Microsoft future in in Linux! I think they can do a version in Unix too, I think that what Apple OSes are from Next Computer. Apple would make easy to do if Microsoft wanted to do it. They could share all their Mac and iOS drivers which would cut the time in half since it been tested already. Apple could also be a part of testing the Silicon Windows too. Apple has very good quality operating system testing staff.
Ugh, it is to late for Microsoft! Apple started doing their own silicon with a purchased of a silcon design company in 2007. Even AMD, Nvidia and Intel are to far behind Apple and Apple will just accelerate their silicon chip power. This is Apple opening M1. Apple is already tested their M4. They still have M2-M3 to be release into the marketplace, fully done.
In all honesty, those chips might as well not exist. Their 56 core CPU is about as tangible as mist, and even their HTPC 18 cores 10980XE, which is little more than a repackaged 9980XE, which already was essentially a better binned 7980XE, has never been particularly available. Something that the most cynical folks may say makes sense considering it performs worse than a Ryzen 3950X and isn't worth the wafer allocation; especially as it was released at a time where Intel struggled to cope with 14nm demand. Even their 10900K 10 core CPU is hard enough to find, and seemingly to bin for, that Intel themselves released a 10850K instead with slightly lower clock speeds.
All that while being slower in all accounts than AMD and being more expensive, when it's not made of unobtainium. For the price of both kidneys and a liver, you could also buy the Xeon Platinum 9282, Intel's 56 core CPU they don't bother giving any pricing for; for a frame of reference, the Xeon Platinum 8280 was announced at $10,000. Realistically the company that can really consistently deliver extremely high core count CPUs that have any kind of relevance performance wise is AMD. Until that changes, I'd disagree with the notion that adding more cores to a CPU is "fairly easy".
It clearly isn't. Otherwise they wouldn't go down in core count on their relatively lower end consumer chips on their 11th gen. Otherwise, the Mac Pro wouldn't be as out of place performance wise compared to AMD at such a price. Otherwise, Apple wouldn't make their own silicon due to Intel's lack of progress. Otherwise, Intel wouldn't make the 10850K as a stop-gap to the 10900K. Otherwise, their 18 cores 10980XE would be more readily available, even if it gets embarrassed by the 16 cores 3950X (nevermind the newer 5950X). Otherwise, their 8280, 28 cores CPU wouldn't be at $10,000 when AMD's 64 cores 3990X retailed for $3,990; all that with their 9290 chip with 56 cores at an "undisclosed" price. I consider that very different to say that Intel makes them and that Apple has a tray of them, and saying that it's easy for Intel to do. It doesn't look like it to me.
Those aren't just qualifiers: they're the reality of the current CPU market, that information is publicly available. "Fairly easy" for me means "readily available at prices not too far removed from the competition". I don't even say "cheap": just available at competitive prices. At least that's what I would call "fairly easy".
Their ability to make them is limited regardless. You buy what makes sense for you, that I do not dispute. I simply disagree on that making high core count CPUs is fairly easy, as only AMD does so reliably. Intel has shown the ability to make some, but it's clearly not "fairly easy" for them; nowhere near as easy as it is for AMD. I'd be curious to learn how far ARM can scale in that regard actually.
Their ability to make them is limited regardless. You buy what makes sense for you, that I do not dispute. I simply disagree on that making high core count CPUs is fairly easy, as only AMD does so reliably. Intel has shown the ability to make some, but it's clearly not "fairly easy" for them; nowhere near as easy as it is for AMD. I'd be curious to learn how far ARM can scale in that regard actually.
Did I mention it was a small hill to die on? We probably should move on.
I don't have Intel insider knowledge to assess that; I see what information is available and I draw conclusions from it. Regardless, it's a package deal: a CPU design that can actually be built. Even their latest 2nd gen Xeon Scalable server processors are mostly a refresh with a price cut. As for Apple, they still uses the same foundries as AMD in TSCM, albeit on a different ARM-based architecture and on a different process node. It's a completely whole other topic, one on which I'll keep the same stance as earlier: I'll remain patient, I'll wait and see what happens.
It's not where I'm coming from. What I see on the market is what I talked about: Intel struggles to make have high-core count chips, much less competitive ones or anywhere near the core count of AMD. This was the information I use to say that it's not "fairly easy" for them. This was the tiny, little hill. What reason they have for it is another topic.
Honestly last time I heard of them is when they bought Red Hat. They seem to mostly invest in cloud and AI at the moment, but as far as the CPU space goes, I really haven't heard of them in a long while. I had to look up their latest POWER CPUs: 16 cores with 15 available due to yield issues on Samsung 7nm process. It is the same process node NVidia uses for their latest Ampere GPUs, and fairly ironically NVidia also struggles to cope with demand for those GPUs, not expecting to meet demand until 2021. IBM seems to be focused on providing services to their (fairly captive) user base moreso than making strides in the larger CPU market. Good on them to keep alive the RISC-based processors; honestly their 8 threads per core design looks pretty cool.
i just bought this: https://www.microcenter.com/product/623130/atari-ultimate-dual-arcade-fight-stick-with-trackballHave to ask if anyone has messed with arcade games on PC? I'm talking the vintage stuff from 1981, 1982. I just saw this reviewed:
I'm feeling some pacman fever driving me crazy
Would love to play the above commercial failure
The whole atari experince. I'm Gorf or bust
Is it going to be possible for flagship M1 with inegrated graphics to beat 3080?
This is the base model too! Mac Pro release will be lights out for Intel and AMD!When your entry level wipes out your flag ship from just a month before.
movdqa going Hitler bunker with how much less heat.
Their M1 vs Intel mini with 2080 external GPU was like 12 watts versus 250 for same performance.
When your entry level wipes out your flag ship from just a month before.
movdqa going Hitler bunker with how much less heat.
Their M1 vs Intel mini with 2080 external GPU was like 12 watts versus 250 for same performance.
Having an SSD increase speeds at boot time and overall system in general. SATA 3 SSD are at give away prices now especially when people are moving to M2 form factor and competition is trying to move product during holidays. I think you should upgrade if you plan on keeping this PC since it going speed everything up by 3X+!
Overall system responsiveness is about the same with SATA or PCIe NVMe SSDs, or even bottom of the barrel DRAMless SSDs, so I suggest to most people not to overspend on their SSDs for the latest and shiniest. However for people frequently transferring files or installing programs, especially in local networking applications, it can save heaps of time. That being said, I would never recommend DRAMless SSDs to anyone as their main drive, or cheap QLC drives. When these things run out of cache, the performance can be absolutely dreadful.
If you want to upgrade an late model Apple Mac, just get a graduate electrical engineering student to do it for you! They have all the tools in their labs to remove the soldered SSD, RAM and replace it with the upgrade, solder it back if you want it soldered in. It look like it came directly from Apple assembly line soldered in.
I honestly cannot tell if you're being sarcastic.
I wonder how many channels of memory that makes on an Apple paltform. Cheap PC enthusiasts used to add 4GB of RAM to 8GB systems (be it in a 4GB+8GB or 3*4GB config), but there was either no performance benefit, or in some cases a performance penalty. The extra 4GB tend to be slower to access. But to be honest, it was mostly relevant to memory sensitive applications (like gaming), so who cares for a backup system. Better than nothing.
So that makes 8GB in dual-channel mode and 4GB in single mode. Same as most other computers. That's all I needed to know.
debugger.medium.com
Ah, I thought you had 4+4+4 or 8+4, which I had talked about in the inital post.