nht

randominternetperson said:

nht said:

randominternetperson said:

nht said:

emig647 said:

I don't buy this report for the simple reason of the thermal issues they cornered themselves into last time. 

A modular system can control for thermal better than an internally expandable one that could have no GPU or multiple beefy GPUs.

A mini only has to worry about the thermals for the CPU.  The eGPU chassis has its own power and thermal design and limits.

Wouldn't it make more sense to build in a thermal "chimney" so that a single fan module could control the airflow through the entire stack?  That is, if someone were actually designing something like this.  Otherwise I don't see how a tight stack of hot-running modules would make any sense.  Each one would have to be blowing air horizontally through their own chassis.

You mean like the trash can MacPro?  I have one and it is awesome but...

Just because the MacPro was a failure doesn't mean that every design element of it was.  

Maybe not but where they stated they painted themselves into a thermal corner is probably in that failure category...

wizard69 said:

mdriftmeyer said:

tipoo said:

mdriftmeyer said:

BS. If it were coming to MacOS then AMD Threadripper and Ryzen would already be here.

How does this statement make any sense? What does AMD have to do with Apple planning to switch to their own ARM chips, AMD using x86/AMD64? 

It means Intel is deflecting. Apple needs Thunderbolt, period. It's the only reason they've stuck with Intel after Zen came out. Intel has ZERO threat of ARM supplanting them on the desktop and laptop, never mind the Data Center. They have every concern of AMD and future generations using their superior products for LESS COST.

Apple was ecstatic when Intel announced Thunderbolt would be open sourced. Intel has dragged its feet for nearly 2 years since the announcement and it is still not royalty free and released.

So there is no rational basis for Apple to invest heavily into augmenting their ARM designs for a workstation [Mac Pro], never mind the desktop/laptop [And no iOS is fast because it is very limited in multi-user/multithreaded, multi-core based processing that will be a must on macOS. There are literally hundreds to thousands of processess/threads that are and can be running inside OS X that ARM won't ever supplant what is coming down the pike.

Basic threads and processes on my Macbook Pro 13: 1391 threads, 346 processes. The ARM would get slammed with that and that is nothing when pushing an iMac Pro or Mac Pro.

If you think Apple is going to screw over developers with ARM with the Mac Pro you're effing nuts.

Intel bound Apple when Apple [and as a former NeXT/Apple Engineer I was there] needed a fusion of legitimacy, especially when IBM crapped the bed. At NeXT we made a Quad FAT architecture for the OS because Motorola fucked us over more times than you can imagine on their designs. HP did the same thing. The HP PA-RISC ran circles around x86 at the time. HP did nothing to follow through.

Sun was just a clusterfuck of stupid with regards to the OpenStep initiative. Sun wanted all revenues on the Hardware and to force us to cut the cost of OpenStep licensing. So people were ``shocked'' that didn't take off? Please.

ARM dictates designs. Apple modifies but within those design specs.

You keep believing those pissant benchmarks the mobile world shows as performance figures. Throw 500 processes and 2000 threads at an iPhone and it crashes. There is a reason Apple has very limited subsets of functionality tuned around the tightly coupled hardware constraints.

The Mac Pro is effectively dead.   Given that developers really don’t care about architecture as much as the do about performance.   It is pretty clear now that ARM has real advantages here.  Mainly because they can have cores running at 1-2 watts at hight clock rates than Intel or AMD.  This leads to the prospects of a Mac Pro running 50 to 100 cores at far higher cLock rates than can be achieved with x86.  

Um no.  First, ramp the clock and you ramp power usage.  A 3.3Ghz Armv8 draws 125W or around 3.9W/core (32 cores).   Intel isn't suffering from low performance to watt...they're just expensive to get the good stuff.  If you have to build a server farm would you choose an $800 ARM or an $899 Threadripper or EPYC?  That's a no brainer...go AMD and run everything like before.  And Intel being $2000 for Xeon really only means that if a price war comes Intel has room to maneuver. 

Second, developers do care about architecture as many tools don't run well on Arm.  Like almost all of them.  That means an Arm desktop is a 2nd tier platform for virtualization, docker, dev tools, infrastructure, driver support, etc.  Not to mention major apps will lag just like last time and you lose the ability to run windows apps.

randominternetperson said:

nht said:

emig647 said:

I don't buy this report for the simple reason of the thermal issues they cornered themselves into last time. 

A modular system can control for thermal better than an internally expandable one that could have no GPU or multiple beefy GPUs.

A mini only has to worry about the thermals for the CPU.  The eGPU chassis has its own power and thermal design and limits.

Wouldn't it make more sense to build in a thermal "chimney" so that a single fan module could control the airflow through the entire stack?  That is, if someone were actually designing something like this.  Otherwise I don't see how a tight stack of hot-running modules would make any sense.  Each one would have to be blowing air horizontally through their own chassis.

You mean like the trash can MacPro?  I have one and it is awesome but...

emig647 said:

I don't buy this report for the simple reason of the thermal issues they cornered themselves into last time. 

A modular system can control for thermal better than an internally expandable one that could have no GPU or multiple beefy GPUs.

A mini only has to worry about the thermals for the CPU.  The eGPU chassis has its own power and thermal design and limits.

AppleInsider said:

Even when the listing says it's for a 4K monitor and you know 4K is good, that's little to no help. It's because 4K, like most monitor standards, is utterly useless on its own. You need to know that 4K on a 21-inch monitor will look great and that 4K on a 49-inch one will be bad.

And if only it were that simple. It's easy to appreciate that 4K at 49-inches is going to be fuzzier than the sharpness of that 21-inch 4K monitor. But, that latter one is likely to make everything so small that it's unusable too.

This article is bogus.  

• A 49" 4K display will not look "bad". I'm sitting in front of one at 30+ inches away.  It allows you to reduce the scaling and more desktop space while maintaining a very high level of readability.
• DPI is also another "meaningless" spec because it gives you exact same data as 4K and size gives you.  The missing element is viewing distance which gives you Pixels per Degree.
• At a normal 20-40 inch seating distance a 49" 4K display is between 30 PPD and 62 PPD.  60 PPD is the rule of thumb for a "retina display".