MacRumors
Jul 14, 09:14 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
DailyTech reports (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3228) that the Non-Disclosure for performance benchmarks on Intel's upcoming Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors was lifted today. The new processors, code named Conroe, are the desktop versions of the Core Duo processors which currently reside in Apple's MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac computers.
Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors have a plethora of new features including Intel Wide Dynamic Execution, Intel Smart Memory Access, Intel Advanced Smart Cache and Intel Advanced Digital Media Boost.
The Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme could make their Mac debut in Apple's PowerMac computers which are rumored to be released on August 7th 2006 at the World Wide Developers Conference.
Intel is expected to start shipping the new processors on July 23rd with an official announcement on July 27th. The Core 2 Duo will have clock speeds of 1.86GHz, 2.13GHz, 2.4GHz and 2.67GHz while the Core 2 Extreme will clock in at 2.93GHz. All share a 1066MHz front side bus with between 2-4MB of L2 cache. Pricing for the chips range from $183 to $999 per chip.
As mentioned above, a number of benchmarks of the new chips have been released today, with DailyTech providing a roundup (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3319) of many reviews.
DailyTech reports (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3228) that the Non-Disclosure for performance benchmarks on Intel's upcoming Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors was lifted today. The new processors, code named Conroe, are the desktop versions of the Core Duo processors which currently reside in Apple's MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac computers.
Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors have a plethora of new features including Intel Wide Dynamic Execution, Intel Smart Memory Access, Intel Advanced Smart Cache and Intel Advanced Digital Media Boost.
The Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme could make their Mac debut in Apple's PowerMac computers which are rumored to be released on August 7th 2006 at the World Wide Developers Conference.
Intel is expected to start shipping the new processors on July 23rd with an official announcement on July 27th. The Core 2 Duo will have clock speeds of 1.86GHz, 2.13GHz, 2.4GHz and 2.67GHz while the Core 2 Extreme will clock in at 2.93GHz. All share a 1066MHz front side bus with between 2-4MB of L2 cache. Pricing for the chips range from $183 to $999 per chip.
As mentioned above, a number of benchmarks of the new chips have been released today, with DailyTech providing a roundup (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3319) of many reviews.
alust2013
Apr 24, 11:47 PM
It's unsafe to drive the SPEED LIMIT in the left lane because of people who drive so fast. If anyone tailgates me, I just slow down. That said, I don't drive in the left lane except to pass.
TheNightPhoenix
Sep 12, 05:56 PM
Nope. I already tested it and it's a no-go.
hmmm works fine for me :) Took a while longer to load on the iPod (had ablack screen for about 5 secs) but plays fine.
hmmm works fine for me :) Took a while longer to load on the iPod (had ablack screen for about 5 secs) but plays fine.
Tike1994
Mar 22, 01:48 PM
Finally some Mac news. I've been waiting since Christmas to get my first Mac desktop. All my iOS devices will finally have a Mac to connect to!!
WisdomWolf
Apr 11, 05:17 PM
I, for one, think this is fantastic news. I've been waiting for something like this for a while. I would really love to see it included in XBMC.
For those that keep saying Home Sharing already does this, no it doesn't. I have a desktop in my office that holds all my movies, tv shows, and music. I have an Aspire Revo in my living room running XBMC and hook my macbook up in my bedroom also running XBMC. There are many cases where I'd like to play synchronized audio throughout the house.
Sure I could go and buy an Airport Express from my bedroom and my living room to accomplish this, but that seems silly. It's not that I don't want to pay apple for this feature, but a $100 hardware device to stream audio in a room that already has a computer that should be more than capable of handling the job doesn't make sense. I can stream from my desktop to each computer via Home Sharing and indeed I do just that, but that only gets me audio on one device at a time.
Now, in the near future, I will hopefully be able to stream whole house audio in my office, living room, and bedroom without having to take up another electrical port and another audio input on my receiver. Seems far more efficient, doesn't it?
For those that keep saying Home Sharing already does this, no it doesn't. I have a desktop in my office that holds all my movies, tv shows, and music. I have an Aspire Revo in my living room running XBMC and hook my macbook up in my bedroom also running XBMC. There are many cases where I'd like to play synchronized audio throughout the house.
Sure I could go and buy an Airport Express from my bedroom and my living room to accomplish this, but that seems silly. It's not that I don't want to pay apple for this feature, but a $100 hardware device to stream audio in a room that already has a computer that should be more than capable of handling the job doesn't make sense. I can stream from my desktop to each computer via Home Sharing and indeed I do just that, but that only gets me audio on one device at a time.
Now, in the near future, I will hopefully be able to stream whole house audio in my office, living room, and bedroom without having to take up another electrical port and another audio input on my receiver. Seems far more efficient, doesn't it?
Warbrain
Apr 20, 10:45 AM
Incorrect.
Great input.
Great input.
DelisleBA.info
Apr 22, 12:02 PM
I hope they bring back the backlit keyboard.
Dorkington
Apr 18, 12:07 PM
That's incredible! How can that be the case? Here it is 28 days paid days off if you work a normal 5 day week.
Welcome to America. Any regulation is called "socialism" here and painted as "Anti American". :(
Welcome to America. Any regulation is called "socialism" here and painted as "Anti American". :(
YEMandy
Sep 12, 03:22 PM
Apple has a 10 day return policy if they updated a product you just bought within 10 days. They will give you a full refund, or cash difference if the price is lowered (which it is)
twostep665
Apr 4, 12:06 PM
Was It really necessary to kill him?
No
Actually, yes it was necessary. He was trying to protect his own life.
No
Actually, yes it was necessary. He was trying to protect his own life.
Analog Kid
Sep 13, 10:17 PM
Chrome backed radio, eh? I suppose they could use the tin can and your head to form a slot antenna...
No mention of a camera-- I find it strange that Apple wouldn't include one and strange that a description of the phone wouldn't call it out as one of the early bullet items.
But then, I'm an iPhone skeptic so...
I do know that Apple has spread false information to ferret out leaks in the past-- I hope the source doesn't get caught in any kind of trap like that...
No mention of a camera-- I find it strange that Apple wouldn't include one and strange that a description of the phone wouldn't call it out as one of the early bullet items.
But then, I'm an iPhone skeptic so...
I do know that Apple has spread false information to ferret out leaks in the past-- I hope the source doesn't get caught in any kind of trap like that...
Tommyg117
Sep 12, 02:15 PM
Pretty sure new iPod is still classed as 5G.
I was wondering about that too. These are all great upgrades though. I'm very pleased with this keynote.
I was wondering about that too. These are all great upgrades though. I'm very pleased with this keynote.
WildCowboy
Aug 23, 06:55 PM
This sucks. Doues anyone know on what patent they infinged exactly?
This one (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060515-6838.html). It's U.S. Patent 6,928,433 if you want to look it up for yourself at uspto.gov (http://www.uspto.gov).
This one (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060515-6838.html). It's U.S. Patent 6,928,433 if you want to look it up for yourself at uspto.gov (http://www.uspto.gov).
daneoni
Sep 12, 04:30 PM
Educated guess would be "big" iPod sales will slump whilst the Nanos & Shuffles will skyrocket.
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
Zeldain
Mar 22, 02:12 PM
Sandy Bridge Xeon's are due in November.
I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac and new Mac mini are the replacement for the Mac Pro.
With Thunderbolt, you will be able to connect the new iMac or Mac mini of them to Fibre Channel arrays, have three displays or use external PCI chassis for existing PCIe cards. iMac CPU performance with the desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs will exceed most Mac Pro configurations. The new iMac's ability to use 32GB of RAM matches the Mac Pro too. You can configure the iMac using SSDs for less than the price of the Mac Pro too.
By the time November comes around, Thunderbolt may cause the death of the Mac Pro.
Graphics performance.
I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac and new Mac mini are the replacement for the Mac Pro.
With Thunderbolt, you will be able to connect the new iMac or Mac mini of them to Fibre Channel arrays, have three displays or use external PCI chassis for existing PCIe cards. iMac CPU performance with the desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs will exceed most Mac Pro configurations. The new iMac's ability to use 32GB of RAM matches the Mac Pro too. You can configure the iMac using SSDs for less than the price of the Mac Pro too.
By the time November comes around, Thunderbolt may cause the death of the Mac Pro.
Graphics performance.
jimmyjoemccrow
Jan 2, 11:58 AM
I accessed a site a couple of days ago and it said "You have a problem with your Mac please click OK to fix the problem." I was on my iPhone at the time but it does show that someone took the trouble to write a program that identified I was on an Apple operating system.
roadbloc
Apr 4, 04:54 PM
I stand corrected.
myemailisjustin
Apr 20, 11:23 AM
Plug in your iPhone, open iTunes, and in the SUMMARY window check the box related to backup encryption.
This is why the researchers published this, so people take action. Encrypt your data, it's your choice to do so. Encrypted = safe(r) than not.
**EDIT - And I'd be more worried about RFID in your bag of chips or RFID in the all the new tires that go on your car than a file you have the choice to encrypt. RFID in my tires, you can't encrypt that!
This is why the researchers published this, so people take action. Encrypt your data, it's your choice to do so. Encrypted = safe(r) than not.
**EDIT - And I'd be more worried about RFID in your bag of chips or RFID in the all the new tires that go on your car than a file you have the choice to encrypt. RFID in my tires, you can't encrypt that!
Icaras
Apr 19, 08:27 AM
word. it's called competition. omg the second car manufacturer designed a car with an engine and 4 wheels, he must be copying. lol
I know that car analogy may not be entirely the same as whats going on here, but what would you do if you were in that situation? What would you do if it was your company that was the first one to manufacture a car with that structure?
You would just let that slide while the second car company starts making money off your template?
I know that car analogy may not be entirely the same as whats going on here, but what would you do if you were in that situation? What would you do if it was your company that was the first one to manufacture a car with that structure?
You would just let that slide while the second car company starts making money off your template?
flinstone
Sep 12, 02:40 PM
Anubis "We waited 334 days for this? "
I agree totally lame and bad for Apple.
How longer i think of the "news" today the more foolish i think it is of Steve to even announce this crap!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
I agree totally lame and bad for Apple.
How longer i think of the "news" today the more foolish i think it is of Steve to even announce this crap!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
jimmyjoemccrow
Jan 12, 01:10 AM
And is the alleged attack proceeding through the Mac community? No.
Once again, targeting and successfully attacking are worlds apart.
Oh, and the "time" needed to identify that you're on an Apple (or other) operating system is essentially zero. All you have to do is look at the user agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent) header.
Thanks for reminding me to put you on ignore. I know how easy it is to identify an operating system, but if they bothered to make a message just for Mac users it stands to reason they made malware for Mac users too. Or would they just make the message for fun? We all know what funny guys malware writers are.
It doesn't matter if it hasn't propagated, it never even would have happened in the past. The more malware attacks there are on the Mac, the greater the chance of one of them actually becoming a widespread nuisance.
Once again, targeting and successfully attacking are worlds apart.
Oh, and the "time" needed to identify that you're on an Apple (or other) operating system is essentially zero. All you have to do is look at the user agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent) header.
Thanks for reminding me to put you on ignore. I know how easy it is to identify an operating system, but if they bothered to make a message just for Mac users it stands to reason they made malware for Mac users too. Or would they just make the message for fun? We all know what funny guys malware writers are.
It doesn't matter if it hasn't propagated, it never even would have happened in the past. The more malware attacks there are on the Mac, the greater the chance of one of them actually becoming a widespread nuisance.
GGJstudios
Mar 18, 03:50 PM
It doesn't need to be a virus. They're relatively rare issues these days even on Windows. Malware is about stealing identities (big money) not hackers playing games with machines
Identity theft is not malware and it's not targeted at just Mac or Windows. It can be done without using computers at all. There is no antivirus software that can protect a computer from the user's own stupidity or gullibility.
Identity theft is not malware and it's not targeted at just Mac or Windows. It can be done without using computers at all. There is no antivirus software that can protect a computer from the user's own stupidity or gullibility.
dwman
Apr 4, 11:54 AM
The security guard just saved CA taxpayers a nice chunk of change.
No comments:
Post a Comment