Thread: 2019 iMac
View Single Post
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2019-03-12, 05:07

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
But the very fact that Apple got out-innovated by Microsoft on an AIO computer that caters to creative pros
I mean, did it though? I'm not really sure what innovation refers to here.

The ideas? We've seen the big one — draw right on a big screen — in the Wacom Cintiq a decade before the Surface Studio.

The execution? How many creative pros do you actually see with a Surface Studio or Surface Pro, and how many do you instead see with an iMac or iPad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
has to be profoundly embarrassing to Cupertino.
I really don't know about this. It seems to be the consensus among many tech pundits who've been enjoying doomsaying Apple since the 1990s.

I have no doubt Apple's ears perked up. I don't think they're worried though (and part of that is misplaced hubris, I'm sure).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
I know portables and wearables are the thing now, and I understand that Apple barely gives a hoot about the Mac Mini on its best day.
I mean, they just gave the Mac mini a very nice upgrade. Many years too late, but hey.

And yes, it's about portables. Which… is that really such a problem? Why are we drawing on a desk at all? Isn't that more of an artifact of how it had to be, due to technological constraints?

You want them to innovate? Push them to ship a 20-inch iPad Pro. Heck, go 30-inch. Make the software better. Push for a viable pro market rather than a race to the bottom. (And please, for the love of yahvo, no camera bump?)

Then, do the post-production on an iMac. That's desk work. That's fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
But the iMac is the flagship Apple computer. Redmond isn't supposed to be able to do anything but create a cheap knockoff.
I dunno man. Hardware products from Microsoft aren't really bad. The weird thing about the Surface line-up is that, if you ask me, they could never quite figure out if they wanted to do reference designs or outright compete with their partners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
The question has always been whether it's consumer-level only, or if the A-chips can truly be scaled to Xeon-level performance.
A partial transition poses weird problems. Not so much on the software end (these days, most software is high-level enough that arch doesn't really matter anyway), but due to performance characteristics: if they do the transition only on the high end, they need to be really confident that their A chips scale like that. Maybe they are? I wouldn't be. But if they do it on the low end, then the x86 emulation cost suddenly becomes a lot more taxing. The MacBook is already fairly slow as it is; now imagine what it's like when a third of the apps running are running in emulation.

With the x86 transition, we didn't really see that much, because frankly, the early Core chips were already a fair bit better than the G5s and G4s (which most Macs were still on!). On top of that, almost all Intel Macs were dual-core from the start, whereas almost all PowerPC Macs were single-core. You immediately got a boost so significant, even the PowerPC apps running in emulation didn't really feel slow.

Apple's ARM chips are impressive, but they do not offer this kind of significant speed bump. Over Qualcomm and Samsung chips? Yes. Over Intel chips at the same wattage? Kind of. Over Intel chips at wattages feasible in a laptop and desktop? Nope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
I have no idea, internet prognosticators seem to say no, and Apple only keeps repeating that current A-chips outperform desktops.
Yeah, but that's a bit of a simplification. As best as I can tell, the big catch about those Geekbench comparisons is sustained load. Yes, A chips do impressive performance for a few minutes. But the Xeon-W in an iMac Pro can do it for hours on end without overheating. The A chip will throttle quickly.

Which leaves the question: given more thermal headroom, does an A chip deliver better performance (does that scale up much?), and can it do so as a sustained load? Or will it continue to serve short bursts better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post
Like I said, this WWDC is probably going to be a lot of fun.
I'm… worried about Marzipan. Home, etc. are not a great start.
  quote