![]() I had the same concern when Apple moved from PowerPC to Intel. but it also doesn’t feel as stable as say my 10 year old one that it replaced. I bought a 16” MBO at the beginning of the year after a squeezing everything I could out of a 10+ year old MBP and it’s a fine machine. Honestly, if Apple didn’t go this way I would’ve hoped they struck a deal with AMD so that they could drop the reliance on Intel to get their act together. Well if this style of computer can fit the bill, run apps designed for both mobile/home, and do it at relatively affordable prices then there’s little concern for the long term success of thisdecision by Apple considering all of the issues Intel has had over the years. ![]() but when you think about the dedicated higher end GPU’s start at $500 and go up to well over $1000 when you’re actually able to find and buy them. That’s not to say that there aren’t going to be Windows users that prefer to tinker with dedicated cards. ![]() I think these Apple Silicon style ARM SOOC are the future for productivity and perhaps even gaming. If you consider that an iPad Pro going back from 2018 to now does a better job of editing multiple streams of 4K60p footage than say most computers that aren’t workstations despite only having 6GB of unified RAM then you sorta have your answer. The new Macs are reasonably priced considering what they offer.Ĭlick to expand.I think the answer to your RAM question lies in a combination of software and hardware optimization. This is clearly the future, and I wonder what Intel will do to counter this. I'm very happy that I haven't bought any new computers lately (except a MacBook 12" that I use for travel). Unless there are things going on with the M1 that reduces the need for RAM. Later, more advanced versions will most probably offer more, but even an entry level MacBook Pro 13" would typically need more for many of the tasks they will be used for, like 4K video editing. The big question is why they offer maximum 16GB RAM on this version. The current version of the unit "only" offers an onboard GPU, but with the information available from Apple so far, there's reason to believe that this GPU will run circles around any current onboard unit, and probably a few dedicated GPUs as well. There are a couple of initial reports available online, and the processor itself seems to be blazingly fast. Many modern entry level computers struggle with the increasingly advanced online applications, and with the terrifying volumes of data that will be allowed by fast wireless internet, think 5G and beyond, something better, faster and not least more energy efficient will be needed. The new Apple processing architecture is possibly the biggest upgrade for personal computing since. My more than a decade old Firmtek RAID enclosures require a Driver that has been kept up to date until Mac OS X 10.13.x, but kept correctly working until Mac OS X 10.15.x. In contrast because of the increased security features of Big Sur one has to copy all data in order to get a bootable backup. Carbon Copy Cloner CCC can incrementally backup the Mojave and Catalina boot partitions by transferring only those files that have changed. However pressing the option key when starting up reveals all 3 OSs. However, in the Mojave System Preferences panel Startup Disk of Big Sur is not listed. One can easily switch back and forth between Big Sur and Catalina. So going from my "trashcan" with Thunderbolt 2 to an M1 Mac mini with Thunderbolt / USB 4 will improve data transmission speeds, but it will be interesting to see in which way the other factors discussed above will be affected.Īt the moment I have in use these 3 OSs, namely Mojave, Catalina, and Big Sur, on 3 separate SSDs. In my experience the Blackmagic Disk Speed Test results don't reflect properly the copying performance in particular for small files. The smaller the files are, the worse the performance. READ/WRITE speeds are also even more greatly affected by the size of files being copied. However, the WRITE speed is also affected by the computational speed of calculating the distributed Parity information that is required to protect/recover the stored data when one disk fails. ![]() RAID 5 results in 7x read speed, but write speed is unaffected, so 1x. disk striping, offers no data protection when a disks fails, but in our example above increases both READ and WRITE performance by 8x. These two RAIDs seem to work correctly under OS Big Sur and SoftRAID version 6 beta on my late 2013 "trashcan" Mac Pro and OWC enclosures. Enter the number of disks in a RAID, but leave size of each disk at 1TB (buggy results otherwise).įor 8 1TB disks in a RAID, let's examine the READ/WRITE performance for RAID 0 and RAID 5. This page has an interactive RAID calculator.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |