Capture The Art Blog's

Well, we all knew that the G5 isn't a "bad" chip necessarily.. It's older tech, and I think, wasn't really meant for this kind of work (non-server applications).

Preaching to the choir am I?

I would have thought that the Final Cut Pro benchmark would have really blown away the G5 - not so much, right?

Awesome on FileMaker and I can't wait to see how this stuff runs Adobe PS Natively.

So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.

Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.

Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.

I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.

I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.

One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.

The question is what will Google do when they do publish the source code? All of these people pointing and laughing didn't read the article.

no, the question is: "Is this evil?" when google starts rejecting Facebook Android phones, or android versions using Bing and not Google...

thats the question.

"The first iteration of Galaxy Tab 10.1 measured in at 246.2 x 170.4 x 10.9 mm and weighed 599g; this new, slimmer version is 256.6 x 172.9 x 8.6 mm and 595g."

We lost 4 grams WAHAHAHAHA !

i agree with this on one condition:

Universal agrees to give up its right to prosecute anyone who owns an iPod for piracy.

i.e. if I buy an iPod, then I can pirate Universal's catalogue all I want because I have effectively already paid for their content.

a few bucks is a small price to pay to get access to everything they got

One wonders why it hasn't been used in a Court of Law. :p Stress that the same law that applies to cassette tape players and the record function should be the same as downloading music to use on cds (to which they paid for, and to which money is added to CD/DVD sales to make up for pirated music).

Why did Apple/RadioShack even bother? Even the manager told me the whole process was screwed up.

This is what I'm wondering. Why bother if this is how its going to be? I've seen several different outcomes to one situation: People trying to get an iPhone. My name was written on a piece of blank paper (apparantly I was the first one at my store to ask for the iPhone 4). The guy called me back an hour and a half or so later for my address and the make/model of the phone I wanted. I've gotten no further updates, no pin, etc.

*Update:

I just received an email from Radio Shack, an advertisement email with a 10% off coupon. Nothing about the iPhone though.

**Just called the store, and supposedly out of three stores in my area I was the only one who asked for a reservation before they were cut off. My reservation was supposedly successful. The guy said that the outlook is good that I'll get one on launch day, but it isn't definite. We'll see, I guess.

you and you partner will beget how exactly, oral and anal sex don't produce a child nor does mutual masturbation, so how exactly will you and your partner produce a child?


Science. Artificial insemination. That's procreation without sex. It's fairly simple.

And all I said was that the human race would not die out if heterosexuals stop having sex. I never said that I and my partner would produce one all on our own. It's obviously easy to procreate without sex.

Sources? Evidence? Easy to make cheap accusations, much harder to prove them.

When Apple's supply shortages at iPhone and iPad launches are as terrible as they have been, Apple is either 1.) inept at judging the demand for their product, #2.) inept at acquiring the components necessary to produce the quantity of product they need to meet demand or 3.) holding back supply to drum up demand.

I have a pretty hard time believing that #1 or #2 are true for company the size of Apple.

I bet they're going to lower the price too. :apple:

I have to say that I think a lot of people have missed the point around various software not using all the cores. There is a simple reason. Developing multi threaded apps is hard. And until recently (~1 yr since G5 Quad) developing for more than 2 simultaneous threads (cores or processors) was pretty pointless on a Mac and completely pointless on a PC. Why would a developer bother to develop for more than two thread unless they expect threads to get blocked easily or there to be more than two cores? That's why browsers are one of the few genuine multithreaded apps, rather than 2-4 threads, the threads block easily, so having multiple makes sense. In a lot of cases where there was the opportunity for parallelism using a vector processing unit often makes more sense than multiple threads. Why spend development and testing effort on a solution with no hardware to even test it on, let alone deliver and make use of?

The whole industry is taking a 90 degree turn and the tools for developing multithreaded applications are not up to scratch. Look at some of the commentary about XBox 360 and PS3 development.

The dev tools will come, the software will catch up with the hardware, in the meantime just be glad that you can play your stolen MP3's and browse your pr0n without interfering with each other and stop whinging.

Well, minus the screen size too. Equal to isn't going to cut it against an Apple product. Just look at how the Zune fared.

Yes the small screen isn't going to cut it but honestly carrying the iPad around is a hastle. People will be tempted with the size for portability.