Red Falcon
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,211
Going to stop you there, PowerPC from 1993 onward had quite a few games for it on Macintosh systems in the 1990s and 2000s, and especially on m68k in the 1980s and early 1990s.It's not like Mac's back in the PowerPC days where gaming was pretty much next to nothing.
There may not have been as many games on System 6 through OS X 10.5.8, but nearly all of the major ones were ported and done quite well, especially those that supported OpenGL like Doom 3 and Quake 4.
Also, PowerPC clock-for-clock curb-stomped x86 up until Intel released Conroe in 2006.
If you scrub through enough uncompressed video, even on an internal drive, SATA can quickly become the limiting factor.An SATA SSD at 500MB/s would still be plenty fast enough. The M2 Pro base at 2900MB/s is overkill for that application.
NVMe, and previously large RAID 0 (or 10) HDD arrays and RAM disks, are nearly essential to have decent performance when doing so - assuming the CPU and rest of the system is sufficient leaving the disk as the bottleneck.
SATA has reached it's limit years ago, and even though many individuals still use it casually, which it is adequate for, it certainly isn't for any performance applications made within the last half-decade.
That statement and article is total bullshit.A 3.4 gig per second drive will not make you go 8 times faster than a regular sata ssd (or even hdd) to about anyhing of the sort, what remotely common application would see a 40% opening faster on a slower cpu between those 2 speeds ?
I've noticed a huge uptick in performance when moving workstations from SATA-III SSDs to NVMe 3.0/4.0 SSDs.
The difference is huge when performing OS/application updates, working with large data sets, and even when working with every day real-world applications.
Opening Chrome with a single tab may not make a big difference between SATA and NVMe, but opening large GIS map data sets with thousands or millions of points and large project files is a world of difference, let alone with video editing.
Fully agreed, even if it isn't a straight 40% improvement in all apps across the board, there will be a general improvement in disk read/write performance.Why would the same people notice the 20% CPU/GPU performance and not the 40% SSD read performance? Realistically applications will launch 40% faster on the M1 Pro, which is huge. If you're doing video editing then the faster write speeds are more important. When Linus Tech Tips reviewed the M1's video editing performance, they said the SSD was a limiting factor.
Most people since that's why Apple did this. It's meant to save money for Apple, which yes it'll be around $3 of savings per device but when you're pushing millions of units the savings add up quickly. Most people would buy the base model, and this is also a tactic to push people to aim higher when purchasing these machines if they were somehow aware.
I remember seeing the SSD in the M1 being the limiting factor as well when they were first reviewed, it was definitely a bottleneck with what the CPU was capable of at the time.
This is exactly the bait-and-switch that Apple is pulling.It's the equivalent of Nvidia putting DDR4 in their GTX 1030 instead of GDDR5, and not telling anyone about it. We enthusiasts knew, the reviewers knew, but the people who go buy the product won't know because they Google'd reviews of the GTX 1030 and not the DDR4 version.
If Apple explicitly states this on their specs then it is fine, but if not, it's definitely underhanded and certainly not ethical to their customers, even if their stakeholders are happy with the results.
Last edited: