Silentwave
Aug 18, 10:17 AM
I know if it is it will work, what i'm asking is, is it? Or is that not known at this time?
Not known. There might be other concerns apart from the socket compatibility: FSB, firmware, and in particular the heat output.
Not known. There might be other concerns apart from the socket compatibility: FSB, firmware, and in particular the heat output.
twoodcc
Nov 30, 05:20 PM
so far i like this game. i haven't had time to play it alot, but i'm a level 6 right now, and i'm about 9% game complete.
OhEsTen
Jul 14, 02:34 PM
I figured Apple didn't change the cases for the powerbooks (MBP) MacBook's and mini's and iMac's for a reason...
It reminds people that nothing has really changed about them other than their brains (which is a big deal for sure - it just keep people from thinking Apple's going out of business...)
I remember when Apple made their announcement a year ago about the Intel switch - Macworld running an article about "what it all means" and "is this death for Apple?" - some people were a bit freaked out (which was completely understandable from the netburst point of view) - but keeping the same enclosures for the first round of intel boxes helps people not freak out.... maybe.
It reminds people that nothing has really changed about them other than their brains (which is a big deal for sure - it just keep people from thinking Apple's going out of business...)
I remember when Apple made their announcement a year ago about the Intel switch - Macworld running an article about "what it all means" and "is this death for Apple?" - some people were a bit freaked out (which was completely understandable from the netburst point of view) - but keeping the same enclosures for the first round of intel boxes helps people not freak out.... maybe.
kdarling
Mar 22, 07:38 PM
It runs Android. Pretty sure that's what he meant. So, Google, Android developers, Android marketplace.
Ah, I thought perhaps he knew something I didn't.
True, they don't have to spend a lot of time or money on core OS improvements.
Nor do they have to worry about maintaining an app market (or getting bad publicity because they approved baby-killer or gay-fixer apps). OTOH, they don't directly profit from app sales.
Samsung, HTC and others do have staff for third party developer relations, and all maintain R&D labs for their Android porting and customization.
That doesn't change the accounting. Cost is still the same, and they are pricing theirs very low. The first Tab came out at what, $800, and then dropped immediately on entrance to Costco and other retailers. Last I saw it was $400, I haven't been paying close attention, though.
It came out at $600, which many thought made some sense (http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/20/editorial-why-the-galaxy-tabs-price-makes-sense/) considering it had 3G and GPS. I bought one myself.
I think you're right, now it's as low as $400 on contract. (Heck, it's only $250 right now on T-Mobile (http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/SGH-T849ZKATMB).)
Ah, I thought perhaps he knew something I didn't.
True, they don't have to spend a lot of time or money on core OS improvements.
Nor do they have to worry about maintaining an app market (or getting bad publicity because they approved baby-killer or gay-fixer apps). OTOH, they don't directly profit from app sales.
Samsung, HTC and others do have staff for third party developer relations, and all maintain R&D labs for their Android porting and customization.
That doesn't change the accounting. Cost is still the same, and they are pricing theirs very low. The first Tab came out at what, $800, and then dropped immediately on entrance to Costco and other retailers. Last I saw it was $400, I haven't been paying close attention, though.
It came out at $600, which many thought made some sense (http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/20/editorial-why-the-galaxy-tabs-price-makes-sense/) considering it had 3G and GPS. I bought one myself.
I think you're right, now it's as low as $400 on contract. (Heck, it's only $250 right now on T-Mobile (http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/SGH-T849ZKATMB).)
ThunderSkunk
Apr 6, 04:03 PM
I guess I see it like this:
We use two models of Motion tablets in our studios, the LE1700 running Win7 and the newer J running XP Tablet, for maximum horsepower. Both allow our designers to create complex CAD programs with huge 3d files and multipart assemblies parametric to external data sources, and do it in the field. These tablets have wacom pressure sensitive digitizers, highly visible outdoor displays, 3hr battery lives, weigh 4-5lbs, and cost 3-4 thousand dollars.
We use iPads for everything else mobile, because they're fast, and light, and we're used to carrying around yellow pads everywhere we go anyway. No more yellow pads. Eventually, when more people start to realize that the platform is a good one for more than just content consumption, we'll get more and bigger functionality in better and better applications.
The xoom has neither the functionality of windows nor that of iOS. The day Androids marketplace starts catching up with iOS, we'll reconsider.
But throwing in slightly bigger megapixel cameras and SD card readers really doesn't enter into it.
We use two models of Motion tablets in our studios, the LE1700 running Win7 and the newer J running XP Tablet, for maximum horsepower. Both allow our designers to create complex CAD programs with huge 3d files and multipart assemblies parametric to external data sources, and do it in the field. These tablets have wacom pressure sensitive digitizers, highly visible outdoor displays, 3hr battery lives, weigh 4-5lbs, and cost 3-4 thousand dollars.
We use iPads for everything else mobile, because they're fast, and light, and we're used to carrying around yellow pads everywhere we go anyway. No more yellow pads. Eventually, when more people start to realize that the platform is a good one for more than just content consumption, we'll get more and bigger functionality in better and better applications.
The xoom has neither the functionality of windows nor that of iOS. The day Androids marketplace starts catching up with iOS, we'll reconsider.
But throwing in slightly bigger megapixel cameras and SD card readers really doesn't enter into it.
freeny
Aug 7, 04:05 PM
Guess we now know what this was all about now.. (Web Clip)
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=151828&highlight=safari+widget
Out of all the predictions I think I was the closest (post #29):cool:
perhaps this button will produce a widget for the page you have open? sort of like having your favorite sites in your dashboard? you wont need to open safari to check your sites or even wait for someone to create a widget for the site. safari will author its own widgets.
Even better would be the ability to frame just the part of the site you want to see like a weather bar or team score using a cmd+shft+4 like command..... any takers?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=151828&highlight=safari+widget
Out of all the predictions I think I was the closest (post #29):cool:
perhaps this button will produce a widget for the page you have open? sort of like having your favorite sites in your dashboard? you wont need to open safari to check your sites or even wait for someone to create a widget for the site. safari will author its own widgets.
Even better would be the ability to frame just the part of the site you want to see like a weather bar or team score using a cmd+shft+4 like command..... any takers?
john123
Sep 19, 08:59 AM
Does it even MATTER if Apple keeps up? Do we actually WANT Apple to release a new computer every month when Intel bumps up their chips a few megahertz?
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
AMEN!!!! This whole thread has the tone of a spoiled 13 year old's "I want" tirade. All the benchmarks show little difference between Merom and what you can buy today...and the 64 bit argument is really moot for most users because....(ready for it)....it's a laptop! Very few will have more than 2GB RAM on it anyway, and addressing larger RAM partitions is the #1 64 bit advantage.
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
AMEN!!!! This whole thread has the tone of a spoiled 13 year old's "I want" tirade. All the benchmarks show little difference between Merom and what you can buy today...and the 64 bit argument is really moot for most users because....(ready for it)....it's a laptop! Very few will have more than 2GB RAM on it anyway, and addressing larger RAM partitions is the #1 64 bit advantage.
amin
Aug 18, 07:39 PM
... If apple releases a 2.66GHz Conroe iMac/Mac/whathaveyou it will be able to crunch through FCP/Photoshop/etc faster than a Mac Pro because it can use regular DDR2 and won't suffer from horrendous memory latency.
Where is your evidence to back up this statement? You have presented limited evidence about FCP, and none regarding "PS/etc." So far there is no "Mac/whathaveyou." Do you think a Conroe iMac will beat a Mac Pro due to lower memory latency alone? Do you have real experience or data regarding how horrendous a problem this is? Extra dual-core processor aside, the Mac Pro has a higher speed FSB, higher memory bus bandwidth, higher RAM capacity, and ability to set up internal RAID amongst other advantages over a Conroe iMac.
Where is your evidence to back up this statement? You have presented limited evidence about FCP, and none regarding "PS/etc." So far there is no "Mac/whathaveyou." Do you think a Conroe iMac will beat a Mac Pro due to lower memory latency alone? Do you have real experience or data regarding how horrendous a problem this is? Extra dual-core processor aside, the Mac Pro has a higher speed FSB, higher memory bus bandwidth, higher RAM capacity, and ability to set up internal RAID amongst other advantages over a Conroe iMac.
odedia
Jul 27, 09:50 AM
Yes. I believe people who have gotten their hands on Core 2 Duo beta chips have put them in their mini's with no difference (except a massive speed boost)
Only the Mac Mini and the iMac's processor can be replaced. the MacBook and MacBook Pro have the processor soldered into the motherboard.
Only the Mac Mini and the iMac's processor can be replaced. the MacBook and MacBook Pro have the processor soldered into the motherboard.
gugy
Aug 11, 02:47 PM
You guys are looking about a $500.00 phone...atleast.
not just that, it's just not happening.
come on, too much stuff on a phone.
If we get a basic GOOD phone with contact list ala Apple design and ipod, that's enough. You start adding so much crap on a phone and in the end it just get overkill.
not just that, it's just not happening.
come on, too much stuff on a phone.
If we get a basic GOOD phone with contact list ala Apple design and ipod, that's enough. You start adding so much crap on a phone and in the end it just get overkill.
iEvolution
Apr 19, 06:51 PM
So when is apple going to sue over the letter "i"?
Or how about suing companies for using certain shapes?
This kind of garbage just makes them look petty, just like the youtube videos demonstrating other phone antenna problems.
Or how about suing companies for using certain shapes?
This kind of garbage just makes them look petty, just like the youtube videos demonstrating other phone antenna problems.
NoSmokingBandit
Aug 19, 02:25 PM
All that I get from that quote is that they are using older models, but that they will, obviously, be rendered in the new GT5 engine. So, the marketing team can say all they want, but actual screen shots of Standard™ cars do not show much improvement, if any at all, resolution increase notwithstanding.
Based on what, old gameplay footage? Game are often tested with old resources while the new models are being built. God of War used a stick man with a sword until they got Kratos done.
Look at this pic:
http://us.gran-turismo.com/c/binary/images/5294/gamescom2010_029a.jpg
That rx-7 looks tons better than anything GT4 ever had, but its still not as nice as the "premium" cars. I am assuming of course that this is live-rendered, and i believe it is due to the jaggies on the rear of the rx-7, which i can't imagine they would let slide on a pre-rendered shot.
Time will tell, of course, but i'm certain they didnt just import models from GT4. What the hell would they have been doing for the past 5 years?
Based on what, old gameplay footage? Game are often tested with old resources while the new models are being built. God of War used a stick man with a sword until they got Kratos done.
Look at this pic:
http://us.gran-turismo.com/c/binary/images/5294/gamescom2010_029a.jpg
That rx-7 looks tons better than anything GT4 ever had, but its still not as nice as the "premium" cars. I am assuming of course that this is live-rendered, and i believe it is due to the jaggies on the rear of the rx-7, which i can't imagine they would let slide on a pre-rendered shot.
Time will tell, of course, but i'm certain they didnt just import models from GT4. What the hell would they have been doing for the past 5 years?
j-traxx
Apr 11, 11:47 AM
My 3Gs contract ends in June and Apple will be pushing it's luck for me to go half a year without me being tempted to jump platforms instead of waiting for the iPhone 5.
ooh they'd better if they know what's good for them! you tell them off!
ooh they'd better if they know what's good for them! you tell them off!
bobber205
Apr 27, 05:10 PM
Oh, I thought his administration was the one that dropped the F-bomb on live TV.
Or that he was the one who fabricated a "healthcare crisis" so that he could ram through legislation that doesn't even kick in for years
I thought he was the one who is always on the news whining about why nothing ever goes his way.
He is the inexperienced child. And if he hadn't been born in the US, that would have been great news
F-bomb makes you a "kid". Ok "Mom". :p
Are you REALLY saying we don't have a healthcare crisis. Ok....
Or that he was the one who fabricated a "healthcare crisis" so that he could ram through legislation that doesn't even kick in for years
I thought he was the one who is always on the news whining about why nothing ever goes his way.
He is the inexperienced child. And if he hadn't been born in the US, that would have been great news
F-bomb makes you a "kid". Ok "Mom". :p
Are you REALLY saying we don't have a healthcare crisis. Ok....
ratinakage
Apr 8, 07:43 AM
It makes total sense to hold back the units for the following reason:
Day 1: Someone calls up BestBuy to find out if they have the iPad2. They reply, "yes we have a very small amount in stock". Customer arrives at the store and they are all sold out but they are told that there will be a few more on sale tomorrow. Customer picks up some random crap like a DVD, mouse or whatever.
Day 2: Customer arrives at the store and they are all sold out but they are told that there will be a few more on sale tomorrow. Customer maybe picks up some other random crap and leaves.
Day 3: [Same as Day 2]
Day 4: [Same as Day 3] etc...
If you just release a few each day, customers will keep coming back in hope of finding one and possibly buy some other small items while in the store. If you sell them all out and have nothing for weeks, you will have no customers coming to the store. BB knows that the iPad2 is in short supply and that they will have no trouble shifting the stock if they need to so they are happy to sit on it and keep a steady flow of customers coming through the store.
Day 1: Someone calls up BestBuy to find out if they have the iPad2. They reply, "yes we have a very small amount in stock". Customer arrives at the store and they are all sold out but they are told that there will be a few more on sale tomorrow. Customer picks up some random crap like a DVD, mouse or whatever.
Day 2: Customer arrives at the store and they are all sold out but they are told that there will be a few more on sale tomorrow. Customer maybe picks up some other random crap and leaves.
Day 3: [Same as Day 2]
Day 4: [Same as Day 3] etc...
If you just release a few each day, customers will keep coming back in hope of finding one and possibly buy some other small items while in the store. If you sell them all out and have nothing for weeks, you will have no customers coming to the store. BB knows that the iPad2 is in short supply and that they will have no trouble shifting the stock if they need to so they are happy to sit on it and keep a steady flow of customers coming through the store.
skunk
Mar 5, 04:12 AM
“teaching students from a young age that the homosexual lifestyle is perfectly natural … will [cause them to] develop into adults who are desensitized to the harmful, immoral reality of sexual deviance.”As if that was a bad thing.
GQB
Mar 31, 05:10 PM
Good. I hope they take one of the last strengths of the iPad ecosystem away from it.
If you're going to spew nonsense, at least make it relevant to the thread.
If you're going to spew nonsense, at least make it relevant to the thread.
Multimedia
Jul 30, 03:25 PM
Gee, talk about getting ahead of yourself.
Core 3 will be out before Vista is. I'm going to call it now.
Everybody, be my witness, Core 3 (any processor that goes beyond Core 2 because I don't know if they'll call it "Core 3") will be out before a consumer version of Vista is shipped.Here's an example of a post based in fantasy instead of fact. Core 3 is a distinct next generation set of processors based on a 45nm manufacturing process that will not begin before LATE 2008 and reign all of 2009 and 2010. :rolleyes:
We are your witness. And what we are witnessing is that you have not studied the Intel Roadmap at all.You don't think Vista will be out before the revision to the Core 2 Duo due in Q1 2007 with the Santa Rosa chipset??? I bet Vista will ship by the time the Santa Rosa chipset is ready, especially because MS is suggesting Vista systems use harddrives or Mobos with flash RAM to speed up the boot process.Vista ships early 2007 and way preceeds the Core 3 launch. :rolleyes:
Core 2 is with us for the next two years, all of 2007 and most of 2008.:)
Core 3 will be out before Vista is. I'm going to call it now.
Everybody, be my witness, Core 3 (any processor that goes beyond Core 2 because I don't know if they'll call it "Core 3") will be out before a consumer version of Vista is shipped.Here's an example of a post based in fantasy instead of fact. Core 3 is a distinct next generation set of processors based on a 45nm manufacturing process that will not begin before LATE 2008 and reign all of 2009 and 2010. :rolleyes:
We are your witness. And what we are witnessing is that you have not studied the Intel Roadmap at all.You don't think Vista will be out before the revision to the Core 2 Duo due in Q1 2007 with the Santa Rosa chipset??? I bet Vista will ship by the time the Santa Rosa chipset is ready, especially because MS is suggesting Vista systems use harddrives or Mobos with flash RAM to speed up the boot process.Vista ships early 2007 and way preceeds the Core 3 launch. :rolleyes:
Core 2 is with us for the next two years, all of 2007 and most of 2008.:)
shawnce
Jul 27, 03:57 PM
Still, they are the successors to conroe and woodcrest. As long as they are socket compatible, they're the next generation for these machines, whether you consider them a new chip or not.
They will not replace the dual core version, they will exist as an additional product offering.
They will not replace the dual core version, they will exist as an additional product offering.
laidbackliam
Aug 7, 02:34 AM
this is me going out an a limb here.
but do you think the desktop lineup could become this?
Mac mini (2 models)
the Mac
iMac
Mac Pro
"if" this happens, which i find unlikely based on pure speculation, the mac mini could keep yonah processors, the Mac could get conroe, the iMac could get conroe, and the Mac Pro could go balls to the wall with 3.0ghz woodcrests.
the Mac would be the affordable tower that people have been wanting. yet another reason for people to switch. a unit that works, that has an upgrade path, but doesn't cost 1500+.
again, i don't think this will happen at wwdc, but i do think it would be cool
but do you think the desktop lineup could become this?
Mac mini (2 models)
the Mac
iMac
Mac Pro
"if" this happens, which i find unlikely based on pure speculation, the mac mini could keep yonah processors, the Mac could get conroe, the iMac could get conroe, and the Mac Pro could go balls to the wall with 3.0ghz woodcrests.
the Mac would be the affordable tower that people have been wanting. yet another reason for people to switch. a unit that works, that has an upgrade path, but doesn't cost 1500+.
again, i don't think this will happen at wwdc, but i do think it would be cool
fatfish
Aug 7, 09:06 PM
When I first saw this feature I thought great. I do regular back ups, but some of my AW docs keep corrupting (probably something to do with keep duplicating the same old document and modifying rather than starting anew). Time Machine will help me no end. I was also thrilled that windows had nothing like this........ until I read through these posts.
Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.
However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.
Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.
Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.
Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.
If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.
I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.
Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.
And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.
Then it seemed very similar to what was coming in Vista and I felt a bit dissapointed that Apple had made such a point about M$ copying them, but seemed to do the same themselves with Time Machine.
However on closer examination this is not the case and my confidence in Apple's innovative skills is restored.
Firstly, there has always been back up and restore apps, so if you want to take this copying thing to a ridiculous level, of course you can do. Copying in my book is when an app does and looks the same (just like the screenshots in the presentation, safari RSS/IE7 RSS, ical/M$ calender etc). It appears to me Time Machine does much more than anything before it and has it's own unique UI to boot.
Secondly, I would imagine work on Time machine started long before a beta of Vista was released, even if the two utilities were more or less identical it would be coincidence not copying.
Thirdly, it seems quite clear that Vista's restore (whatever it's called) will not do what Time machine will do. Ultimately you may well be able to restore any deleted or modified file in Vista, but it doesn't appear to occur with the same ease or functionality.
If I create a file, modify it and move it several times, rename it, convert it, modify it some more, move it several times and finally delete it, I rather suspect it would be an absolute nightmare to recover in Vista, whereas it seems that Time Machine would have little problem.
I don't see how it is possible in Vista to perform the recovery with either the same simplicity or pizzaz as Time Machine. Perhaps if M$ had not abandoned their intended file system for Vista it might have been possible, but as it is I doubt it.
Finally it does not appear that Vista has the option to restore within a database application (i.e. iphoto, mail, address book), no doubt if you understand how a particular database works, the possibility exists to restore a particular photo, but let's not pretend it will be easy or anywhere near the experience of time machine.
And finally, finally, although I agree the UI may appear a little childish, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes it so easy to use.
littleman23408
Nov 24, 09:03 AM
Anyone been playing the game yet? I saw on other forums, people got the game yesterday. People called stores around where they lived and some stores already had it out.
bedifferent
Mar 26, 01:46 AM
No way. The current Lion is a developer preview and not even a beta. For third party applications to test their products on OS X 10.7, just as any 10.X, there are dozens of beta's before it even reaches GM. As a developer since 10.1, I can assure you there has never been an instance of such. Currently Apple is examining the hundreds of bug reports filed by developers as well as many other suggestions before releasing the first official beta.
If the remote chance this is valid and Apple has set a new precendent for OS X development, then I would know well that Apple officially cares less about OS X and much more about iOS (as evident by the dozens of iOS updates for all iOS devices to date).
This post made me laugh. As a developer who is actively testing and reporting bugs I can tell you that without a doubt this is 100% false. My dozen of bug reports combined with a lot of different discussions happening in the developer forums is a pretty clear indicator they have a while to go.
Side note: Really? Techcrunch?
On point.
If the remote chance this is valid and Apple has set a new precendent for OS X development, then I would know well that Apple officially cares less about OS X and much more about iOS (as evident by the dozens of iOS updates for all iOS devices to date).
This post made me laugh. As a developer who is actively testing and reporting bugs I can tell you that without a doubt this is 100% false. My dozen of bug reports combined with a lot of different discussions happening in the developer forums is a pretty clear indicator they have a while to go.
Side note: Really? Techcrunch?
On point.
shamino
Jul 14, 05:26 PM
Kind of odd/funny how we seem to be going backwards in processor speeds. Instead of 3.6 GHz Pentiums, we are looking at 2.x GHz Intel Cores. It would be interesting to see how well a single Core processor matches up to PowerPC, or a Pentium, or AMD.
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)
It just means that Intel has finally publicly recognized the validity of the MHz Myth.
Raw clock speed is meaningless. You can get better performance at a slower clock speed if you can increase parallelism. This includes features like superscalar architecture (where multiple instructions are executed per clock), deep pipelining, hyperthreading, SIMD instructions, and multi-core chips.
However, I am finding one of my predicitions finally happen...it appears that a ceiling has been currently met on how fast the current line of processors can go, and now we are relying on multiple cores/processors to distribute work, instead of relying on just one fast chip.
That's a part of the equation, but not all of it.
Higher clock speeds are possible, but it's not worth the effort. Pumping up the clock speed creates serious problems in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation. Leaving the clock speed lower, but increasing parallelism will also boost performance, and keeps the power curve down at manageable levels.
It's worth noting that Intel has shipped P4-series chips at 3.4GHz. But the new chips (Woodcrest and Conroe) aren't being sold at speeds above 3GHz.
So when will we start seeing 8 chips in a computer? Perhaps this will become the new measurement...not processor speeds, but the number of processors (or cores).
Pay attention. The answer is "sooner than you think".
There have already been technology briefings from Intel that talk about 4-core chips in early and 32-core chips by 2010. Similar offerings are expected from AMD.
And the Xeon-MP series processors (which will, of course, eventually get all this tech) are designed with 8-way SMP in mind. A theoretical Xeon-MP based on this 32-core tech would produce a system with 256 cores. Of course, it is doubtful that anything other than a large server would be able to take proper advantage of this, so I wouldn't ever expect to find one on a desktop.
(FWIW, Intel is looking to Sun as a rival here. Sun's latest chip - the UltraSPARC T1 (http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/) - currently ships in an 8-core configuration, with each core capable of running four threads at a time, and only consuming 72W of power. Even at 1.2GHz - the top speed they're currently shipping at - this makes for a very nice server.)