SevenInchScrew
Dec 7, 11:08 AM
Does GT5 support using the clutch pedal in a wheel such as the G25? I was disappointed with GT5:P that you can't use it...
:confused:
But, you COULD use the clutch in GT5:P. When the race starts, hit Triangle and the clutch works. You had to do this every race, so it wasn't the most elegant of solutions, but it did work.
:confused:
But, you COULD use the clutch in GT5:P. When the race starts, hit Triangle and the clutch works. You had to do this every race, so it wasn't the most elegant of solutions, but it did work.
Gelfin
Mar 4, 04:37 PM
She rephrased what he had said which implied similar meaning
If you are suggesting she edited her post, the version quoted in your reply matches what she posted, and neither one of them seem to imply any such thing. I didn't ask you to restate the claim. I asked you to explain it.
If you are suggesting she edited her post, the version quoted in your reply matches what she posted, and neither one of them seem to imply any such thing. I didn't ask you to restate the claim. I asked you to explain it.
orthorim
Apr 9, 01:24 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.
TDP != Max power draw
The quad uses less than double the power of the older dual core when fully loaded - that makes perfect sense. It's getting more than double done when fully loaded too, so it's 4 cores -and- improvements in power usage and efficiency. That's exactly what I'd expect from the next generation product.
Under normal use he 2011 mbp gets better battery life too. Hmm.... Maybe I'll get one after all, looks very compelling. Even if Illl have to hack the opti bay.
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.
TDP != Max power draw
The quad uses less than double the power of the older dual core when fully loaded - that makes perfect sense. It's getting more than double done when fully loaded too, so it's 4 cores -and- improvements in power usage and efficiency. That's exactly what I'd expect from the next generation product.
Under normal use he 2011 mbp gets better battery life too. Hmm.... Maybe I'll get one after all, looks very compelling. Even if Illl have to hack the opti bay.
lyzardking
Apr 7, 04:13 PM
I run Handbrake and Photoshop among other things when I need to (in a pinch (and zoom)).
Not on an iPad... (which was my point)
:)
Not on an iPad... (which was my point)
:)
skunk
Apr 28, 04:52 PM
that would disqualify a lot of past presidents, and disqualify Donald Trump.Surely the comb-over is enough?
GekkePrutser
Apr 6, 11:13 AM
IMHO i would love to see an 11.6 MBA with an i3. So that there could still be enough power for backlit.
And please, do make the screen better for the 11.6
There isn't an i3 in any low voltage or ultra low voltage spec for Sandy Bridge.
And please, do make the screen better for the 11.6
There isn't an i3 in any low voltage or ultra low voltage spec for Sandy Bridge.
Soba
Jul 28, 01:02 PM
you can't make a statement like that. that's like saying "i hate general electric air conditioners." what the heck? all CPU's (and air conditioners) do the same thing.
I'm not sure if this was intended as some kind of throwaway comment or not, but this is not even remotely true.
The original poster said he hated the P4, and honestly, the P4 was a lousy chip design from day 1. The original Pentium 4 chips released about 5 1/2 years ago were outperformed in some instances by an original Pentium chip running at 166MHz. The Pentium 4 was an awful architecture in many respects that simply could not be cleaned up enough to be viable; that would be why Intel abandoned it and based its current designs on the Pentium Pro's core (which was really a very decent server chip in the nineties).
When Apple announced last year they were going with Intel, a lot of people agreed it was a good choice based on the current state of the PowerPC architecture and based on Intel's planned chip designs. Personally, I was a bit unsure at the time, but was optimistic about the switch and figured we could scarcely do much worse than sticking with the G5, which was languishing. Turning back the clock a bit, if instead of releasing the G5, Apple had announced a switch to Intel in I would have thought they were crazy. Intel's chips were awful at that time and there wasn't much of a light at the end of the tunnel, either.
CPUs can be very, very different even if the overall system architecture is similar. And I side with the original poster. The P4 was a dog, and thankfully it is about to be buried forever.
I'm not sure if this was intended as some kind of throwaway comment or not, but this is not even remotely true.
The original poster said he hated the P4, and honestly, the P4 was a lousy chip design from day 1. The original Pentium 4 chips released about 5 1/2 years ago were outperformed in some instances by an original Pentium chip running at 166MHz. The Pentium 4 was an awful architecture in many respects that simply could not be cleaned up enough to be viable; that would be why Intel abandoned it and based its current designs on the Pentium Pro's core (which was really a very decent server chip in the nineties).
When Apple announced last year they were going with Intel, a lot of people agreed it was a good choice based on the current state of the PowerPC architecture and based on Intel's planned chip designs. Personally, I was a bit unsure at the time, but was optimistic about the switch and figured we could scarcely do much worse than sticking with the G5, which was languishing. Turning back the clock a bit, if instead of releasing the G5, Apple had announced a switch to Intel in I would have thought they were crazy. Intel's chips were awful at that time and there wasn't much of a light at the end of the tunnel, either.
CPUs can be very, very different even if the overall system architecture is similar. And I side with the original poster. The P4 was a dog, and thankfully it is about to be buried forever.
applefan289
Apr 6, 01:36 PM
:apple:
That's all I have to say.
That's all I have to say.
braddouglass
Apr 6, 12:56 PM
A hard drive uses less than 2 Watts while reading or writing. Flash uses the same or more when it is used; it only has an advantage when it is not used, where the hard disk drive has to spend energy to keep the drive spinning (less than 1 Watt).
So I suppose that standby temp would be low. and that operation temp would be about the same as any other lap top. Sounds good to me haha.
All I want is a faster processor and a backlit keyboard and I'll be happy with it.
Already with Flash HD and 4GB ram it should be wicked fast, but I'd like an i5 at least...
So I suppose that standby temp would be low. and that operation temp would be about the same as any other lap top. Sounds good to me haha.
All I want is a faster processor and a backlit keyboard and I'll be happy with it.
Already with Flash HD and 4GB ram it should be wicked fast, but I'd like an i5 at least...
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 7, 09:54 AM
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
TripHop
Jun 9, 08:53 PM
Okay.. well I guess I wont be taking my chances at RadioShack. If they let me preorder, would I be good to go on launch day? Or could i still encounter problemsLooks like it will be no problem to lock in an iP4 for launch morning as long as we pre-order next Tuesday morning. It's sort of like 2 launch days - pre order next Tuesday the 15th for a $50 advance (in the form of a gift card) and receive the 24th. The Shack is much handier than any other launch store for me. :)
gibbz
Apr 27, 08:20 AM
Wow. That's surprising. This whole time people downplayed it because there was no evidence that apple was actually transmitting this data. It wasn't a big deal because the db file was local only. Now when Apple addresses it they had to not only admit that the file exists but that they actually were transmitting data.
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
It is not surprising (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf) (pdf).
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
It is not surprising (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf) (pdf).
portishead
Apr 12, 02:25 PM
BTW, apparently this site is doing live blogging:
http://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl
That's about all I could find.
http://www.finalcutmtl.org/2011/04/10/supermeet-live-sur-final-cut-mtl
That's about all I could find.
mikewilder23
Jun 21, 03:43 AM
well looking forward for its launching...:)
Multimedia
Aug 19, 08:51 PM
I also find it amusing when I see posters participating in Macpro discussions when they have publicly stated that they have no intention of buying a Macpro. WTF?? Don't they have a life outside of macrumors? If I owned a G5 Quad and had no intention of buying a Macpro, I'd be spending all of my spare time doing cool stuff with my machine... instead of wasting that time participating in discussions that have nothing to do with me. I might read though some of the threads now and then, just to keep up with technology - but to particpate and debate, what a waste. I guess some folks have no life.While it is true I have no life, it is not true I have fully decided to skip buying a Mac Pro. These discussions have lead me to a place of indecision about it rather than what I previously thought, which was to skip it. I never intended to talk anyone out of buying one if they want one. And I never intended to talk bad dirt against it. My apologies to anyone who thought I did. :(
My hearty congratulations to all who have taken the Mac Pro plunge already.
I am also waiting to see what the full scope of Core 2 offerings will be as I want a 17" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro more first.
As far as the comment that Toast and Handbrake can use all four cores goes, Toast definitely does in the Mac Pro and if you add a significant action to the Quad G5, it will negatively impact the 2-3 core performance of Handbrake as well as Toast. That is what I meant. If it wasn't clear before now, I apologize for the imcomplete explanation of my meaning.
I feel misunderstood by some of you. No harm intended. Not anti-Mac Pro at all. Not trying to ratinoalize Quad G5 as somehow better - no way. Not trying to negatively impact Mac Pro sales. I'm totally Pro Mac Pro. Regret the misunderstanding. Wish I hadn't hurt some people's feelings. :o
My hearty congratulations to all who have taken the Mac Pro plunge already.
I am also waiting to see what the full scope of Core 2 offerings will be as I want a 17" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro more first.
As far as the comment that Toast and Handbrake can use all four cores goes, Toast definitely does in the Mac Pro and if you add a significant action to the Quad G5, it will negatively impact the 2-3 core performance of Handbrake as well as Toast. That is what I meant. If it wasn't clear before now, I apologize for the imcomplete explanation of my meaning.
I feel misunderstood by some of you. No harm intended. Not anti-Mac Pro at all. Not trying to ratinoalize Quad G5 as somehow better - no way. Not trying to negatively impact Mac Pro sales. I'm totally Pro Mac Pro. Regret the misunderstanding. Wish I hadn't hurt some people's feelings. :o
savar
Sep 13, 07:17 AM
I was interested to see that they were unable to max out CPU utilization on all 8 cores in the system. I hope it's due to the software these days not being ready to fully utilize more than one or two cores and not due to OSX's ability to scale to larger core counts. Since that's obviously where we're heading. Does anyone know about the potential for scalability of OSX to large numbers of CPU's/cores? I know some *nix varieties and BSD varieties do this really well, but one wonders if they were thinking this far in the future when they developed OSX. It'll be interesting to see...
Older versions of OS X had severe limitations due to kernel re-entrancy...or lack thereof. There were only two locks for the entire kernel (also known as "funnels")...but Apple has revised the kernel for 10.5 and will be implementing much more granular locks, which should alleviate the re-entrancy problem.
Older versions of OS X had severe limitations due to kernel re-entrancy...or lack thereof. There were only two locks for the entire kernel (also known as "funnels")...but Apple has revised the kernel for 10.5 and will be implementing much more granular locks, which should alleviate the re-entrancy problem.
skunk
Mar 23, 06:41 PM
Well, I suppose it really should have been ad homines — the (proper) plural would I think mitigate the gender.I'll go with that. :)
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind.Indeed, the prospect of half a million or more refugees flooding neighbouring and hard-pressed countries begs the question of how much such events do in fact impact on world security.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind.Indeed, the prospect of half a million or more refugees flooding neighbouring and hard-pressed countries begs the question of how much such events do in fact impact on world security.
kresh
Sep 19, 11:34 AM
The thing is Apple is shooting itself in the foot because it knows that all the Prosumers research enough that they know there is better available. Apple is losing alot of sales by not being prepared. I would think that Apple would get 2nd priority to Dell on shipments so they should have a good stock of C2D.
Where's your proof that Apple is losing a lot of sales by not being prepared?
If everone that ever visited MacRumors got mad and purchased a Dell, that would not be a lot.
Are you just making this up?
Where's your proof that Apple is losing a lot of sales by not being prepared?
If everone that ever visited MacRumors got mad and purchased a Dell, that would not be a lot.
Are you just making this up?
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 03:18 PM
(according to internetworldstats.com estimates 291mil in Europe use the internet... I'd assume cell usage is similiar).
First, what makes you think the cellusage is similar to internet????? Mind blowing step here.
Secondly, Europa has 291 million internet users; North america US&Canada 227 milion; Rest of the world 500 million
Hence europe would be close to 30% of the total market???? What about india??? Japan??? china??? come on you cant say jack *** from this statistics
First, what makes you think the cellusage is similar to internet????? Mind blowing step here.
Secondly, Europa has 291 million internet users; North america US&Canada 227 milion; Rest of the world 500 million
Hence europe would be close to 30% of the total market???? What about india??? Japan??? china??? come on you cant say jack *** from this statistics
Tommyg117
Aug 7, 03:33 PM
anyone else a little underwhelmed with today's WWDC? There isn't anything that really jumped out at me besides the Mac Pro.
Reach9
Apr 11, 02:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Lol, Power of Hardware? Then where is the android Retina Display device?
I Don't Care about dual Core mobile processors. And neither do the 90% Not-Nerd-customers.
Personally, a bigger screen > Retina Display.
Lol, Power of Hardware? Then where is the android Retina Display device?
I Don't Care about dual Core mobile processors. And neither do the 90% Not-Nerd-customers.
Personally, a bigger screen > Retina Display.
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.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
realitymonkey
Apr 6, 07:40 AM
We don�t even have to go to HDCAM SR for delivery anymore. On our latest project we just brought a hard drive with the masters (in ProRes) and did a transfer right at the broadcast facility. That was nice.
I do see your point on the blu-ray file size though.
But when the promo department at the same broadcaster wanted to look at the programs to plan the promotion of the series it would be nice to drop them a blu-ray, knowing they would be able to watch it on any player.
EDIT: I do have to say it�s not often I miss the need for blu-ray, but it certainly do happen
Ah delivery on a drive that would be nice although as we archive to SR I suspect we won't do it for a while.
Promo departments will only every get a DVD with time code across it from me as all to often I have seen them do something we have said they can't with the footage, I like to control exactly what they get to do with it.
I do see your point on the blu-ray file size though.
But when the promo department at the same broadcaster wanted to look at the programs to plan the promotion of the series it would be nice to drop them a blu-ray, knowing they would be able to watch it on any player.
EDIT: I do have to say it�s not often I miss the need for blu-ray, but it certainly do happen
Ah delivery on a drive that would be nice although as we archive to SR I suspect we won't do it for a while.
Promo departments will only every get a DVD with time code across it from me as all to often I have seen them do something we have said they can't with the footage, I like to control exactly what they get to do with it.
