baka-dubbs

MacPro said:

apple4thewin said:

aderutter said:

If you look at Adobe apps for example, they benefit more from CPU as long as the GPU is at a certain level. Once a user has a mid-range GPU then they don’t need GPU as much as RAM & CPU (and the real-life RAM requirements have decreased with Apple Silicon). 

Another example is ZBrush which is purely CPU based. Even most of the time working in other 3D applications the CPU is more imporant as people working in 3D spend more time not-rendering than rendering and the machine can render while you put the kettle on. 

It’s gamers and some 3d renderers that use more GPU - but CPU 3D Rendering is more accurate and so CPU rendering (obviously with farms) is the default in hollywood whilst us mortals have to just use what’s available on our budgets - typically a desktop GPU rather than a cloud render. The usual options when thinking only of rendering for games or lower-end 3D rendering are GPU (cheap and fast on PC), or CPU (slower, more accurate and slightly better on Mac generally).  

When/if Apple release an M4 Ultra that is twice the performance M4 Max (GPU) it should be equivalent to an Nvidia 4090 and set the cat amongst the pigeons. 2025 could be the start of Apple desktop disruption.

Unless Apple stops overcharging for memory and storage probably not. Current prices for “

Apple M2 Ultra with 24‑core CPU, 76‑core GPU, 32‑core Neural Engine64GB unified memory2TB SSD storage”Equals to 5,399.99 and a prebuilt pc with a 4090 equals to 3,999.99  https://www.bestbuy.com/site/corsair-vengeance-a7400-gaming-desktop-amd-ryzen-9-9900x-64gb-rgb-ddr5-memory-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4090-2tb-ssd-black/6604319.p?skuId=6604319

How do you compare the price of RAM for a PC against RAM for an Apple SoC?  There is no way DDR5 in a MoB in a PC can transfer data as fast.  Same with the built-in storage on a SoC.  They are different in every way, so trying to compare prices is not possible.  I have a very high-end Corsair Vengeance Gaming PC and the M2 Ultra, so I can compare performance.  The price was not far apart.  I didn't have to spend days in the BIOS to get 64 GB of 7200 MT/s CL34 DDR5 working on my M2 Ultra either.

I don't think your considering that the 4090 in this case would have a dedicated 24 GB of GDDR6X memory and a total memory bandwidth of around 1000gb/s.  There is a reason that these things are in such high demand for AI (or Nvidia's blackwell/H200/whatever most recent chip is in the server market).  Lets be real, an x86 system has an advantage in a lot of scenarios on the high end, because it doesn't have the power/thermal limits that Apple designs around.  But right now in performance per watt Apple is in a league of there own.  And if you look at a mid teir gaming laptop(4070), the base 14 inch pro model would give you similar gpu specs, but actually be able to run for more than a few hours untethered when pushing it.  

As a former Android user, iOS 18 updates and the relaxing of rules around emulators have resolved basically all of my major complaints about iOS.  I am really looking forward to this update and reclaiming a simple home screen layout.  I switched my home automation to Apple Homekit hub earlier this year, if this is the year Siri finally gets good with the "Apple AI", I am going to be picking up some homepods for the house.  

I have passed down multiple iPads to my parents/brother, both are still in use.  I'm currently on the newest mini, but hoping we get an updated mini with M2(or mini pro with M4), just to be able to dock it and use it for productivity.  I already do this on rare occasions, but I think stage manager is going to keep getting improvements as more and more apps are offering a full experience on iPad OS, and the mini sadly doesn't support it.  

So apparently the author doesn't see the value in third party validation and that we should just always trust what a company says...  While not scientific, Zach from JerryRigEverything normally does a good of validating screen hardness, testing materials coatings, and doing basic tear downs so you can see water proofing, ease of disassembly, etc.  Not sure why the author seems to have taken this so personally.

As someone who has used VR devices for years at this point, starting with the original PSVR to devices with full body tracking and even purchased the new PSVR, I still find my best use case is shorter, interactive games.  You will not want to work all day using a VR/AR headset, at least not with the current sizes/weights and the fact that it has to be tightly strapped to your head.  PlayStation currently has the most comfortable implementation, a halo that puts the weight on the top of your head vs compressing the device against your face.  Even with that, I generally don't want to wear it for any extended sessions.  I would not want to watch a movie, work all day, or walk around with this device on my head.  

That's not to say I don't see a benefit outside of gaming.  I think AR has massive potential in training, in 3d design, and other places.  What I see in the Vision Pro is implementing either the best or near best specs out of any headsets and combining it with the best ecosystem.  It is a first step, and I am excited about the display technology and the interoperability.  But I don't think the display, batteries and general tech are at a point where this is truly targeting a consumer market(outside of early adopters).  This is a VR headset with high quality/low latency  AR passthrough which is awesome, but I don't think its a big enough leap forward at this point to truly move the market.  Though I will be happy to be wrong, I will be sitting this one out until at least 2nd or 3rd gen.