111–120 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious what your use case is that entails ECC? Are you currently being held back without it?
This shouldn't de downvoted, it's a fair question. Just a few years ago ECC was widely considered an unnecessary belt-and-suspenders thing that made enterprise hardware expensive. I guess the general perception changed with the Rowhammer attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Integrated graphics are great for the power savings but a 2015 Macbook Pro can not drive a 4K display higher than 24 frames per second.
That's an HDMI limitation. With DisplayPort, my early 2015 MBP drives my Dell P2715Q at 60Hz.
How about some consumer desktop ones with ECC RAM support?
What's the price difference between consumer (no ECC) and workstation (ECC support) (mobo+cpu+memory)?
The motherboards are about another $50, and the dimms are another 25% or so more than non-ecc dimms.
I'm kind of disappointed in this. While they are upping the core count, the overall clock speed is being decreased across the board. This means that single threaded processes will theoretically perform slower (I know it still turbos up). Honestly, I just upgraded to Ryzen from a 3770k and. My 3770k ran all cores at 4.2GHz (overclocked, obviously) and the only reason I updated was becasue I wanted to upgrade to NVMe a…
Is the base clock relevant in any interesting situation? As far as I know it's just telling you what to expect if you disable Turbo Boost in the BIOS.
The frequency at idle should be lower through SpeedStep, and the frequency during load should be higher through Turbo Boost.
If there are thermal limits preventing the maximum turbo frequency from being reached at all times, I still wouldn't expect the average frequency to be related to the base clock. It should be more or less bound by how insufficient the cooling system is. I think even the instantaneous clocks can fall somewhere between the various listed frequencies under throttling conditions.
Also note that the max turbo frequency is different depending on how many cores are loaded.
I wonder how companies like Apple, that have quite stagnant and stable release cycles (compared to other brands) will handle that situation. Does it mean their customers will have to sit on 'old' CPU's again for another generation or two? Latest MacBooks were released ~80 days ago and their release cycle is ~300 days on average. Obviously I wonder, because I was about to order a new Apple machine for myself and now I…
After seeing those internal emails from Microsoft regarding the failures they had on the Surface products caused by problems in the then-recently launched Skylake chips, my guess is Apple is just fine on their delayed release schedule.
Still LPDDR3 with 16GB RAM limitation. What an embarrassment, all phone SoC today use LPDDR4(x) and technically support more RAM than the desktop Intel CPUs.
Does anyone know if Ryzen will support LPDDR4 in it's mobile chips? I tried Googling around for it but couldn't get an obvious yes or no. Seems sort of unlikely, but if they do support it a lot sooner than Intel, that would be a big win for AMD. Even more unlikely would be a Ryzen powered MacBook Pro with 32GB of LPDDR4 RAM...but I'd be willing to pay a lot of money for that. I know Apple tends to prioritize single c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big grief I have with "general computing" platforms is their insistence of sticking with the traditional form factor. ATX, ITX, PCI- , DDR ...outdated, overboard, clunky designs for most people. Take a Mac Mini-like design, and make modules that can stack or otherwise attach to expand capabilities. IMO, this is what Apple should do and be done with the whole "But Mac Pro users ...!" A project Ara-like desktop, bo…
Plenty of PC makers do that, even Intel: https://www.intel.de/content/www/de/de/products/boards-kits/... No idea what any of that has to do with ATX, PCI (long deprecated technology), ITX (form factor), DDR (that's like USB ).
The problem is that's a lot of jargon, and yes I know what a form factor is, DDR is, and if you look again, I clearly wrote PCI-*, as PCI-Express, which is NOT deprecated.
It's a lot of jargon to know when you want to build a device that hangs out and films birds, or some other overly specific example to make the point.
If general computing is stuck there, it seems like a bit of cultural functional fixedness over what general computing should be. Which is all over our nostalgia tripping culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big grief I have with "general computing" platforms is their insistence of sticking with the traditional form factor. ATX, ITX, PCI- , DDR ...outdated, overboard, clunky designs for most people. Take a Mac Mini-like design, and make modules that can stack or otherwise attach to expand capabilities. IMO, this is what Apple should do and be done with the whole "But Mac Pro users ...!" A project Ara-like desktop, bo…
Like the HP Elite Slice? http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/elite-slice/overview.html