Abyssgh0st
Nov 27, 07:09 PM
*CLIP*
Can't wait for it to get here!!!
Any reason why you didn't go with this case (Aside from the fact that it isn't shipping for another 2.5 weeks)?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/want-a-slide-out-keyboard-for-your-iphone-4-youre-in-luck/10462
Can't wait for it to get here!!!
Any reason why you didn't go with this case (Aside from the fact that it isn't shipping for another 2.5 weeks)?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/want-a-slide-out-keyboard-for-your-iphone-4-youre-in-luck/10462
Peace
Aug 6, 10:17 PM
I just want to give a BIG..Hip Hip Hoorah!! to Arn for his hard work in giving us the very best Apple community website on the internet!!
Keep it up Bro!!
Keep it up Bro!!
MacVixen
Apr 11, 10:46 AM
Learned to drive using a manual transmission and for about 15 years afterwards all of my cars were manuals. Been driving automatics for the past several years - it's fine, but I do miss the "fun" of driving a manual and would love to have one again. As some have noted, it's getting more difficult to find manual transmissions in the US, especially with the suburban "mom" cars I drive these days :D
I recall going over with a friend to the UK and renting a car to drive from London to Edinburgh to Wales and back to London again. It was a manual transmission and at first I was :eek: at the idea of driving a stick with my left hand, but it actually worked out quite fine.
I recall going over with a friend to the UK and renting a car to drive from London to Edinburgh to Wales and back to London again. It was a manual transmission and at first I was :eek: at the idea of driving a stick with my left hand, but it actually worked out quite fine.
KevanDual2.5
Sep 6, 08:56 AM
Maybe i am alone on this one....
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac. We all watched as the outstanding G4 iMac grew from a 15" to a 17" and finally to 20". While the stunning design remained the same, the 20" just didn't look as good as the 2 previous models. The proportions were wrong and it looked top-heavy.
I am sitting in front of an original 23" Apple Display (plastic rather than aluminium). The new iMac cannot be much smaller than it. I firmly believe that the 24" will be, and should be, as big as it gets. I just hope that heat doesn't become a problem with the Core 2 Duo chips else the G5 iMac may have to evolve into a new enclosure.
Anyone else have thoughts similar?
I think the 24" iMac G5 is the beginning of the end of the G5 iMac. We all watched as the outstanding G4 iMac grew from a 15" to a 17" and finally to 20". While the stunning design remained the same, the 20" just didn't look as good as the 2 previous models. The proportions were wrong and it looked top-heavy.
I am sitting in front of an original 23" Apple Display (plastic rather than aluminium). The new iMac cannot be much smaller than it. I firmly believe that the 24" will be, and should be, as big as it gets. I just hope that heat doesn't become a problem with the Core 2 Duo chips else the G5 iMac may have to evolve into a new enclosure.
Anyone else have thoughts similar?
Frobozz
Mar 25, 09:40 AM
Nop... consider.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
I have an 850 watt PSU in my gaming rig with a 4870x2 and custom coolers all around on the CPU, GPU, and case. I think your calculations are pretty close to correct if you wanted to run everything in the case at once. But that's not typical to run everything at max all at once. I suppose Apple might not want to get in the business of telling people it's okay to buy this honking huge GPU as long as you're not running a lot of extra hard drives and extra PCI-E cards.
But, for people looking to simply drop in a fast GPU and not have a lot of extra bells and whistles (read: a gaming rig), they would be fine with 850 watts or so, even with a 6970. Or at least damn close.
The tricky part with GPU's is that the high end units commonly exceed rated specifications at max load, so these calculations are tricky. And your point about running too close to your max is also a good one. It's fair to say that when you add up all your max dissipation, add 20% or so, and that's the wattage your PSU needs.
2x CPUs 130W rated. So thats 260W, right there. However, no CPU consumes the rated, so it's give or take ~260W.
Each 5770 is ~108W, given two, that's ~216 W. Right off the bat we have ~476 W being consumed. Not bad; however let's look at the side where its not a dual 5770 setup.
The PSU on the Mac Pro is rated for 980 W of power, but for simplicity sake let's say 1 kW. Now, factor in the Super drive, Ethernet, Airport, at least 1 HDD and peripheral docks/cards you are looking at ~100 W. Take into account a 20 W per 1GB of memory (assume 6GB) and you've got ~120 W more. So far ~ 220 W more.
Now we have ~480 W [~260W + ~220W]consumption leaving only ~520 W left for a GPU. Currently, the HD 6970 requires 2x 8-pin connectors to provide 150 W per pin. That's 300W right off. So we are left with ~220 W in the system. Now, factor in that PCIe slot power draw at 75 W and we've got a ~145 W left over. ~145 W is cutting it too close and something will yield (yes I do realize 145 W is a lot more, but read on). Now, the sad part, we were assuming 1kW PSU which is not the case; it's 980 W meaning there will be less power, ~125 W. Now, also take into consideration no PSU is 100% efficient, hence there will be greater power outlet draw and the PSU will be operating at high voltage/amps and its life span will decrease dramatically over very high usage.
In other words the current PSU may come up short. Add to that the fact that all current shipping and past model Mac Pros don't have extra dual 8-pin connectors. They have dual 6-pins. There is an adapter to make a 6-pin into an 8-pin, but it is risky at best, big no-no.
So as you can see an HD 6970 would be barely supported on current models. Future models? Perhaps yes assuming Apple bumps to 1.1kW or 1.2kW PSU.
Take into account this was calculated assuming 6GB of memory and 1 HDD, anymore RAM (20 W/1GB) or HDDs (10W/disc) and the consumption will go up. Also, assuming nothing is hooked up to peripheral ports; like a small external drive that draws 5-10 W.
I have an 850 watt PSU in my gaming rig with a 4870x2 and custom coolers all around on the CPU, GPU, and case. I think your calculations are pretty close to correct if you wanted to run everything in the case at once. But that's not typical to run everything at max all at once. I suppose Apple might not want to get in the business of telling people it's okay to buy this honking huge GPU as long as you're not running a lot of extra hard drives and extra PCI-E cards.
But, for people looking to simply drop in a fast GPU and not have a lot of extra bells and whistles (read: a gaming rig), they would be fine with 850 watts or so, even with a 6970. Or at least damn close.
The tricky part with GPU's is that the high end units commonly exceed rated specifications at max load, so these calculations are tricky. And your point about running too close to your max is also a good one. It's fair to say that when you add up all your max dissipation, add 20% or so, and that's the wattage your PSU needs.
Multimedia
Sep 1, 01:41 PM
wouldn't swapping a conroe chip in be an option? just go to Fry's and buy the chip then.No.
wordoflife
Feb 27, 08:34 PM
Changed it up a bit.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5054/5483768370_423466b4b2_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5483175217_83c32f59b9_b.jpg
Looks like you do a fair bit of typing on that thing!
My old one started looking like that but then Apple replaced it with a new one. I bought a keyboard cover. Not because I hate shiny keys, but because hair and stuff was falling in the keys.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5054/5483768370_423466b4b2_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5483175217_83c32f59b9_b.jpg
Looks like you do a fair bit of typing on that thing!
My old one started looking like that but then Apple replaced it with a new one. I bought a keyboard cover. Not because I hate shiny keys, but because hair and stuff was falling in the keys.
Tmelon
Apr 1, 04:21 PM
So I guess we won’t see any new features… Apple is busy polishing what we’ve got now…:/
Basically. Now they just need to polish what they gave us. It's honestly a lot though. I wouldn't feel ripped off for them charging money for it.
Almost all of the Applications have been enhanced, autosave, Launchpad, Mission Control, Versions, resume, Multitouch gestures, full screen apps and the Mac App Store.
Basically. Now they just need to polish what they gave us. It's honestly a lot though. I wouldn't feel ripped off for them charging money for it.
Almost all of the Applications have been enhanced, autosave, Launchpad, Mission Control, Versions, resume, Multitouch gestures, full screen apps and the Mac App Store.
poguemahone
Jan 12, 07:45 AM
Hi
As much as I want to see a Apple home server coupled with a few Terra to hold our ever increasing amounts of crap and Apple TV to boot...I don't think I will see it...
but is this maybe the AIR angle
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/19/ipod-or-iphone-media-remote-control/
Pog Out
As much as I want to see a Apple home server coupled with a few Terra to hold our ever increasing amounts of crap and Apple TV to boot...I don't think I will see it...
but is this maybe the AIR angle
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/19/ipod-or-iphone-media-remote-control/
Pog Out
fixyourthinking
Nov 28, 10:42 AM
My local Office Depot has sold 1 (one) (a white one) since it launched. They have 8 in stock.
I predict it will be one of the biggest flops in consumer history but will be sugarcoated for many more months to come.
I also predict that Apple will beat the iPod holiday sales estimates by greater than 10%.
MSNBC or the Today show will certainly try to do other "puff pieces" to hype it (the Zune) up.
I predict it will be one of the biggest flops in consumer history but will be sugarcoated for many more months to come.
I also predict that Apple will beat the iPod holiday sales estimates by greater than 10%.
MSNBC or the Today show will certainly try to do other "puff pieces" to hype it (the Zune) up.
torn
Oct 2, 10:41 AM
I also bought mine from ebay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160479649119
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160479649119
leandroc76
Nov 28, 09:54 AM
Here comes the Antitrust lawsuit from Micrsoft!:o
MacSA
Oct 24, 04:01 AM
No the E207WFP 20 is 1650x1050.
I advocate the 2007FP 20 1600x1200 for only $359.20 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4687). That extra 150 verticle pixels is very helpful.
Dell really are fleecing their none US customers:
20" 2007FP: �311
24" 2407WFP: �566
20" 2007WFP: �401
30" 3007WFP: �1,365
People here are always raving about Dells low prices here, but I really dont think they're that cheap at all (in the UK) - unless you buy something with very old hardware that is.
I advocate the 2007FP 20 1600x1200 for only $359.20 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4687). That extra 150 verticle pixels is very helpful.
Dell really are fleecing their none US customers:
20" 2007FP: �311
24" 2407WFP: �566
20" 2007WFP: �401
30" 3007WFP: �1,365
People here are always raving about Dells low prices here, but I really dont think they're that cheap at all (in the UK) - unless you buy something with very old hardware that is.
.svg.hi.png "praying angel tattoo.")
Travis Bickle
Mar 24, 01:34 PM
Probably a daft question but i'll ask anyhows so forgive my techie noobness!
With the advent of thunderbolt and its high bandwidth, will it possible for a gfx card to be sited externally in some kind of cradle and be used as the main gfx card or wouldn't the internal "plumbing" allow it to happen ?
/noob mode off
;)
With the advent of thunderbolt and its high bandwidth, will it possible for a gfx card to be sited externally in some kind of cradle and be used as the main gfx card or wouldn't the internal "plumbing" allow it to happen ?
/noob mode off
;)
cityathrt
Sep 11, 11:02 PM
Gelaskins has just posted their iPt4 cases, unfortunately, they're not covering the bottom dock area and the top buttons area. :( Invisible shield here I come..
ozreth
Nov 25, 12:31 AM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41C0o2GAJGL._SS500_.jpg
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
No clue but could you please tell me where to purchase it? Its exactly what Im looking for!
Props if anyone knows who used that bag.
No clue but could you please tell me where to purchase it? Its exactly what Im looking for!
iGav
Mar 7, 03:05 PM
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.
I think that's probably accurate, general apathy on all sides really isn't it.
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.
Indeed, I think you've also inadvertently described the perfect engineering challenge that todays manufacturers really should be embracing, but instead seem so reticent to take up. The most remarkable thing about the original Mini, wasn't its size, it wasn't its cost� it was the whole. And in that respect alone, I cannot think of one car today that is really in anyway comparable whatsoever.
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.
It's entirely possible to turn a brand around of course, as VW demonstrated with �koda, it's only 15 years ago that �koda was still the punchline to almost every joke.
The problem is Chevrolet is in a somewhat unique position in many respects here, it's a known brand, but by name only, usually as the carrier of good ol' boys... to a levy of course, when I think of a Chevy it's either something bright pink, with chrome� lots of chrome, or a pickup truck, not the rebadging of dreadful Daewoo cars. I suspect I'm not alone on that one.
And therein lies the problem. That and the Spark of course.
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.
The Cruze is entirely inoffensive, and does the job entirely adequately by all accounts, as it should, after all it does have 4 wheels and an engine. Autocar likened it to the old Mk2 Seat Toledo saloon, and that's probably an apt comparison. Vanilla. Much like the rest of Vauxhall/Opel/Holden/Buick ranges etc actually. And that is a big problem for GM. A very big problem. One that almost sank the ship in the first place in fact. The captain might be different, but there's still no one at the helm.
the Daewoo -> Chevrolet re-branding in europe has been more or less the best business move GM has made perhaps in the last decade
Doesn't say much really does it. ;)
I think you highlight the real issue in the rest of your post. But it doesn't just affect Opel. And that is perhaps GM's biggest problem of all.
which is in a contrast to the japanese/korean brands which in europe over the last few years streamlined a lot: nearly all brands stopped offering premium sedans or upper market offerings and rather concentrated on SUVs/ crossovers and small offroaders and small minivans, compacts or small hatchbacks
It's not really streamlining when you have something like 6 suv/off-roaders in your range a'la Nissan is it? ;)
GM is doing reasonably well in Asia, and they have placed much of their small-car design duties into the capable hands of the Koreans - a wise move in my opinion.
Not if the Spark is anything to go by. Fortunately as the i10 proves, being Korean isn't the problem. ;)
I think blame can be put on both sides.
Yeah, but mainly GM for getting themselves into such a god almighty mess in the first place. ;)
The Buick Regal is the Opel Insignia( I love the US media. Before the Regal came out in the US, they went over to Europe and drove it and they loved it. Then they drive it on US shores, and all of a sudden they start panning it? ).
That'll be the marshmallows they use to replace the springs to make it a little softer for the yanks. :D
it wasn't a bad car.
It wasn't. You really don't want to think what today's hatches would be like if that car never existed. It really was that good. And its impact really was that great.
In typical bad Ford fashion
In typical Ford U.S. fashion you mean, fortunately, the profit making arm of Ford, i.e. the european division, produced the even better Mk2. ;)
I think that's probably accurate, general apathy on all sides really isn't it.
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.
Indeed, I think you've also inadvertently described the perfect engineering challenge that todays manufacturers really should be embracing, but instead seem so reticent to take up. The most remarkable thing about the original Mini, wasn't its size, it wasn't its cost� it was the whole. And in that respect alone, I cannot think of one car today that is really in anyway comparable whatsoever.
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.
It's entirely possible to turn a brand around of course, as VW demonstrated with �koda, it's only 15 years ago that �koda was still the punchline to almost every joke.
The problem is Chevrolet is in a somewhat unique position in many respects here, it's a known brand, but by name only, usually as the carrier of good ol' boys... to a levy of course, when I think of a Chevy it's either something bright pink, with chrome� lots of chrome, or a pickup truck, not the rebadging of dreadful Daewoo cars. I suspect I'm not alone on that one.
And therein lies the problem. That and the Spark of course.
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.
The Cruze is entirely inoffensive, and does the job entirely adequately by all accounts, as it should, after all it does have 4 wheels and an engine. Autocar likened it to the old Mk2 Seat Toledo saloon, and that's probably an apt comparison. Vanilla. Much like the rest of Vauxhall/Opel/Holden/Buick ranges etc actually. And that is a big problem for GM. A very big problem. One that almost sank the ship in the first place in fact. The captain might be different, but there's still no one at the helm.
the Daewoo -> Chevrolet re-branding in europe has been more or less the best business move GM has made perhaps in the last decade
Doesn't say much really does it. ;)
I think you highlight the real issue in the rest of your post. But it doesn't just affect Opel. And that is perhaps GM's biggest problem of all.
which is in a contrast to the japanese/korean brands which in europe over the last few years streamlined a lot: nearly all brands stopped offering premium sedans or upper market offerings and rather concentrated on SUVs/ crossovers and small offroaders and small minivans, compacts or small hatchbacks
It's not really streamlining when you have something like 6 suv/off-roaders in your range a'la Nissan is it? ;)
GM is doing reasonably well in Asia, and they have placed much of their small-car design duties into the capable hands of the Koreans - a wise move in my opinion.
Not if the Spark is anything to go by. Fortunately as the i10 proves, being Korean isn't the problem. ;)
I think blame can be put on both sides.
Yeah, but mainly GM for getting themselves into such a god almighty mess in the first place. ;)
The Buick Regal is the Opel Insignia( I love the US media. Before the Regal came out in the US, they went over to Europe and drove it and they loved it. Then they drive it on US shores, and all of a sudden they start panning it? ).
That'll be the marshmallows they use to replace the springs to make it a little softer for the yanks. :D
it wasn't a bad car.
It wasn't. You really don't want to think what today's hatches would be like if that car never existed. It really was that good. And its impact really was that great.
In typical bad Ford fashion
In typical Ford U.S. fashion you mean, fortunately, the profit making arm of Ford, i.e. the european division, produced the even better Mk2. ;)
Mr. Chewbacca
Mar 22, 10:12 PM
Our Founding Fathers believed in God, proof alone is the pledge of allegiance "under god". Yes our country was founded on christian belief. Hate to say it, but it's true!
As for the invisible man in the sky I have no clue to what you are referring.
I see a lot of other people called this out but did you know that McCarthyism also gave us things like “in god we trust” on the money, some coins had it earlier but it was not mandatory,the prayer breakfast, the insane tax exemptions given to the church.
I suggest you look into the era, it was a sad time of witch hunts and bully tactics. The perfect petri dish for religion.
*** Looks like the app was removed. I cant find it.
Not sure how I feel about that, as a ultra liberal gay friendly atheist tree hugger I depend on minority opinions being protected. I may find them sick but I'm sure people that worship invisible superheros don't like what I have to say either. We both have a right, even a duty, to stand up for what we believe in.
As for the invisible man in the sky I have no clue to what you are referring.
I see a lot of other people called this out but did you know that McCarthyism also gave us things like “in god we trust” on the money, some coins had it earlier but it was not mandatory,the prayer breakfast, the insane tax exemptions given to the church.
I suggest you look into the era, it was a sad time of witch hunts and bully tactics. The perfect petri dish for religion.
*** Looks like the app was removed. I cant find it.
Not sure how I feel about that, as a ultra liberal gay friendly atheist tree hugger I depend on minority opinions being protected. I may find them sick but I'm sure people that worship invisible superheros don't like what I have to say either. We both have a right, even a duty, to stand up for what we believe in.
itsmeGAV
Jan 7, 10:07 AM
I was spending a hell of a lot of money a week on petrol, so it's possibly the best move I've ever made in all honesty! I will eventually buy a Mk4 R32 for show purposes only!
Denarius
Mar 22, 03:50 PM
HAHA, if I lived in Europe I wouldn't want to leave that place, not to say that's where you are, but Europe is great. Not everyone is true, but a big understatement thus the millions of illegal immigrants and people constantly being killed trying to get here. Ahem, Mexico for one.
Oh I don't know, Britain attracts illegal immigrants like a turd attracts flies. The French get very annoyed about the number hanging around near the tunnel trying to sneak over.
Oh I don't know, Britain attracts illegal immigrants like a turd attracts flies. The French get very annoyed about the number hanging around near the tunnel trying to sneak over.
Squire
Jul 18, 02:55 AM
Didn't read the article yet, but why on earth would Apple announce an iTunes/Movie rental service at the WWDC? With Leopard and the probability of new hardware announcements, it looks like Jobs is already going to be plenty busy giving that slide clicker of his a workout. So unless there is some sort of special tie-in with yet to be disclosed Leopard whiz bang technologies and the Video service, why WWDC?
It also strikes me that the WWDC isn't really the venue for this sort of announcement. It always gets a lot of media attention, but mostly the kind of attention that appeals mostly to nerds and not the general public per se - the target audience for Apple's video what-have-you wares. One of those hasitly assembled Apple "special events" or Macworld seem more logical for this sort of thing.
I see your point, but if the timing is right, why not?
As others have noted, a rental service for movies is not such a bad idea. For the few movies you'd watch multiple times, buying the DVD-- with all the extras-- is a better option. I can't get too excited about it, though, because it will obviously be a US-only service.
-Squire
It also strikes me that the WWDC isn't really the venue for this sort of announcement. It always gets a lot of media attention, but mostly the kind of attention that appeals mostly to nerds and not the general public per se - the target audience for Apple's video what-have-you wares. One of those hasitly assembled Apple "special events" or Macworld seem more logical for this sort of thing.
I see your point, but if the timing is right, why not?
As others have noted, a rental service for movies is not such a bad idea. For the few movies you'd watch multiple times, buying the DVD-- with all the extras-- is a better option. I can't get too excited about it, though, because it will obviously be a US-only service.
-Squire
Piggie
Mar 26, 09:10 AM
Whilst tablet gaming will never overtake console gaming, unless a TV dock and controller is introduced, its always fun to see a portable device that is capable of outputting games at 1920x1080, where the xbox 360 and ps3 (retail games only) can not.
They seriously think the 360 can last another 5 years? Considering this is only the iPad's 2nd release, I wouldn't bet on it.
Ok, here are some numbers:
The very best, most positive numbers I could find about the iPad2 are:
Apple iPad 2 A5 carries a PowerVR SGX graphics chip 543MP2, also Dual Core, displaying 70 million polygons and two billion pixels per second, always at a frequency 200 MHz or raw power four times greater than that of the first iPad.
Here are the numbers from consoles you will recognise:
Xbox360 Maximum polygon count: 500 million triangles per second
PS3 Maximum polygon count: 333.3 million polygons per second (1 billion vertices per second / 3 vertices per tirangle)NOT OFFICAL BY SONY
Xbox Maximum polygon count: 100 million polygons per sec
Wii Maximum polygon count: No Info I think between 60/75 million polygons per sec
PS2 Maximum polygon count : 66 million polygons per sec
Gamecube Maximum polygon count : 12 million per sec
They seriously think the 360 can last another 5 years? Considering this is only the iPad's 2nd release, I wouldn't bet on it.
Ok, here are some numbers:
The very best, most positive numbers I could find about the iPad2 are:
Apple iPad 2 A5 carries a PowerVR SGX graphics chip 543MP2, also Dual Core, displaying 70 million polygons and two billion pixels per second, always at a frequency 200 MHz or raw power four times greater than that of the first iPad.
Here are the numbers from consoles you will recognise:
Xbox360 Maximum polygon count: 500 million triangles per second
PS3 Maximum polygon count: 333.3 million polygons per second (1 billion vertices per second / 3 vertices per tirangle)NOT OFFICAL BY SONY
Xbox Maximum polygon count: 100 million polygons per sec
Wii Maximum polygon count: No Info I think between 60/75 million polygons per sec
PS2 Maximum polygon count : 66 million polygons per sec
Gamecube Maximum polygon count : 12 million per sec
Piggie
Mar 24, 01:10 PM
Looks and sounds great from those numbers.
Is Apple going to finally address their one major weak spot in their desktop machines?
I just hope this is a honest list, and they cards will be the exact same performance as the PC cards of the same model numbers.
They are not going to be Mobile versions, or Underclocked versions, but the true and honest cards they are supposed to be.
Is Apple going to finally address their one major weak spot in their desktop machines?
I just hope this is a honest list, and they cards will be the exact same performance as the PC cards of the same model numbers.
They are not going to be Mobile versions, or Underclocked versions, but the true and honest cards they are supposed to be.
BlizzardBomb
Sep 1, 12:41 PM
My Guess:
iMac 17" - 1299
1.83 GHz
512MB RAM
160 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 - 128
iMac 20" - 1699
2.0 GHz upgradable to 2.16
512MB RAM
250 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 128 upgradable to 256 (As is already)
iMac 23": 1900 x 1200 - 1999
2.16 GHz upgradable to 2.33
1 GB Standard
250 SATA upgradable to 500 (as 17" and 20" is)
8x DL
ATI x1600 256
FW 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say upgradable on 17" and 20" hard drives because we already know that.
In a dream world I'd say the 23" vCard would go to the x1800 or something
Hmm... the problem with that line-up is that when consumers see the shiny new advert saying "Meet the new iMacs" they'll look at the clock speeds and say "What new iMacs?". I think it would be reasonable for Apple to offer...
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,599 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,099 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
iMac 17" - 1299
1.83 GHz
512MB RAM
160 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 - 128
iMac 20" - 1699
2.0 GHz upgradable to 2.16
512MB RAM
250 SATA
8x DL
ATI x1600 128 upgradable to 256 (As is already)
iMac 23": 1900 x 1200 - 1999
2.16 GHz upgradable to 2.33
1 GB Standard
250 SATA upgradable to 500 (as 17" and 20" is)
8x DL
ATI x1600 256
FW 800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say upgradable on 17" and 20" hard drives because we already know that.
In a dream world I'd say the 23" vCard would go to the x1800 or something
Hmm... the problem with that line-up is that when consumers see the shiny new advert saying "Meet the new iMacs" they'll look at the clock speeds and say "What new iMacs?". I think it would be reasonable for Apple to offer...
17" iMac - $1,199 - 2 GHz, X1650 Pro 128 MB
20" iMac - $1,599 - 2.16 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
23" iMac - $2,099 - 2.33 GHz, X1650 Pro 256 MB
