WildCowboy
Aug 17, 01:01 AM
This is a very dumb question but is Photoshop running under rosetta in this test?
If Photoshop is that is nuts.
Yes...Photoshop can only run under Rosetta on the Intel machines...there's no universal version of it.
If Photoshop is that is nuts.
Yes...Photoshop can only run under Rosetta on the Intel machines...there's no universal version of it.
jubjub
Aug 6, 08:48 AM
Does anyone think the recent "problems" at Apple are going to have any effect on what happens Monday.
Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/05/BUGAHKBK3H1.DTL
If there are products that are they "maybe" list, this might put them on the "go" list. Big news pushes stock prices up and pushes the "problem" stories on page 2.
You might be right..
Other than that I find it amusing that "One more thing" is now a mainstream thing.
Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/05/BUGAHKBK3H1.DTL
If there are products that are they "maybe" list, this might put them on the "go" list. Big news pushes stock prices up and pushes the "problem" stories on page 2.
You might be right..
Other than that I find it amusing that "One more thing" is now a mainstream thing.
Liske
Aug 17, 02:42 PM
I have a new 3.0 Intel- just letting you know they are not as close as Rob's test under real world performance. Adobe camera raw really screamed on my G5 and is noticibly slower and a bit buggy on my new Mac Pro. Start up is alot slower, etc, etc. He only tested MP aware processes which isn't the whole picture.
The Photo Retouch artist test puts the Mac Pro 3.0 about 33% slower than the quad G5- but I think that test is skewered to the G5s liking. I think it's somewhere in the real world realm of 12% slower than my G5 quad. Not quite as good under Rosetta [5%?] that Rob posts, but not quite as bad as some other tester's results. The finder and other apps are noticebly faster, even against the fast quad.
I went for the mac pro as a web designer able to run windoze now. CS2 gets some but not alot of excersize. Other comparisons- the storage is awesome, super easy, super quiet. This machine is about 75% the noise of my G5, add the quiet firmtek 2 drive SATA i ran with the quad, and the Mac Pro is about 50% quieter. [By the way if anyone needs a 2 drive firmtek external SATA II case with PCIe card and cables, it is looking for a new home now. It was a great case for the g5 and is about 6 months old- http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/firmtek/2en2/]
My 2 cents!
mac Pro 3.0
3bg ram
2 x 2 drive stripe raids
Std graphics card.
The Photo Retouch artist test puts the Mac Pro 3.0 about 33% slower than the quad G5- but I think that test is skewered to the G5s liking. I think it's somewhere in the real world realm of 12% slower than my G5 quad. Not quite as good under Rosetta [5%?] that Rob posts, but not quite as bad as some other tester's results. The finder and other apps are noticebly faster, even against the fast quad.
I went for the mac pro as a web designer able to run windoze now. CS2 gets some but not alot of excersize. Other comparisons- the storage is awesome, super easy, super quiet. This machine is about 75% the noise of my G5, add the quiet firmtek 2 drive SATA i ran with the quad, and the Mac Pro is about 50% quieter. [By the way if anyone needs a 2 drive firmtek external SATA II case with PCIe card and cables, it is looking for a new home now. It was a great case for the g5 and is about 6 months old- http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/firmtek/2en2/]
My 2 cents!
mac Pro 3.0
3bg ram
2 x 2 drive stripe raids
Std graphics card.
Hellhammer
Dec 4, 02:34 AM
Cool, Thanks. You must be pretty far?
A-spec level 19. Haven't played it for a week now, maybe I should play this weekend and get it to 25.
A-spec level 19. Haven't played it for a week now, maybe I should play this weekend and get it to 25.
supmango
Mar 22, 12:56 PM
I might have to get my hands on one of these. Hopefully the store demos will work. I love my new iPad, so it will be a hard sell for me.
Butters
Aug 11, 10:29 AM
I don't really want an iphone, I'd rather have an ipod with ichat/isight tbh
princealfie
Nov 29, 08:57 AM
2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
3
Well, we should base it on quality then. Since Jay-Z sucks compared to Isaac Stern or Yo-Yo Ma, shouldn't Ma be a millionaire?
Hmm... we need an official rating system to compensate artists that way. So that Paris Hell-ton never signs another record deal.
3
Well, we should base it on quality then. Since Jay-Z sucks compared to Isaac Stern or Yo-Yo Ma, shouldn't Ma be a millionaire?
Hmm... we need an official rating system to compensate artists that way. So that Paris Hell-ton never signs another record deal.
Multimedia
Sep 13, 11:37 AM
I wouldn't want to say I told you so but... :eek: :p :D Where's Multimedia? This is exciting!
Wow...a user upgradable Mac. Good stuff indeed.
I am anxiously awaiting better utilization of all the cores, but the ability to multitask without hiccups is still great for now!Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...
I'm still gonna wait for the Clovertown option to appear in the BTO page, then price retail Clovertowns a Fry's before I decide if I'll let Apple to my upgrade or do it myself according to which way cost less. But I really don't want to kill my warranty on day one. So it'll be academic since they are going retail in a month prolly before Apple adds the Clovertown option to the BTO page although they were pretty Johnny On The Spot with the C2D iMacs.
Wow...a user upgradable Mac. Good stuff indeed.
I am anxiously awaiting better utilization of all the cores, but the ability to multitask without hiccups is still great for now!Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...Must Crush Video...
I'm still gonna wait for the Clovertown option to appear in the BTO page, then price retail Clovertowns a Fry's before I decide if I'll let Apple to my upgrade or do it myself according to which way cost less. But I really don't want to kill my warranty on day one. So it'll be academic since they are going retail in a month prolly before Apple adds the Clovertown option to the BTO page although they were pretty Johnny On The Spot with the C2D iMacs.
sukanas
Apr 25, 01:36 PM
money grubbers
asiayeah
Aug 25, 09:21 PM
When I read a lot of posts where people complain about Apple service, it seems that it is offten from non-US. Is this my imagination or does Apple need to kick the Arse of their international support groups?
:D
I am sure the customer support is not good in non-US.
Unfortunately Apple is not maintainly a high quality of customer support service throughout the world. It seems Apple is neglecting the areas which is growing fast. This will certainly hinder the growth of Mac OS market share.
:D
I am sure the customer support is not good in non-US.
Unfortunately Apple is not maintainly a high quality of customer support service throughout the world. It seems Apple is neglecting the areas which is growing fast. This will certainly hinder the growth of Mac OS market share.
Macnoviz
Jul 21, 04:20 PM
I'm not ripping DVDs. I'm ripping DVD IMAGES made with Toast from EyeTV2 Digital SD and HD recordings to archive off air broadcast recordings for my personal use only. Nothing to do with seeding anything to anyone. Need more cores to encode and rip simultaneously instead of sequentially. Much faster to do a bunch of one or two shows simultaneously than larger sets sequentially. More cores will also allow for faster compacting of the edited shows - IE removal of ads - in the first place.
Oh, so that's why you want Handbrake fourfold, I was going to ask wether you had 4 optical drives.
Oh, so that's why you want Handbrake fourfold, I was going to ask wether you had 4 optical drives.
powers74
Apr 11, 06:22 PM
Doesn't this make sense? I think I'm close, I'm sure I forgot something / not perfectly accurate, but this seems like what Apple is shooting for. Makes sense to me...
Jan: iPhone (like original)
Mar: iPad
May: iMac/MacPro
June/Jul: Software
Sept: iPods
Nov: Laptops
Jan: iPhone (like original)
Mar: iPad
May: iMac/MacPro
June/Jul: Software
Sept: iPods
Nov: Laptops
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 07:07 AM
I doubt Apple will ship a new version of FCP before they ship lion, there are simply no real video editor APIs in Snow Leopard that are capable of 64 bit, QT Kit is a joke.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
The functions inside FCP do not need the OS support. Apple can install private frameworks, and they do it already, for their own applications. So i think they will support SL.
AV Foundation brings back QT7-features to QTX. Apple uses AV Foundation in the new QTX-player of Lion.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
The functions inside FCP do not need the OS support. Apple can install private frameworks, and they do it already, for their own applications. So i think they will support SL.
AV Foundation brings back QT7-features to QTX. Apple uses AV Foundation in the new QTX-player of Lion.
firestarter
Apr 5, 06:32 PM
Time for my 8 cores to start all being used at the same time.
++, finally!
I'm hoping they sell it on the App store. I prefer the licensing management and model on there. (Although 50GB might be a problem!!)
++, finally!
I'm hoping they sell it on the App store. I prefer the licensing management and model on there. (Although 50GB might be a problem!!)
bep207
Aug 17, 02:35 AM
man that is impressive
the quad g5, once the fastest, has just taken a back seat -third row even
the quad g5, once the fastest, has just taken a back seat -third row even
LightSpeed1
Apr 11, 03:53 PM
I think I'm done with the iPhone 5 rumors. At this point I think I'll just wait till June-July. It's not that far away.
Flowbee
Aug 5, 04:06 PM
My longshot dream is the Mac Pro Cube.
YoGramMamma
Apr 6, 03:02 AM
I've posted several predictions over the past few months throughout this tread at Cinema5D:
http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
Dude I took the time to read that entire post on cinema5d and I have to tip my hat to you. You have clearly thought this out. Hopefully someone at apple saw this post and is making notes! IMO (and clearly in yours) this is very much what apple needs to do. This content store idea is brilliant, makes apple more bucks, and allows content creators a way to make money on the selling end, and benefit from well made content on the receiving end. It turns videographers and photographers and motion graphic designers into "developers" ... Just without the need to know objective-C. I like it a lot. Have you tried submitting these ideas to Apple?
The idea of downloading just the core objects and have all the other stuff being in-app purchases is also brilliant and tying everything to your appleID too, since it'd let you legally install stuff on up tot 5 machines. Why I use up almost 60gb of stuff for "soundtrack loops and Dolby surround files" is beyond me.
Also this alleviates the whole final cut express/pro distinction. Essentially, fce is just fcp without any of the extra apps / plugins downloaded.
http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
Dude I took the time to read that entire post on cinema5d and I have to tip my hat to you. You have clearly thought this out. Hopefully someone at apple saw this post and is making notes! IMO (and clearly in yours) this is very much what apple needs to do. This content store idea is brilliant, makes apple more bucks, and allows content creators a way to make money on the selling end, and benefit from well made content on the receiving end. It turns videographers and photographers and motion graphic designers into "developers" ... Just without the need to know objective-C. I like it a lot. Have you tried submitting these ideas to Apple?
The idea of downloading just the core objects and have all the other stuff being in-app purchases is also brilliant and tying everything to your appleID too, since it'd let you legally install stuff on up tot 5 machines. Why I use up almost 60gb of stuff for "soundtrack loops and Dolby surround files" is beyond me.
Also this alleviates the whole final cut express/pro distinction. Essentially, fce is just fcp without any of the extra apps / plugins downloaded.
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.
tripjammer
Apr 11, 01:05 PM
Not sure I believe the rumors, but as long as my 3G still works, I'll wait. $200 every 3 years is better than $200 every 2 years.
That is why you sell your iphone every year and it does not cost you to upgrade. ATT basically allows you to upgrade at the lowest price every year.
Its all about timing.
That is why you sell your iphone every year and it does not cost you to upgrade. ATT basically allows you to upgrade at the lowest price every year.
Its all about timing.
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
samcraig
Apr 27, 09:32 AM
How is the talk of slower performance because the database isn't as large any different than the discussion about the data in the first place.
Several people were criticizing people for having tin foil hats when it came to what the data was being used for, etc
And now the same people are wearing the same tin foil hats/complaining about some mythological "slow down" by having a smaller database.
Hypocrisy LOL
Several people were criticizing people for having tin foil hats when it came to what the data was being used for, etc
And now the same people are wearing the same tin foil hats/complaining about some mythological "slow down" by having a smaller database.
Hypocrisy LOL
Multimedia
Jul 21, 01:51 PM
Yes, with the possibility of a Mac Pro with 8 core on the horizon, it makes sense to skip the 4 core altogether. Or, start with lower end of 4 cores (say 2GHz) and then, if necessary and possible, upgrade it to 8 cores. I wonder if waiting for 8 cores is going to be a common sentiment. In that case, it would make sense for Apple to offer an upgrade path to it.There may be unknown variables supporting 8 cores from 4 such that I would not want to take that path. I would rather have 8 cores on a new motherboard with faster ram etc supported to get the most out of all of them at newer faster speeds.
OrangeSVTguy
Apr 25, 04:23 PM
Guess we all now know what that new data center is going to be used for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment