Macbidouille changer processeur mac pro
I have an old Mac Pro 1,1 with quad core and 16gb RAM, wanting to do one of "those" upgrades to even install El Cap or Sierra to use as my back up video or photo touch up computer for a different office!
I just wanna make sure I get the right processors, and junk to make it work right!! Sep 26, PM. Would THIS one work?
More MacRumors Stories
I want as many cores as I can possibly have for this old mac With Adobe, Dropbox, and even iWork being cloud-based Ya know? Communities Contact Support. Sign in Sign in Sign in corporate. Browse Search. Ask a question. More Less. All replies Drop Down menu.
While other ARM vendors focus on clock speeds for marketing, Apple chooses wider pipelines. Courtesy of Apple's stinginess when it comes to microarchitecture, we can't go too deep into a comparison with Intel. To reach a much-needed conclusion, there is simply no proper architectural comparison between Apple's Ax architecture and Intel's desktop-class, performance heavyweights.
NUCkintosh : un hackintosh à défaut d’un nouveau Mac mini
Both are designed with vastly different applications. While there is a critical path that is dependant on single thread computations for nearly every application, a complete transition to ARM will require improved multi-thread and multi-core performance. And Cupertino's only been able to nail this down with the A11, which is a small step. Mind you, thermal management for the A11 isn't what Apple should like either. The SoC throttles when running heavy workloads. The cards are stacked in its favor for microarchitectural expertise.
How Apple could go ARM
Given the death of Moore's Law, GPUs will also play an important role in tackling complex computations in the future. This could provide Apple with a window to build customized environments that pack a good performance punch and live up to efficiency requirements that justify their existence. Finally, Apple should also have a good idea of how to integrate inter-generational performance trade-offs after years of successfully designing processors for the iPhone.
Another major hurdle which waits for Apple is software compatibility. However, if we're correct with our conclusions, this will prove a lot easier to overcome when compared to microarchitecture gains and redesign. Interestingly, Apple is also working on creating cross-platform frameworks that aim to bridge the gap between Appkit and UIkit. Marzipan will provide developers with a new asset library with the complete ability to reformat this code for the two different platforms; a godsend as poor app transfer from iOS to macOS creates a lot of frustration.
While all this paints a 'bright-ish' picture for OS X and the Mac app store, it isn't directly relevant to our discussion. It gave the company a significant leg-up as its hardware could now run software that had been previously developed using C, solving two problems at the same time. For the uninitiated, a kernel is what works underneath your operating system, ensuring that system critical processes work without failure. Think of it as the operating system for your operating system. What this means is that most apps for everyday use will only have to be recompiled and not written from the ground up.
This even removes the requirement for recompilation, as new code can simply be generated to target the architecture in question. To sum it up, there are three broad aspects to consider when analyzing a potential shift for macOS from x86 to ARM As promised at the beginning of this post, we'll do a summary and take a look at them category wise. Architecturally speaking, Intel's processors are designed to perform complex, multi-threaded operations at the expense of power consumption.
While this was good when Moore's Law wasn't slowing down, now it's a different picture. Should Apple dare to make a complete shift that involves high-end MacBooks and iMacs, it will have to design its silicon from the ground up.
13 Best Apple MacPro images in | Desktop computers, Mac pro, Apple macbook pro
While the company made important gains with the A11, its current processor microarchitecture is insufficient simply because it isn't designed to match high-end Intel processors. Designing chips is a complex process, which involves knowledge of present limitations with the hope that future products will overcome them. As such, this is the greatest hurdle for the company to overcome. ISA will play an important role here, particularly since a lot of different applications have entrenched needs.
- All replies;
- classic mac and cheese recipe;
- usb stick mac windows kompatibel formatieren.
- how to find dlink router mac address!
- netkas.org forum!
- best virtual machine windows on mac?
Apple's professional audience would also demand compatibility with existing software and would be the most difficult to transition. MacBidouille and 9to5mac speculate that Apple's primary concern is that the transition would fundamentally change the Mac lineup and confuse customers, which could be "disastrous" in the market.
Apple would have to expend significant effort in ensuring broad software compatibility in order to minimise disruption to end users. It is also possible that the purported new products might not replace existing Macs, but form a whole new product line to complement them.
These would offer users extraordinarily long battery life and access to a vast library of iOS apps, while Xbased Macs could continue to be available for those who need them. Current Intel-based Macs can run a huge library of software, partly due to a common architectural basis with Windows-based PCs. Apple's transition from the PowerPC architecture to X86 in was rocky, but ultimately well received because of the immediately apparent performance gains, adequate notice for software developers to create compatible versions of their software in advance, and official compatibility with Windows.
Apple had been secretly working on an Xnative version of its OS X operating system, and there is no reason to doubt that an ARM-native version could also be in the works.