shawnce
Nov 15, 07:40 PM
Just asking a question, understand. But, is there a need to have more memory as twice as many requesting sources are accessing the memory pool?
No. The number of core in the system does not imply you need more memory however it does imply you may need more memory bandwidth (depends on what you plan to use the cores for).
Running many applications, especially memory hungry ones, concurrently is what could require additional memory to run efficiently (depends on working set of the applications you plan to run).
With that said ... to get the most memory bandwidth potential in a Mac Pro you need fully populate peer banks with DIMMs. For example in the following graphic you would want to populate slots A1, A2, B1 and B2 before any other slots to get the widest data path to memory.
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/HWTech_RAM/Art/060634001312_05.jpg
For more details on Mac Pro memory review Mac Pro RAM Expansion Details (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/HWTech_RAM/Articles/RAM_implementation.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40003899-DontLinkElementID_3) or the simpler to read Mac Pro Memory Guide (pdf) (http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/MacPro_MemoryDIMM_DIY.pdf)
No. The number of core in the system does not imply you need more memory however it does imply you may need more memory bandwidth (depends on what you plan to use the cores for).
Running many applications, especially memory hungry ones, concurrently is what could require additional memory to run efficiently (depends on working set of the applications you plan to run).
With that said ... to get the most memory bandwidth potential in a Mac Pro you need fully populate peer banks with DIMMs. For example in the following graphic you would want to populate slots A1, A2, B1 and B2 before any other slots to get the widest data path to memory.
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/HWTech_RAM/Art/060634001312_05.jpg
For more details on Mac Pro memory review Mac Pro RAM Expansion Details (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/HardwareDrivers/Conceptual/HWTech_RAM/Articles/RAM_implementation.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40003899-DontLinkElementID_3) or the simpler to read Mac Pro Memory Guide (pdf) (http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/MacPro_MemoryDIMM_DIY.pdf)
omegaphil6
Feb 8, 06:57 AM
http://www.jimmirehman.com/charger/Blackedout.jpg
2008 Dodge Charger SE
http://www.jimmirehman.com/charger/Signaturev1.jpg
2008 Dodge Charger SE
http://www.jimmirehman.com/charger/Signaturev1.jpg
Multimedia
Nov 15, 05:55 PM
For some time, Handbrake didn't use more than two cores - owners of Quad G5s reported CPU usage of exactly 50 percent, then someone changed it and Quad G5s reported 100 percent CPU usage.
What we don't know: Was the code changed to use up to four processors, or as many processors as are available? Developers are usually very unwilling to ship code that they haven't been able to try out, so expect a version using eight cores about two days after the developers have access to an eight core machine.
In the case of Handbrake, encoding to MPEG4 seems already limited by the speed of the DVD drive; you can't encode faster than you can read from the DVD. H.264 is still limited by processor speed. Using eight cores is not too difficult; for example, if you encode 60 minutes of video, just give 7 1/2 minutes to each core.I almost NEVER use handbrake from an optical DVD. That makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? :confused:
I use Handbrake about 12-18 hours of every day and I use it after creating high quality DVD images from EyeTV HDTV recordings with Toast 7.1 UB. On a Mac Pro Handbrake can use more than 3 cores and Toast can use all 4 cores. This is why I want an 8 core Mac Pro. Once you start running Toast and Handbrake simultaneously, you see why those of us who do this kind of repetitive DVD Image creation for Handbrake to mp4 compression truly need 8-cores NOW. :eek:
What we don't know: Was the code changed to use up to four processors, or as many processors as are available? Developers are usually very unwilling to ship code that they haven't been able to try out, so expect a version using eight cores about two days after the developers have access to an eight core machine.
In the case of Handbrake, encoding to MPEG4 seems already limited by the speed of the DVD drive; you can't encode faster than you can read from the DVD. H.264 is still limited by processor speed. Using eight cores is not too difficult; for example, if you encode 60 minutes of video, just give 7 1/2 minutes to each core.I almost NEVER use handbrake from an optical DVD. That makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? :confused:
I use Handbrake about 12-18 hours of every day and I use it after creating high quality DVD images from EyeTV HDTV recordings with Toast 7.1 UB. On a Mac Pro Handbrake can use more than 3 cores and Toast can use all 4 cores. This is why I want an 8 core Mac Pro. Once you start running Toast and Handbrake simultaneously, you see why those of us who do this kind of repetitive DVD Image creation for Handbrake to mp4 compression truly need 8-cores NOW. :eek:
rasmasyean
Mar 31, 01:41 PM
Probably the most idiotic analysis of WW2 I have ever read. I await with interest to hear where and when the Germans invaded.
Yeah, you're right. The UK had their entire coast surrounded by radars because they wanted to predict incomming hurricanes in some historically massive secret weather program.
Yeah, you're right. The UK had their entire coast surrounded by radars because they wanted to predict incomming hurricanes in some historically massive secret weather program.
W1MRK
Apr 16, 06:48 PM
haha, if you can master than then I'm sure any other car will be simple
Do you have to double clutch or can you float based on the Tach and Speedometer?
Do you have to double clutch or can you float based on the Tach and Speedometer?
Benjy91
Mar 25, 03:55 PM
The Future of video games?
In the future, your controller will cost �400, require a 10ft HDMI cable, a �25 adapter, and have the graphics of a PS2.
In the future, your controller will cost �400, require a 10ft HDMI cable, a �25 adapter, and have the graphics of a PS2.
Mr-Stabby
Apr 12, 09:29 PM
Isn't this utterly fantastic? These are the kinds of updates we used to get before Apple went all iPhone and iPad crazy. Glad to see they are finally giving such love to their Pro customers. Although i imagine this has been in the pipeline for a very long time!
If Apple give me a new Mac Pro to run this on, i will spend my entire years wage on them!
If Apple give me a new Mac Pro to run this on, i will spend my entire years wage on them!
Multimedia
Nov 15, 05:55 PM
For some time, Handbrake didn't use more than two cores - owners of Quad G5s reported CPU usage of exactly 50 percent, then someone changed it and Quad G5s reported 100 percent CPU usage.
What we don't know: Was the code changed to use up to four processors, or as many processors as are available? Developers are usually very unwilling to ship code that they haven't been able to try out, so expect a version using eight cores about two days after the developers have access to an eight core machine.
In the case of Handbrake, encoding to MPEG4 seems already limited by the speed of the DVD drive; you can't encode faster than you can read from the DVD. H.264 is still limited by processor speed. Using eight cores is not too difficult; for example, if you encode 60 minutes of video, just give 7 1/2 minutes to each core.I almost NEVER use handbrake from an optical DVD. That makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? :confused:
I use Handbrake about 12-18 hours of every day and I use it after creating high quality DVD images from EyeTV HDTV recordings with Toast 7.1 UB. On a Mac Pro Handbrake can use more than 3 cores and Toast can use all 4 cores. This is why I want an 8 core Mac Pro. Once you start running Toast and Handbrake simultaneously, you see why those of us who do this kind of repetitive DVD Image creation for Handbrake to mp4 compression truly need 8-cores NOW. :eek:
What we don't know: Was the code changed to use up to four processors, or as many processors as are available? Developers are usually very unwilling to ship code that they haven't been able to try out, so expect a version using eight cores about two days after the developers have access to an eight core machine.
In the case of Handbrake, encoding to MPEG4 seems already limited by the speed of the DVD drive; you can't encode faster than you can read from the DVD. H.264 is still limited by processor speed. Using eight cores is not too difficult; for example, if you encode 60 minutes of video, just give 7 1/2 minutes to each core.I almost NEVER use handbrake from an optical DVD. That makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? :confused:
I use Handbrake about 12-18 hours of every day and I use it after creating high quality DVD images from EyeTV HDTV recordings with Toast 7.1 UB. On a Mac Pro Handbrake can use more than 3 cores and Toast can use all 4 cores. This is why I want an 8 core Mac Pro. Once you start running Toast and Handbrake simultaneously, you see why those of us who do this kind of repetitive DVD Image creation for Handbrake to mp4 compression truly need 8-cores NOW. :eek:
ddrueckhammer
Sep 6, 06:34 PM
I am with the rental bandwagon. I would pay up to $4.99 to rent a movie that deleted itself after a certain period of time from the first play. Also, I could care less about how long it takes to download because if they implemented a queue ala Netflix then the next one could just download. It should still be faster and more convenient than Netflix. I would even be happy if they used Bit torrent technology to help subsidize their bandwidth costs. Until there is a model like, this I won't give up Netflix and there is no way that I want to buy movies online unless they are under $9.99 and are at least DVD quality and burnable to a disk. It just isn't worth it without physical media. As it is, there are already tons of people who rent and burn movies with impunity so distributing content electronically might be a great way to get some money from those people because they would be able to have a DRM that limits the number of burns, as well as, watermarking to stop unauthorized distribution.
JRM PowerPod
Aug 6, 11:19 PM
Or when there are multiple threads analyzing a photograph of a banner with dozens of icons on it, and nobody notices the photo also shows (the same) two covered banners. :)
Don't be like that, i noticed it.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2677363#post2677363
But that doesn't mean everyone isnt going nuts, because they are. This is worse than any build up to an Apple event i've ever remembered
Don't be like that, i noticed it.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2677363#post2677363
But that doesn't mean everyone isnt going nuts, because they are. This is worse than any build up to an Apple event i've ever remembered
timmillwood
Oct 23, 07:40 AM
I hope its comes out tomorrow, (24th October) i have been waiting too long.. Come on Apple!!! my credit card is ready
Small White Car
Aug 29, 09:27 AM
I have to say though I hope u are wrong with regard to the Macbooks, i'm hoping for a Core 2 Duo update so I can purchase my first mac. Maybe if they don't i'll just save up some more money and buy and Core 2 Duo MBP when they're released!!
I hate to tell you this, but your "i'll just save up some more money" statement is probably the main reason Apple WON'T put Core 2 in the Macbooks!
Don't get me wrong, I'd love core 2 chips in EVERY Mac that's using Yonah now. That would be totally fantastic.
But I'm not trying to say what I WANT...I'm trying to figure out what I think Apple will DO.
Those are usually not the same thing with ANY company.
I hate to tell you this, but your "i'll just save up some more money" statement is probably the main reason Apple WON'T put Core 2 in the Macbooks!
Don't get me wrong, I'd love core 2 chips in EVERY Mac that's using Yonah now. That would be totally fantastic.
But I'm not trying to say what I WANT...I'm trying to figure out what I think Apple will DO.
Those are usually not the same thing with ANY company.
Multimedia
Sep 6, 10:40 AM
Please explain to me who would buy a mini and why?
I just don't get it when a imac is close in price with a monitor.
What am I missing?Needs to be $499 for the base. I agree with you. BUT, did anyone notice they have a DDR333 ram description when it is really PC 5300 running @ 667MHz? What a screwup. :eek:
Omni via Ramseeker.com (http://Ramseeker.com) has a pair of 1GB sticks for $174 instead of Apple's $225. Save $50 and have something to sell on eBay. - two 256 sticks. Wonder if anyone is buying those? Seems like so small.
I just don't get it when a imac is close in price with a monitor.
What am I missing?Needs to be $499 for the base. I agree with you. BUT, did anyone notice they have a DDR333 ram description when it is really PC 5300 running @ 667MHz? What a screwup. :eek:
Omni via Ramseeker.com (http://Ramseeker.com) has a pair of 1GB sticks for $174 instead of Apple's $225. Save $50 and have something to sell on eBay. - two 256 sticks. Wonder if anyone is buying those? Seems like so small.
sochrisash
Feb 17, 05:45 PM
Loving the rokit's
Cant wait for the new mixer, and maybe a good soundcard :D And maybe a new iMac :D
http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/sochrisash/DSC04109.jpg
http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/sochrisash/DSC04110.jpg
http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/sochrisash/DSC04111.jpg
Check out my organized cables :P
Cant wait for the new mixer, and maybe a good soundcard :D And maybe a new iMac :D
http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/sochrisash/DSC04109.jpg
http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/sochrisash/DSC04110.jpg
http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/sochrisash/DSC04111.jpg
Check out my organized cables :P
dongmin
Jul 19, 07:03 PM
what happened exactly in between 2000-Q4 and 2001-Q1?Such short memories...
2001-Q1 would be when the "Dot.com Bubble" burst. The whole PC industry tanked, not just Apple. Motorola was also struggling to bring faster G4 processors to market, if I remember correctly.
2001-Q1 would be when the "Dot.com Bubble" burst. The whole PC industry tanked, not just Apple. Motorola was also struggling to bring faster G4 processors to market, if I remember correctly.
Shacklebolt
Nov 27, 01:10 PM
Creating a low end monitor would be a very, very wise decision on Apple's part. Buyers of Mac Minis would appreciate having a less expensive Apple monitor to go with their stuff.
FearNo1
Apr 23, 01:35 AM
Interesting...location based ads like in minority report ;) Hmm but wouldn't that eat up your data, all of the querying going back and forth. That is one of the reasons why I don't have a smartphone
my guess is ... it is some future AdSpam thing Apple wants to implement such as how FaceBook and Google use to make money.
They goofed by not encrypting it and will likely change that
my guess is ... it is some future AdSpam thing Apple wants to implement such as how FaceBook and Google use to make money.
They goofed by not encrypting it and will likely change that
BillyShears
Jan 2, 03:19 PM
On a hunch I'm calling updated MacBook Pros.
wmmk
Jul 13, 11:38 PM
Theres movies on Blu-Ray already.. and you can buy discs to burn too already... I think a BTO option is perfectly reasonable.
there are what, about four movies on BluRay? how much do each cost? If there are barely any players, what's the point of blank media? BTW, don't tell me about storage. if you want storage, get a portable 30 GB HD.I'm not saying I don't think BluRay won't be really cool. it'll just be more reasonable come MWSF time.
there are what, about four movies on BluRay? how much do each cost? If there are barely any players, what's the point of blank media? BTW, don't tell me about storage. if you want storage, get a portable 30 GB HD.I'm not saying I don't think BluRay won't be really cool. it'll just be more reasonable come MWSF time.
21stcenturykid
Sep 1, 11:55 AM
hopefully it's going to look like this:
56364
That would be sexual!!!!:p
56364
That would be sexual!!!!:p
twoodcc
Oct 10, 10:54 AM
Yup, but actually almost at 4mio with points of my old team combined ;)
What I am shooting for is the #5 overall spot of the team, maybe by year end...
oh wow. nice.
hey it's good to have goals. right now my goal is to get into the top 20. second goal is 2 million points after that, which would put me around 11th or 12th
What I am shooting for is the #5 overall spot of the team, maybe by year end...
oh wow. nice.
hey it's good to have goals. right now my goal is to get into the top 20. second goal is 2 million points after that, which would put me around 11th or 12th
GregA
Mar 22, 04:32 PM
A price drop and some minor update (such as wifi, bluetooth capabilities, ios capable) might happen. I think updating the classic's internal's and functionality might be feasible. But I doubt they will touch the physical appearance of it.
But re-inventing the classic would defeat the purpose of calling it 'classic'.
The Ipod Touch is their outlet for innovations now. Though, I wonder when the touch, would simple be called the iPod (drop the touch from the name).
I was referring more to the benefit of having a large storage portable device, in conjunction with Apple's rumoured portable logins.
But yes if they make it look like an iPod Touch, then it wouldn't really be an iPod classic. I'm not sure how they would add iOS though without changing the look, unless iOS was purely for the background features. Or perhaps a click wheel AND touch screen would still be a "classic".
But re-inventing the classic would defeat the purpose of calling it 'classic'.
The Ipod Touch is their outlet for innovations now. Though, I wonder when the touch, would simple be called the iPod (drop the touch from the name).
I was referring more to the benefit of having a large storage portable device, in conjunction with Apple's rumoured portable logins.
But yes if they make it look like an iPod Touch, then it wouldn't really be an iPod classic. I'm not sure how they would add iOS though without changing the look, unless iOS was purely for the background features. Or perhaps a click wheel AND touch screen would still be a "classic".
quadgirl
Sep 1, 01:23 PM
Is there really a big market for a 23" iMac @ 2000? I hope this rumor is bogus. I'd much rather see Apple come out with a headless Gaming mid-tower with a Core 2 Duo Extreme and X1600 card. Dual HD bays and one optical bay. AP/BT built in. 3 PCIe slots (one used by X1600). I think that would would fill a gap Apple has in their consumer line-up right now.
A Headless Conroe would be awesome. Easily expandable and fast. But, will Apple do it? Pigs may fly. The Mac Pro is great, but most people simply can't afford one and don't need 4 processors.
Come on Apple, bridge the gap!
A Headless Conroe would be awesome. Easily expandable and fast. But, will Apple do it? Pigs may fly. The Mac Pro is great, but most people simply can't afford one and don't need 4 processors.
Come on Apple, bridge the gap!
Lord Blackadder
Mar 4, 02:27 PM
In many ways, it's shameful today that we think that 60 or even 70mpg is somehow remarkable for a family car. :(
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
It certainly could be significantly higher. Public taste, laziness on the part of manufacturers and other things have all conspired to keep the bar set low on fuel economy.
In the US, there's one key reason why small cars don't sell (above and beyond the reasons I already listed), and that is that popular wisdom holds that you will die in a small car when someone in a large SUV or truck hits you. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy as people buy big cars because they don't feel safe in small ones, with the result that they become part of the "problem". Ultimately it's down to selfishness. Apparently people would rather kill someone else in an accident than risk being killed themselves.
It's idiotic, but this "wisdom" will only be unlearned slowly. Smaller cars are much safer now then they once were - safer than trucks and SUVs.
By way of a postscript, it's worth pointing out that today's safety and environmental regulations make it more difficult to make a car frugal, small and light than it was when Alec Issigonis designed the Mini. Also, aluminum construction (in smaller production cars such as the A2) remains nearly as rare and expensive as it was in the 50s.
But not the brand image... that could perhaps be the biggest stumbling block of all, it certainly is in Europe anyway.
True, and that's a shame, because brand image often matters than a car's actual merits. If the new Jetta is a turd, people will still buy it because the VW badge has cachet here that GM does not, at least in the realm of small cars.
I'm not going to stand up too much for GM, I've never held a high opinion of most of their products, but I have reasonably read good reviews of the Cruze and I hope they bring the diesel here.
Have to say my preference is for saloons... occasionally an estate (particularly A4 & A6 allroads, also 159 Sportwagons, that sort of thing), hatches (the bigger ones anyway) & estates can/tend to be a little boomy in my experience. Saloons also often have better body rigidity too.
The sedan body is the default in the US. Hatches and wagons are much rarer and therefore more interesting. In Europe it's really the other way around. When you're talking about mid-size or larger cars, sedans do generally have better proportions in my opinion (with a few exceptions - I like 5-Series wagon, and the 1990s Subaru Legacy wagon). Hatches look good on small cars though. The Focus, for example, looked stupid as a sedan but great as a hatch.
I do agree with you about the noise though - my Forester's rear suspension is sometimes very audible in the cabin, especially with the seats down. A few years before I bought my Forester, I used to mock it as the ugliest thing on the road, but I've gotten used to it and while it's never going to be attractive it does have a certain pleasing purposefulness in its proportions. Even though a lesbian couple I know call it my lesbian wagon. :rolleyes::D
No comments:
Post a Comment