markaceto
About
- Username
- markaceto
- Joined
- Visits
- 4
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 32
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 15
Reactions
-
First look: Benchmarks put Apple's entry-level $4999 iMac Pro to the test
macplusplus said:
I am calm enough not to react to your repetitive post already answered in post #44. You invent a fictitious processor and claim that Apple downclocks it. Good luck with that...markaceto said:
Calm down, dude. VRing is articulating very useful points that benefit anyone in this forum trying to decide which model to buy. I for one would have purchased the base model CPU if:macplusplus said:
Stop flooding the forum with meaningless numbers. You said “turbo must be sustained” above and that’s enough. You have transcended even Intel and I wish you a good Turbo life. I’m done with your posts.VRing said:
The W-2145 has a boost speed of 4.5 GHz, the W-2140B has a boost speed of 4.2 GHz. <-- The downclock.macplusplus said:
Turbo is for single core, dude...VRing said:
The stock Xeon W-2145 is supposed to turbo to 4.5 GHz and will not throttle. Most desktop cooling solutions can likely sustain even higher frequencies without throttling.macplusplus said:
No one would notice that minus 0.3 GHz in real life usage. The stock throttles more than that 0.3 GHz by the way...
“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”
Apple's solution is downclocked and still throttles.
So your (mis)understanding "how may it throttle at 3.9 while it can Turbo at 4.5" doesn't make sense, you compare apples to oranges.
The W-2140B is seen throttling down to 3.6 GHz at sustained load. <-- The throttling.- Apple hadn't downclocked it from 4.5 to "4.2"
- AppleInsider didn't report that the "4.2" is actually more like 3.9
- AppleInsider didn't report that the fans would shut off to prevent the overheating problem (in an alumi-knee-um George Forman grill)
Therefore, by crippling/throttline the single core performance of the coolest running CPU from 4.5 to "4.2" (3.9), Apple has created an incentive for me to spend a very round $800 on the more expensive 10-core machine. That said, I would like to see some real world tests on on the 10-core because my money on is on that sucker choking at 3.9 too.
The unbiased analysis of Apple is this: Apple will always use marketing to defend their design decisions that cripple performance. As critical thinkers, it's on us to see through their BS. There are a bunch of us that prefer to use Mac OS (and iOS) but are sick of getting crippled, throttled, and dongled options.
Screenshot of Intel Xeon processor family is attached. As you can see, Apple has not only down-clocked the turbo frequency of the 8-core from 4.5 to 4.2, and the base frequency from 3.7 to 3.3. Also note the spec's of the 10, 14 and 18-core processors.
Now, to be fair, I don't think any pro user really expected the iMac Pro (intended to bridge the 2012/2013 Mac Pro to the 2019 Mac Pro) would not have thermal issues, so this doesn't come as a big surprise.
So, as Apple users (I'll be buying the 10-core), we're just frustrated that the products are overpriced and overhyped (marketing 4.5 but actually 3.9 in real life) when we're paying top dollar. It doesn't feel great as a freelance 3D artist to plunk down over 8k for something that's double down-clocked when they're supposedly throwing us a bone until they ship the Mac Pro.
We're not mad; we're disappointed. OK, and a little mad about the money. But, honestly, Vring and I are on the same team as you. It's us vs. them, and they have a recent history of not listening to us, and then rationalizing their decisions with a bunch of malarkey. "It took courage to kill the headphone jack". "No, you wanted to sell more AirPods." And the list goes on and on...
-
First look: Benchmarks put Apple's entry-level $4999 iMac Pro to the test
Calm down, dude. VRing is articulating very useful points that benefit anyone in this forum trying to decide which model to buy. I for one would have purchased the base model CPU if:macplusplus said:
Stop flooding the forum with meaningless numbers. You said “turbo must be sustained” above and that’s enough. You have transcended even Intel and I wish you a good Turbo life. I’m done with your posts.VRing said:
The W-2145 has a boost speed of 4.5 GHz, the W-2140B has a boost speed of 4.2 GHz. <-- The downclock.macplusplus said:
Turbo is for single core, dude...VRing said:
The stock Xeon W-2145 is supposed to turbo to 4.5 GHz and will not throttle. Most desktop cooling solutions can likely sustain even higher frequencies without throttling.macplusplus said:
No one would notice that minus 0.3 GHz in real life usage. The stock throttles more than that 0.3 GHz by the way...
“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”
Apple's solution is downclocked and still throttles.
So your (mis)understanding "how may it throttle at 3.9 while it can Turbo at 4.5" doesn't make sense, you compare apples to oranges.
The W-2140B is seen throttling down to 3.6 GHz at sustained load. <-- The throttling.- Apple hadn't downclocked it from 4.5 to "4.2"
- AppleInsider didn't report that the "4.2" is actually more like 3.9
- AppleInsider didn't report that the fans would shut off to prevent the overheating problem (in an alumi-knee-um George Forman grill)
Therefore, by crippling/throttline the single core performance of the coolest running CPU from 4.5 to "4.2" (3.9), Apple has created an incentive for me to spend a very round $800 on the more expensive 10-core machine. That said, I would like to see some real world tests on on the 10-core because my money on is on that sucker choking at 3.9 too.
The unbiased analysis of Apple is this: Apple will always use marketing to defend their design decisions that cripple performance. As critical thinkers, it's on us to see through their BS. There are a bunch of us that prefer to use Mac OS (and iOS) but are sick of getting crippled, throttled, and dongled options.
-
Mystery Apple chip discovered in iMac Pro teardown not A10 Fusion coprocessor [u]
Only one thing: 16GB RAM.racerhomie3 said:Guys.
What is wrong with a MBP with an external GPU?
Is there a reason I don’t know to why they aren’t so popular.
I just bought an iMac Pro to stop the gap between my 4-year old MBP and... the first MBP that has 32GB RAM? The way things are going in my industry, more and more of the workload is getting pulled off the processor (especially multicore rendering), and dumped on the GPU. Plus it would be really nice to own and maintain one machine, disconnect it from the office, and take it onsite or wherever...
-
Mystery Apple chip discovered in iMac Pro teardown not A10 Fusion coprocessor [u]
There are lots of wonderful 4k 32"+ antiglare monitors available now for under $1,000, and they don't require a dongle to use them. The budget GPU in the MBP is fine for driving the internal display. That's what's nice about the eGPU's: they're scalable. You can buy what you need when you need it, and totally upgradable.nhughes said:
For me, the biggest rub is you can't drive the eGPU horsepower to the MBP's internal Retina display. And because the only Retina-caliber monitors out there are LG UltraFine models that connect via USB-C and TB3, you can't use those with any eGPU rigs at the moment either, because graphics cards use legacy inputs like HDMI. So eGPU+MBP is fine for a dual-monitor setup, or with a VR headset, but I think dual monitors diminish the appeal of the Touch Bar.racerhomie3 said:Guys.
What is wrong with a MBP with an external GPU?
Is there a reason I don’t know to why they aren’t so popular.
Apple is getting back into the display market, so I imagine we'll see some Retina-caliber displays that connect over TB3, and maybe even have their own integrated eGPUs. Toss in an external Magic Keyboard with Touch Bar, and I'm in -- but I might be asking for too much in 2018.
