KITA

About

Username
KITA
Joined
Visits
127
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,479
Badges
0
Posts
410

Reactions

254Like0Dislike245Informative

  • Review: Microsoft's Surface Book 2 is expensive with mediocre performance

    KITAKITA

    In Unigine Heaven we received a score of 529, an average frames per second of 21, and a max frames per second of 48.3. Comparing that to Apple's 13-inch and 15-inch MacBook Pro. The base model 13-inch MacBook Pro received a score of 784, and an average frames per second of 31.1 with a max frames per second of 66.7, while the top-spec 15-inch MacBook Pro with Vega 20 graphics pulled in a max FPS of 147.4 and an average of 82.3 with an overall score of 2072.

    I noticed you still haven't fixed this.

    Well let's discuss the very important detail you left out... The resolution benchmarked at:


    Surface Book 2 - 3000x2000 = 6,000,000 pixels


    MacBook Pro 13 - 1440x900 = 1,296,000 pixels


    MacBook Pro 15 - 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels







    And, of course, no mention of CUDA performance.
    bigtds

  • Review: Microsoft's Surface Book 2 is expensive with mediocre performance

    KITAKITA
    AppleInsider said:

    In Unigine Heaven we received a score of 529, an average frames per second of 21, and a max frames per second of 48.3. Comparing that to Apple's 13-inch and 15-inch MacBook Pro. The base model 13-inch MacBook Pro received a score of 784, and an average frames per second of 31.1 with a max frames per second of 66.7, while the top-spec 15-inch MacBook Pro with Vega 20 graphics pulled in a max FPS of 147.4 and an average of 82.3 with an overall score of 2072.

    Why was my comment deleted?


    It's quite clear that the graphics performance test done for the Surface Book 2 was incorrect.

    No way did the Iris Plus graphics in the MacBook Pro 13 outperform a GTX 1050 2 GB. The Iris Plus 650 offers only 30% of the performance of the GTX 1050 2 GB.
    TechSupportCarnage

  • Apple's new Mac Pro is being manufactured in China

    KITAKITA
    chasm said:
    cynegils said:
    ZDNET did an interesting breakdown of the costs for the lowest end Mac Pro. Not surprisingly, they conclude it is super overpriced.
    Once again for the dim ones in the back — a BOM breakdown does not represent the actual cost of a product. Any product.

    By way of illustration, please do find me a workstation that is as close as possible to the Mac Pro in specs, ports, and software, and yet priced far below the base cost.

    Go ahead, I’ll wait.
    Most workstations from the big three come with minimum 3 years of on-site warranty included (for ~$140 extra it can go to 5 years next day service), loads of ISV certifications and NVIDIA RTX Quadro graphics options. 

    They also typically can cost companies 10%~20% less than what Dell/HP/Lenovo's websites show and are actually on the market today, and not in a few months when new and refreshed models are due.

    Apple is not even close to offering that type of value.

    majorsl

  • Review: Microsoft's Surface Pro is the best Windows tablet to get, if you need one

    KITAKITA
    Interesting timing for the review given the redesigned 2019 version might only be a few months away.

    The redesign should be using Intel's new 10 nm U series processors with up to Iris Plus graphics, up to 32 GB LPDDR4X and Thunderbolt 3 included.



    Intel's Core i7-1065 G7 (15 W) with Iris Plus graphics and 32 GB RAM as seen inside the XPS 13 2-in-1:





    Surface patent with USB-C:

     

    Magnetic USB-C patent:



    On a different note, it's a bit odd to see the keyboard being used flat like that. Typically it's elevated:

    Image result for surface pro
    williamlondoncanukstorm

  • Tested: Thermal throttling and performance in the eight-core 2019 MacBook Pro

    KITAKITA
    Mike Wuerthele said:
    KITA said:
    KITA said:
    martinxyz said:
    The advertised clock speed with all 8 cores isn't 2.4 GHz though. According to Notebookcheck, it's actually 4.2 GHz.
    I read that slightly differently: "Integrates eight processor cores clocked at 2.4 - 5 GHz (4.2 GHz with 8 cores)". I read that as base speed is 2.4 GHz, and can go to 5GHz for a single core, or 4.2 GHz for 8 cores.

    That's precisely the point, it can go up to 4.2 GHz with 8 cores. It's not 2.4 GHz for 8 cores like Lkrupp believes.

    Looks like we're on the same page.
    No. The rated speed is 2.4GHz. The Turbo speed is 4.2.
    You're not saying anything different than I am.

    2.4 GHz is the base clock.

    4.2 GHz is the turbo clock with all 8 cores in use.

    5.0 GHz is the turbo clock with 1 core in use.

    The user said: "AI tests the new machines and they are performing better than expected and not dropping below the advertised speed"

    The advertised speeds for all 8 cores is up to 4.2 GHz, not up to 2.4 GHz. No one expects a processor to only be able to boost to just its base clock.

    If it can't reach its multi-core turbo clock (as is the case here), clearly the implementation is not enough to handle the CPU. However, this is unlikely to be an issue that only Apple encounters. I would suspect other manufacturers run into similar situations with their laptops.
    I am saying something differently than you are, but we're coming to the same conclusion.

    The advertised speeds for all 8 cores is 2.4GHz, not 4.2. That 2.4GHz is absolutely delivered. all the time, and the machine does hit 4.2 and even 5 -- it just doesn't maintain it. What it maintains is that 2.9-3GHz that we pointed out.

    That 4.2/5 maintained isn't promised by Apple, nor is it by every other vendor. 2.4GHz is.
    Which is fine, but again, that's the minimum. With an ideal implementation it could maintain that 4.2 GHz turbo on all 8 cores as advertised by Intel. The Notebookcheck / undervolting test shows that higher levels of performance can be sustained with the right hardware. Although, it's important to be realistic with the size and weight class of the 15" MBP.

    Contrary to what that user is claiming, sites and their users aren't "plastering" that Apple can't even hit the base clock.

    Judging Apple's thermal implementation is a different story. At that point we'll have to compare it to similar laptops (perhaps the new OLED XPS 15 which also uses the i9).
    chemengin1