MacPro

About

Username
MacPro
Joined
Visits
298
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
8,800
Badges
2
Posts
19,873
  • Mac mini shows Apple can be low cost -- it just doesn't often want to

    rob53 said:
    MacPro said:
    The argument that Apple computers are overpriced is a tired one.  On many occasions, I have bought a PC with quality specifications similar to a Mac (well, as close as you can get), and they cost an arm and a leg. Just because cheap and nasty PCs proliferate does not equate to overpriced Macs.
    I'd like a breakdown of costs in the new M-series Macs. Almost everything is on the SoC, no external storage or memory (if you count the storage as being part of the SoC). There's hardly anything of value once you pay for the SoC. If you look at the M2 Mac mini teardown on iFixit (https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Mac+Mini+M2+Teardown/157365) there's hardly anything there that requires a person to install. From what I can see, all the semiconductor components should be able to be able to be robotically installed. Even the peripheral port components. About all a person needs to do is insert the board and screw it together. Labor is usually the most expensive part of construction other than the main SoC. How much does packing cost? How much does Apple pay for advertising? How much profit??? Should a Mac mini actually cost what Apple is selling it for?
    You could use the same argument with many things.  My F-Pace costs much more than my friend's Honda SUV, and he argues they are virtually the same, so they should cost the same.  Driving them both, I beg to differ.
    danoxwatto_cobra
  • Daughter freezes out dad, after her iPhone was entombed in an ice skating rink

    Sirri just told me icy is the most straightforward word to spell, and added I C Y.  Groan.
    magnuskrantzAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • European Union evaluating if Corning monopolizes the smartphone screen market

    Here is some fun history:  

    The story goes that in 2006, while developing the first iPhone, Steve Jobs knew he wanted the screen to be made from glass rather than plastic. Plastic scratched too easily, and he wanted a product that would feel and look high-quality, something that would age well. So he reached out to Corning Inc., a company known for its expertise in glass manufacturing.

    Jobs met with Corning’s then-CEO, Wendell Weeks, and told him that he needed a tough, scratch-resistant glass. Weeks told Jobs about a glass formula Corning had invented in the 1960s called “Gorilla Glass.” Though it was incredibly strong, it hadn’t been commercialized because they hadn’t found a market for it back then.

    Jobs was determined to make Gorilla Glass a reality for the iPhone. According to the story, Weeks initially thought it would be impossible to produce enough of this glass in time for Apple’s planned iPhone launch. But Jobs, with his famously persuasive style, told him, “Don’t be afraid. You can do it.”

    Corning quickly ramped up production, reactivating the Gorilla Glass formula and scaling it to meet Apple’s demand. By the time the first iPhone launched in 2007, Gorilla Glass was ready, and it went on to become a foundational material in smartphone design, not just for Apple but eventually for much of the mobile industry.

    apple4thewindewmemarklarkthtAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Generation gaps: How much faster Apple Silicon gets with each release

    1der said:
    It seems Cook’s law is then about 4 years.  It's always fun to make lots of assumptions and project into the future. In doing so I imagine in say 40 years what seemingly AI miracles could be accomplished with the machine in your hand being 1000 times as powerful 
    Same here.  However, I bet your 1000-times increase is way short of the mark in terms of performance gain.
    Alex_VAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Generation gaps: How much faster Apple Silicon gets with each release

    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.
    danoxAlex1Nwatto_cobra