tenthousandthings

About

Username
tenthousandthings
Joined
Visits
179
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
2,055
Badges
1
Posts
1,068

Reactions

1.1KLike0Dislike163Informative

  • M2 and beyond: What to expect from the M2 Pro, M2 Max, and M2 Ultra

    tenthousandthingstenthousandthings
    Good starting-point and good comments—thanks everyone. There is already a precedent for basic disparities between M1 and the M1Max family — the memory-type difference mentioned above. So the idea that M2Max could use a different process node from M2 is not wildly far-fetched. 

    Daniel Eran Dilger’s main point when Apple Silicon was announced was that he thought it was unlikely Apple would adhere to a rigid release schedule for Macintosh silicon. That Apple would be in a position to shape the silicon to the needs of their hardware releases, instead of the other way around. I think that’s what we’re seeing here. So the Mac Pro awaits its silicon, and when M2Max is ready the new machine will be released. 
    Pascalxxblastdoorprogrammer

  • Mac mini 'tower,' M2 Mac mini listed by B&H before WWDC [u]

    tenthousandthingstenthousandthings
    This is just an educated guess by someone tasked with preparing the database with placeholder items so B&H can list whatever is announced immediately.

    B&H wouldn’t know any details, but it’s possible Apple has to notify them there will products introduced tomorrow that can be ordered or pre-ordered immediately.
    Alex1Nwatto_cobra

  • The birth, life, death, and possible resurrection of the Thunderbolt eGPU in macOS

    tenthousandthingstenthousandthings
    The curve of that Metal-benchmarks comparison (Radeon versus M1) graphic has me wondering if Apple will have a similar 2x jump at the highest end (in the M1 Mac Pro) like Radeon does.

    It would be interesting to know how Radeon achieves that jump. Regardless, an informative article, thanks!
    keithwwatto_cobra

  • Apple Studio Display review: How badly do you want an all-Apple experience?

    tenthousandthingstenthousandthings
    fastasleep said:
    Detnator said:
    The studio display is beautiful to look at. I want that exact aesthetic on my desks. 

    But… it’s just a repackaged old screen with a crappy webcam and it’s too small. 
    If 5K screen tech is "old", then what does that make 2K and 4K? That's what all the other manufacturers are selling: variations of 2K and 4K screen tech. Nobody is rolling out a 30" 6K monitor with 120 MHz and true HDR for $1599. 
    Agree — this isn’t rocket science. 

    1080p = 1920x1080
    4K is double that, 3840x2160
    8K is double that, 7680x4320

    720p = 1280x720 (the original “HD”)
    1440p is double that, 2560x1440
    5K is double that, 5120x2880

    5K isn’t some random thing. It has real utility.
    What does 720 or 1080p have anything to do with anything regarding display resolution?
    Umm… huh?

    720p and 1080p (in the typical day to day use of those terms) *are* display resolutions.
    I know what they are. I'm asking what they have to do with this display's resolution. How is it meaningful that it's a multiple of 720p? It isn't. OP said, "5K isn’t some random thing. It has real utility." — so what's the utility?
    That’s a good question, would have been useful if you had actually asked it instead of posturing. You sounded like you were saying television-video industry transmission standards like 720p HD and 1080p Full HD have nothing to do with   computer displays. Just seemed pedantic and not worthy of a response. Now that you’ve clarified, I’m not sure I can answer, but I’ll point some things out. 

    First, in case you missed it, the 720p progression versus the 1080p progression illustrates the relationships between, for example, so-called “4K” versus so-called “5K” resolutions — that relationship is actually 3K versus 4K (in 720p terms) or 4K versus 6K (in 1080p terms) — the difference is more significant than the marketing would suggest. Apple lost that one. So that was the main thing that caused me to post — I don’t think that relationship (and its origins in the early transmission standards) is well understood. 

    Second, the aside that I tacked on the end of that about “utility” should be obvious — it’s about scalability. [1] macOS is optimized on the 720p scale — so 1440p (the Thunderbolt Display) is double that (holds four 720p signals) and 2880p (Studio Display and the 5K iMac and iMac Pro) is quadruple that (holds sixteen 720p signals). It’s not that Apple and macOS can’t handle other resolutions and screen ratios, but this progression is its native scale. So everything is easier on/in the eye. That’s useful.

    Moreover, [2] that scalability matters to people working in the television-video industry. It’s not my thing, so I can’t elaborate further, but to dismiss the idea out of hand like you did seems off the mark. 
    Detnator

  • Updated MacBook Air could launch at WWDC 2022

    tenthousandthingstenthousandthings
    silverpraxis said:
    I really hope M2 has capacity for more I/O. My old Intel Mac Mini has spoiled me for ports and I’d like 4 USB-C/Thunderbolt ports on the next one.

    Even if they don’t, the next best option is putting M2 Pro/Max in the Mini lineup to allow more ports. It’s the only thing that’s made me hesitant to upgrade.
    Turns out all those supply-chain reports about a “Mini Pro” were about the Mac Studio. It’s just my opinion, but there’s no way Apple would undercut the Mac Studio with a Mini Pro.

    The Mini will get the M2 at the same time as the Air and the iMac. It should get a redesign, but it won’t get more Thunderbolt ports than the Air and the iMac. It’s hard to imagine that being more than two, but you never know. They will, however, certainly be Thunderbolt 4. I suppose the iMac and the Mini could have two or three additional USB-C 3.2 10Gb/s ports, like the Studio Display does.
    watto_cobra