mjtomlin

Rogue01 said:

Don't know what version of Geekbench they are running, but Geekbench 5 for the iPhone 13 Pro is 1,745 for Single-Core and 4,796 for Multi-Core.  So if that is a newer version of Geekbench, they changed the scale to give it higher numbers, as they claim the 13 Pro is 2,260 and 5,427.

Downloaded Geekbench 6 and my iPhone 13 Pro is now 2,275 for single, and 5,536 for multi.  Wonder why they changed the scale to make the numbers higher, when version 4 to 5 actually adjusted the scale for lower numbers.

Scale reflects what the new base system (Intel Core i7-12700) is as compared to the previous base system. They may have made the new baseline score higher (2500) to keep older scores more consistent, so the previous base system which was a Core i3 had a baseline score of 1000... and probably stills scores in that area under this new scale.

It's been two years since the M1 iMac debuted, so it is due for an update. And it doesn't make sense to wait for the M3. So I would expect it soon.

As far as a large iMac... I'd like to think they're waiting to see how sales of the Mac Studio and Studio Display play out, before they release another larger iMac. It could also be that they're also waiting for the right SoC, maybe an M3 Pro and M3 Max, just as they waited for the M2 Pro to finally update the higher-end Mac mini.

Rogue01 said:

This goes back to when teens would watch scrambled Cinemax or HBO late at night hoping to catch a glimpse of a boob!  Parents should be parents and monitor their children's activities, rather than Apple playing police man or second parent.  Like what Oldenboom said.  In some countries, nudity is way more normal than in the US, and we weren't born dressed.  Of course child porn, extortion, and bullying is horrible, but it seems Apple wants to block everything that they deem inappropriate.  What if it is an image of famous artwork that contains nudity?  Apple will block it claiming it might be unsafe to view, when it is a piece of art.

This a feature that parents can turn on in iMessages if they feel the need to. This is not Apple imposing their morals on you.

This is about a child having an unsupervised conversation with someone in iMessage on their iPad or iPhone who is sending them nude photos. Chances are those aren't photos of art. While you may not care that predator is grooming your child, most parents would have a problem with it.

Calamander said:

Let's talk about real world speed...

Blackmagic report 5,000 MB/s

Real life folder - 10,000 items, 4.4GB 


Manually tested this, it took 37 seconds to copy - translates to 120MB/s

That's around 40x slower than the max speed

So I am thinking in real life, the SSD speed is not the bottleneck for almost all operations, except maybe speed tests and things that work with huge volumes of data. Video,, 3D, and so on.

For the rest of us - we'll never notice if the SSD is 1,000 MB/s or 5,000 MB/s because either way the Finder is limited to 120MB/s for some reason. 

The Finder is not limited to 120MB/s. There is a lot of file system overhead in allocating space, creating nodes and error checking for thousands of items, especially if some data needs be moved around to prevent data fragmentation.  Copying a single large file would be much closer to actually testing the speed of the SSD.

However...

I do need to point out that APFS does not actually copy data until it needs to. Simply copying a file (on the same physical volume) in the Finder does not mean that data has been duplicated and rewritten in some other area of storage. The actual copy doesn't occur until one of the "files" has been modified.

So for instance you duplicate a file 5 times in the Finder. All that's initially created are new nodes that all point to the same block of data in storage. So no data has been "copied" yet. Now let's say you open the fifth copy and make changes and then go to save it... Only then is that block of data copied and saved with any modifications. That fifth node now points to this new block of data and the first 4 "copies" all still point to the original block of storage.

keithw said:

The 2023(?) ASi "Mac Pro" must either be able to reach the 166,946 GB5 GPU results either with on-chip GPU cores or by a discrete graphics card like the existing Intel Mac Pro, otherwise, why bother to even release it?

I think this is why we haven't seen the new Mac Pro yet. The new GPU design for the A16 was supposed to see a huge performance increase (>50%, mainly due to implementing hardware based ray tracing), but it had to be pulled because apparently it wasn't meeting efficiency standards*. So If I had to guess, the M3 is going to skip the A16 and be based on the A17 generation of cores, so we should see a fairly substantial performance increase in the M3 and finally get the ASi based Mac Pro, which will be the first system with M3 generation SoCs with M3 Ultra and M3 Extreme.  (Both the A17 and M3 will also use TSMC's N3 process bringing further performance and efficiency enhancements.)

*This is the issue that's going to have be addressed at some point in the future... trying to develop a single core for both mobile and desktop applications. More than likely, that new GPU would've been fine in a desktop system where thermal ceilings can be lifted with active cooling systems. I think Apple will eventually start "optimizing" actual CPU and GPU (more so) cores for their intended systems.