, even on the 2018 models. The spatialisation, stereophony, frequency range, frequency neutrality, were all far from perfect. When you hear music, do you fully and clearly distinguish the left and right channels? No (just compare that with headphones). Does the sound surround you? No, it is clear it comes from a (rather narrow) source in front of you. Are all frequencies, including bass, mid and high, distinct and present? No. It is clear many frequencies are either weak or absent. Claiming the sound is excellent is totally exaggerated and inaccurate. Whether it is better (or less worse) than other laptops does not change that. Being less worse than the rest does not make excellent.
    This criticism is ridiculous. No, strangely enough, the speakers in this small laptop aren’t $30,000 audiophile grade. They’re not perfect.  But they’re excellent for a laptop. Probably because of a guy named Tomlinson Holman. You might not recognize the name unless you’re a true audiophile. But you might know the initials. TH. As in THX. As in the guy who invented it. 

    Yes, the speakers on the MBP sound amazing. Deal with it. 
    chiabb-15williamlondond_2netmageStrangeDayssphericwatto_cobrabigpics
  • Apple buys machine learning AR firm specializing in mixed realities

    spice-boy said:
    Apple please design a phone that is easier to hold, and has a battery which last 24 hour, I don't care about making a sci-fi movie with mine. 
    Get a battery case for your 5-10% edge case requirements; most users end the day with plenty of battery remaining.

    Apple won’t—and shouldn’t—be making a thicker, heavier, more expensive iPhone just because a few people play on their phone all day. 
    ronnStrangeDayspscooter63retrogustofastasleeptmayshrave10jony0
  • Editorial: Pro Display XDR and Apple's Grand Stand

    OkiRun said:
    (A standard iMac is a non-starter for pro audio production because it can't be configured for more than 32 GB of RAM.)

    Huh? You can put up to 128GB in the current 27” iMac. 
    Which always begs the question to me...what will the Mac Pro 7.1 do for them practically speaking that the iMac Pro maxed out can’t ?
    For the record, maximum RAM:

    21.5” iMac = 32 GB
    27” iMac = 64 GB
    27” iMac Pro = 256 GB
    Mac Pro = 1024 GB or 2048 GB (maximum configurations available from Apple = 768 GB or 1536 GB)
    A couple of corrections, re: the 2019 models, the 21.5” iMac has a max RAM capacity of 64 GB, but 32 GB is the max config currently available from Apple. Similarly, the 27” (non-Pro) iMac has a max of 128 GB, but 64 GB is the highest config that can be ordered from Apple. 
    OkiRunphilboogiefastasleep
  • Allegations of discrimination spawn investigation into Apple Card credit lines

    jungmark said:
    Not enough info. What are your salaries? 
    You may have a tough time believing this, but generally speaking, your salary is not even considered as a primary attribute in determining your credit score.

    It’s way down in the scheme of things... you should look it up.
    Salary has zero input in FICO credit score, but it often has a huge effect on the credit limit a lender is willing to grant. 

    In the situation described in the article, as others have noted, the fact that the husband and wife file a joint tax return has no effect on credit limit determination. Goldman doesn’t request or use tax returns for underwriting purposes. 

    There’s no way of even begin to figure out what’s going on without knowing credit scores and other info from their credit files. Strange that he talks about Apple’s algorithm when Apple isn’t involved in the credit analysis. 

    In any case, the guy sounds like an a-hole. 
    cat52randominternetpersonRosynadesignrrevenantsarthos
  • Editorial: No, the new 2019 Mac Pro isn't a fairy tale come true

    gerry g said:
    What gets me is that the MacPro was always touted as modular at its inception yet all I see is a case with a set of proprietary modules, all of which are out of date, the chip I believe is EOL, still susceptible to the spector virus and has not had its number of executions per cycle upped in some six or seven years, Intel is developing a whole new architecture for it's next generation chips which this definitely isn't. The graphics card is not the absolute latest and will be superseded within six months of it's release tops, and I bet you anything it will not be upgradable. The USB forum have just finalised USB 4 spec and this only has USB 3, this is hardly a long term investment and to top it off I can't run Catalina as it breaks everything in sight, I think the best thing is to wait a year and see how things pan out
    As always, if you don’t need a machine now, wait for another year or two (or five or ten). 

    But it doesn’t seem like you’re the target demographic, because those customers want this box now. Actually, three or four years ago.

    Also: the CPU isn’t EOL, as the Xeon W-3200 series only started shipping in June, and the next generation likely won’t be released until at least 2021. USB4 won’t be shipping until later next year or even 2021. Modular doesn’t mean industry standard, and virtually everything in the MacPro is removable/replaceable: CPU, RAM, SSD cards, I/O card, GPU and the “Afterburner” custom FPGA video stream accelerator. 

    Yes, it’s incumbent upon Apple to make timely upgrades available for the GPU modules—something they failed to do with the 2013 Mac Pro—and also for the Afterburner card. Based on their demonstrated renewed commitment to the Mac Pro platform, I think they’ll make those upgrades available. I also expect they’ll refresh the platform every couple years, though obviously they’re dependent on Intel’s CPU release schedule to a large extent. 

    re: Catalina, it does seem to have some hiccups; hopefully Apple can address that relatively quickly.
    Rayz2016Dan_Dilgerfastasleeproundaboutnowwatto_cobra