blahblah100
Mar 31, 05:30 PM
Just speaking to your 'year of the linux' quote that's all.
I completely agree, but let's be honest, Apple and Microsoft fans are no different.
I completely agree, but let's be honest, Apple and Microsoft fans are no different.
Virtualball
Apr 19, 02:13 PM
According to Wikipedia It was released in Feb before the iPhone was released..
Please stop spreading FUD. If you knew anything about the history of the iPhone, you would know that it was announced and previewed at MacWorld 2007. That means they showed the world the interface, the phone, and most of the features in January 2007.
Also, http://gizmodo.com/#!234901/samsung-f700-smartphone-looks-awfully-familiar
"Samsung is also trying to one up its competitor [link leads to Apple] with one specific feature... a slide out full-QWERTY keyboard."
Seriously, this is all FUD.
Please stop spreading FUD. If you knew anything about the history of the iPhone, you would know that it was announced and previewed at MacWorld 2007. That means they showed the world the interface, the phone, and most of the features in January 2007.
Also, http://gizmodo.com/#!234901/samsung-f700-smartphone-looks-awfully-familiar
"Samsung is also trying to one up its competitor [link leads to Apple] with one specific feature... a slide out full-QWERTY keyboard."
Seriously, this is all FUD.
gnasher729
Aug 17, 12:59 PM
The interesting thing to note from the Anandtech review is that to saturate a 2 core setup, all you need is one program. To saturate a quad, you need to be doing a bit more at the same time. To saturate an octo, you need to be doing a hell of a lot of things at the same time.
No, you only need software that doesn't think multiple processors = two processors. Early versions of Handbrake used only two processors, new version uses four. Photoshop will use as many processors as there are. Other applications will follow.
No, you only need software that doesn't think multiple processors = two processors. Early versions of Handbrake used only two processors, new version uses four. Photoshop will use as many processors as there are. Other applications will follow.
canyonblue737
Apr 27, 07:58 AM
That's good enough for me.
Apple's only screw up here was keeping the infinite database forever on your phone and backed up to your Mac. Their was no reason to back it up to the computer and no reason to keep the data on the phone after it was passed to Apple (encrypted, de-identified etc.) but I suspect the reason was simply "we weren't doing anything bad with it so we never even considered we should delete it later."
Good job Apple. Now let's move on to someone else, like freakin' Sony and their Playstation network.
Apple's only screw up here was keeping the infinite database forever on your phone and backed up to your Mac. Their was no reason to back it up to the computer and no reason to keep the data on the phone after it was passed to Apple (encrypted, de-identified etc.) but I suspect the reason was simply "we weren't doing anything bad with it so we never even considered we should delete it later."
Good job Apple. Now let's move on to someone else, like freakin' Sony and their Playstation network.
charlituna
Apr 11, 10:00 PM
This is bunk. Apple will not miss Christmas.
Dear Steve.
I read on macrumors.com that the new iPhone won't be ready for Christmas. What should we do.
-- Santa.
Dear Santa.
Move Christmas.
-- Steve
Dear Steve.
I read on macrumors.com that the new iPhone won't be ready for Christmas. What should we do.
-- Santa.
Dear Santa.
Move Christmas.
-- Steve
Joe2000
Aug 6, 06:08 AM
What about TV Show downloads in the UK? Pleeeeaaaase!!! :rolleyes:
Looking foward to these Mac Pros though, my Dad is definatley going to buy one. :D
Thanks, Joe.
Looking foward to these Mac Pros though, my Dad is definatley going to buy one. :D
Thanks, Joe.
Nuvi
Apr 11, 12:07 PM
So wouldn't that make the recent pushes with iMovie, particularly on the iOS redundant? That' doesn't seem a very smart use of resources or use of branding...
Really? Had lunch with SJ lately? Care to share more?
I guess time will tell. I remember reading comments like yours from industry "experts" when I first started playing around with PageMaker 1.0 on my school's Mac Plus - dismissing it as a toy and not a serious or professional tool.
Perhaps "old timers" problems like yours is that you have been in your box for so long that you can't possibly imagine how it could be different and useful? The panel touched on that - I think it was in Part 2. It was fun to see who embraced that notation and which members of the panel dismissed it (either verbally or by their body language).
Final thought: evolve or die; be prepared to get out of your comfort zone. Heck, you might even like it!
iMovie on Mac or iOS are not about creating a movie for a paying customer. They are all about sharing your personal moments with those who are more or less interested about it. FCP is all about putting food on the table, selling the story to those who have never heard about it. Its all about art of story telling.
Regarding the usefulness of FCP to Apple; times have changed a lot. When FCP first came out Apple was trying its best to find its way in Win dominated market place. Enter the FCP, pro editing at fraction of price of competition. Today Apple is doing extremely strong in consumer market place so cornering hard market like moving image isn't promissing.*
Regarding changes anything Apple will bring is small change compared to continues changes in the industry. However, change for the sake of it is meaningless or sometimes very much counter productive. Regarding FCP, Apple NEEDS to make huge changes however these changes need add on productivity and not making it some semi half way creation trying to serve advanced consumers and professionals at same time. Apple needs to bring it now!
Really? Had lunch with SJ lately? Care to share more?
I guess time will tell. I remember reading comments like yours from industry "experts" when I first started playing around with PageMaker 1.0 on my school's Mac Plus - dismissing it as a toy and not a serious or professional tool.
Perhaps "old timers" problems like yours is that you have been in your box for so long that you can't possibly imagine how it could be different and useful? The panel touched on that - I think it was in Part 2. It was fun to see who embraced that notation and which members of the panel dismissed it (either verbally or by their body language).
Final thought: evolve or die; be prepared to get out of your comfort zone. Heck, you might even like it!
iMovie on Mac or iOS are not about creating a movie for a paying customer. They are all about sharing your personal moments with those who are more or less interested about it. FCP is all about putting food on the table, selling the story to those who have never heard about it. Its all about art of story telling.
Regarding the usefulness of FCP to Apple; times have changed a lot. When FCP first came out Apple was trying its best to find its way in Win dominated market place. Enter the FCP, pro editing at fraction of price of competition. Today Apple is doing extremely strong in consumer market place so cornering hard market like moving image isn't promissing.*
Regarding changes anything Apple will bring is small change compared to continues changes in the industry. However, change for the sake of it is meaningless or sometimes very much counter productive. Regarding FCP, Apple NEEDS to make huge changes however these changes need add on productivity and not making it some semi half way creation trying to serve advanced consumers and professionals at same time. Apple needs to bring it now!
citizenzen
Mar 22, 08:28 PM
Plenty of time to move ships into the area if only on a just in case basis.
Enough time to move diplomatically as well?
Enough time to move diplomatically as well?
Huntn
Aug 19, 06:11 PM
Do you consider official images and video from E3 of this year, a mere 2 months ago, to be "old" footage? If so, then yes, I'm basing it on old gameplay footage. Look at the model and texture in this pic, and tell me that isn't straight out of GT4, just higher res....
Racing games have come a long long way. Based on original racing sims, watching the shock absorbers flex is wonderful. You can feel the bumps. :)
Racing games have come a long long way. Based on original racing sims, watching the shock absorbers flex is wonderful. You can feel the bumps. :)
puckhead193
Aug 17, 12:27 AM
i went to my local apple store, and holy crap the thing is really fast. I'm tempted to get one, instead of an iMac, the only thing that's holding me back is the size.
Scottsdale
Apr 6, 11:38 AM
clock speed is not everything... a 1.4ghz sb processor will kill anything you are doing with a 2.4ghz c2d. There are many other factors in a processor than just clock speed so i wouldn't be worried. There is no doubt that the sb will be a much faster processor than the ancient c2d.
Also, I would say 50% less graphics is a bit of a stretch. Haven't personally ran any benchmarks but was reading a thread the other day and in the benchmarks and graphics they were showing that the 320m averages about 5-10 extra fps over the 3000.
here is a thread you can look at and compare for yourself.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103257
Sure the integrated graphics are going to be slightly worse, but at least you will have a nice new processor. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially in an ultraportable.
When the mba was refreshed everyone was complaining about the outdated processor, now rumors of a processor upgrade and people bitch about the integrated graphics. Guess you can't please everyone but jesus, sometimes it just seems like people find anything they can to complain about.
Here's a simple solution for all of you, if you want the "slightly" better graphics go buy a macbook air right now, it's not like apple has stopped selling them. If you'd rather have a sandy bridge processor, wait it out. Seems simple but i guess that's just me?!?!?!:eek:
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Also, I would say 50% less graphics is a bit of a stretch. Haven't personally ran any benchmarks but was reading a thread the other day and in the benchmarks and graphics they were showing that the 320m averages about 5-10 extra fps over the 3000.
here is a thread you can look at and compare for yourself.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103257
Sure the integrated graphics are going to be slightly worse, but at least you will have a nice new processor. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially in an ultraportable.
When the mba was refreshed everyone was complaining about the outdated processor, now rumors of a processor upgrade and people bitch about the integrated graphics. Guess you can't please everyone but jesus, sometimes it just seems like people find anything they can to complain about.
Here's a simple solution for all of you, if you want the "slightly" better graphics go buy a macbook air right now, it's not like apple has stopped selling them. If you'd rather have a sandy bridge processor, wait it out. Seems simple but i guess that's just me?!?!?!:eek:
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
7o7munoz7o7
Apr 27, 09:00 AM
It was never a big deal. Either you are holding it wrong or there is a misunderstanding. Apple never makes mistakes, didn't you get the memo? ;)
you own and admit you have a Nexus one, nothing serious could ever be taken from you.
you own and admit you have a Nexus one, nothing serious could ever be taken from you.
DocNo
Apr 11, 10:24 AM
I think they want to make FCP a tool for consumers who have no idea about narrative structure and storytelling.
So wouldn't that make the recent pushes with iMovie, particularly on the iOS redundant? That' doesn't seem a very smart use of resources or use of branding...
FCP isn't useful for Apple any more.
Really? Had lunch with SJ lately? Care to share more?
Regarding editing conventions, they are far older then 20 or so years. However, they've been around for a very long time and those conventions will be here to stay. Why? Because in the end of the day stories are linear and that fact won't change one bit even if Apple releases iMovie Pro.
I guess time will tell. I remember reading comments like yours from industry "experts" when I first started playing around with PageMaker 1.0 on my school's Mac Plus - dismissing it as a toy and not a serious or professional tool.
Perhaps "old timers" problems like yours is that you have been in your box for so long that you can't possibly imagine how it could be different and useful? The panel touched on that - I think it was in Part 2. It was fun to see who embraced that notation and which members of the panel dismissed it (either verbally or by their body language).
Final thought: evolve or die; be prepared to get out of your comfort zone. Heck, you might even like it!
So wouldn't that make the recent pushes with iMovie, particularly on the iOS redundant? That' doesn't seem a very smart use of resources or use of branding...
FCP isn't useful for Apple any more.
Really? Had lunch with SJ lately? Care to share more?
Regarding editing conventions, they are far older then 20 or so years. However, they've been around for a very long time and those conventions will be here to stay. Why? Because in the end of the day stories are linear and that fact won't change one bit even if Apple releases iMovie Pro.
I guess time will tell. I remember reading comments like yours from industry "experts" when I first started playing around with PageMaker 1.0 on my school's Mac Plus - dismissing it as a toy and not a serious or professional tool.
Perhaps "old timers" problems like yours is that you have been in your box for so long that you can't possibly imagine how it could be different and useful? The panel touched on that - I think it was in Part 2. It was fun to see who embraced that notation and which members of the panel dismissed it (either verbally or by their body language).
Final thought: evolve or die; be prepared to get out of your comfort zone. Heck, you might even like it!
Porco
Nov 28, 10:41 PM
The full article is very funny.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
DesmoPilot
Sep 7, 02:09 AM
Seems like best buy is getting Playable Demos of the game I played it at mine I'm not a big racing sim fan but wow day 1 purchase for me awesome demo.
Prologue?
Prologue?
marksman
Apr 19, 02:07 PM
wow @ post 2.
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
Is that your vetted legal opinion?
apple will have a hard time fighting this in court.
Is that your vetted legal opinion?
barkomatic
Mar 31, 04:00 PM
not when Google blocks handset makers from releasing innovations that would be good for consumers but bad for google. they may have tried to do such strong-arming -- a geo-services company claims it was shut-out by the makers due to google not wanting makers to license optional alternatives to google services.
From the sounds of it, Google is trying to prevent the release of phones that run poorly and are *bad* for consumers. Google is a private company and they can do what they want--just like Apple. Handset makers can go back to their lousy proprietary mobile operating systems--but I really doubt they will. This is a win for consumers in the long run.
It's a temporary lose for those who like to tinker though.
From the sounds of it, Google is trying to prevent the release of phones that run poorly and are *bad* for consumers. Google is a private company and they can do what they want--just like Apple. Handset makers can go back to their lousy proprietary mobile operating systems--but I really doubt they will. This is a win for consumers in the long run.
It's a temporary lose for those who like to tinker though.
antic
Mar 22, 01:18 PM
Why are you even giving these product the time of day. I come on here to read about apple products. If I were interested in samsung or blackberry products I'd be looking elsewhere. Your just giving them free advertising.
skunk
Apr 28, 09:32 AM
Sad, pathetic, misguided, and further proof that this forum has a distinct in ability to produce meaningful conversation without hate, vitriol, and meaninglessly misguided attacks. Enjoy.Are you leaving so soon? :(
Warbrain
Aug 25, 02:54 PM
I suspect a large amount of the issues are stemming from the problems with the Intel Macs and people are probably calling more about these problems. I could be wrong.
But yesterday did suck. That site went down in an instant. But then again, the Apple recall got a whole lot more news coverage than the Dell recall.
But yesterday did suck. That site went down in an instant. But then again, the Apple recall got a whole lot more news coverage than the Dell recall.
Porco
Nov 28, 10:41 PM
The full article is very funny.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
Adam Lect
Mar 26, 12:25 PM
Mt. Fuji. A hat tip to Japan.
RichP
Sep 13, 09:33 AM
After that, what will be the next method of radically increasing computing throughput?
Personally, I still see data transfer, namely from storage media, as a huge bottleneck in performance. Unless you are doing something really CPU intensive (vid editing, rendering, others) Most of the average "wait-time" is the damn hard drive.
Personally, I still see data transfer, namely from storage media, as a huge bottleneck in performance. Unless you are doing something really CPU intensive (vid editing, rendering, others) Most of the average "wait-time" is the damn hard drive.
Hellhammer
Apr 8, 09:01 AM
The trouble is .. I find the TDP numbers for Sandy Bridge very misleading. For example the previous i7 2.66Ghz dual core had a TDP of 35W and the current i7 2.2Ghz quad core has a TDP of 45W. Theoretically, it should only use 10W more when doing CPU intensive task, but according to anandtech who measured the task, the i7 Sandy Bridge Quad core was using almost 40W more when running cinebench.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
CPU isn't the only thing that changed. AMD 6750M (~30W) has higher TDP than NVidia GT 330M (~23W). I had to put ~ because their TDPs are not officially stated by AMD or NVidia so it's just based on previous GPUs and their TDPs. The point is that AMD 6750M has higher TDP.
There is also another thing. TDP is not the maximum power draw. Maximum power dissipation is usually 20-30% more than the actual TDP. While MPD is rarely achieved as it requires maximum voltage and temperature, it can (nearly) be achieved with heavy benchmarking applications.
For example, the combined TDP from quad core SB and AMD 6750M is 75W. If we use 20% extra as the MPD, that is 90W, just from the CPU and GPU! Of course those parts are not using 90W in that test because things like screen, HD, RAM etc need power too. As the MPD is usually in percents, it can explain why the difference is so big in watts.
40W sounds a bit too much to explain with MPD though. IIRC the GT 330M is underclocked but I'm not 100% sure. You have a valid point that the SBs may be using more power than their predecessors. To make this more accurate, we should compare them with C2Ds though ;)
I guess we will have to wait and see, but an ULV in 13" would be more than a disappointment.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14
It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.
Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
CPU isn't the only thing that changed. AMD 6750M (~30W) has higher TDP than NVidia GT 330M (~23W). I had to put ~ because their TDPs are not officially stated by AMD or NVidia so it's just based on previous GPUs and their TDPs. The point is that AMD 6750M has higher TDP.
There is also another thing. TDP is not the maximum power draw. Maximum power dissipation is usually 20-30% more than the actual TDP. While MPD is rarely achieved as it requires maximum voltage and temperature, it can (nearly) be achieved with heavy benchmarking applications.
For example, the combined TDP from quad core SB and AMD 6750M is 75W. If we use 20% extra as the MPD, that is 90W, just from the CPU and GPU! Of course those parts are not using 90W in that test because things like screen, HD, RAM etc need power too. As the MPD is usually in percents, it can explain why the difference is so big in watts.
40W sounds a bit too much to explain with MPD though. IIRC the GT 330M is underclocked but I'm not 100% sure. You have a valid point that the SBs may be using more power than their predecessors. To make this more accurate, we should compare them with C2Ds though ;)
I guess we will have to wait and see, but an ULV in 13" would be more than a disappointment.
No comments:
Post a Comment