Have a look at Elementary OS, it's a very mac-like looking option. I've used Windows 10 recently, but can't get over all the undifferentiated white in the window chrome areas.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
Have a look at Elementary OS, it's a very mac-like looking option. I've used Windows 10 recently, but can't get over all the undifferentiated white in the window chrome areas.
Nvidia did the GTX 1080, now RTX 2080, and AMD wants to call something "RX 3080"? That just screams trademark lawsuit.
Look at my sig, notice what team my GPU is from?
Nvidia has an established branding history with xTX x0x0 format, and now AMD are effectively poaching the next generation of numbers, for a product that directly competes, and could potentially make a very easy "consumer confusion" case - I don't particularly care, I'm just astounded it isn't being litigated for "passing off" under trademark law. Then again, perhaps Nvidia is waiting to invest in lawyering up until AMD actually releases it.
I have sigs turned off, sorry bruh...
As for the 'branding history', no...
Does Nvidia have a copyright or trademark or some such on 'their' naming scheme...?
Did Intel throw a Special Snowflake Those Are OUR Numbers hissy fit when AMD released the X399 chipset, or their X370 or X470 chipsets...?
No, they moved 'their' numbering scheme to Z390, and we have yet to see what they do with the next 'enthusiast' chipset...
Should we be sending out Cease & Desist letters to all & everyone who has the audacity to use Things like Letters & Numbers when naming a product...?
Again, you are really reaching, and contributing nothing towards the thread...
Can you tell me, why would you want GAMING card architecture for Mac Pro, or any professional computer Apple sells, and not 7 nm Vega 20, that is for professional use?
You cant trademark a number. Intel attempted to do exactly that with their x86 series back in the day to prevent likes of AMD and Cyrix from using 80x86 name but failed to do so. So they went with a name Pentium instead of 80586.
Yeah, a number sure, but I would suspect the name plus number "xTX x0x0" format would fall more in the realm of being a product name. As it happens, Nvidia doesn't seem to actually have trademarks on their individual card model names, so the point is moot . It just ends with AMD looking a bit pathetic and passive-aggressive, rather than forging their own series branding.
The reason why the OS train left a long time ago is very, very simple.
Amount of software available for Windows, and overall compatibility is overwhelming compared to any other platform. That is why Windows platform is better than any other platform.
AMD is simply very confident about their lineup if they are doing that with their GPUs.
Just like they were with Ryzen products, and chipset naming scheme.
P.S. For those interested: AMD released ROCm 2.0 with TensorFlow compatibility and libraries, and OpenCL 2.0 support
.https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Radeon-ROCm-2.0-Arrives
Its funny tho. ROCm 2.0 is available only on GFX8 GPU family: Fiji, Polaris GPUs, and GFX 9: Vega family.
Last edited:
It is more to do with the fact that they dont have brand presence like Intel and Nvidia. If AMD had their own strong branding, they wouldn’t need to be doing that.
I know of no one these days in my professional circles who uses workstation cards at this point. The price/performance ratio is just too off. If you're in a scientific field or something where the ECC RAM matters or you absolutely need the most CUDA/computer cores, then it still makes sense, but when you can literally buy 3–5 cards for the same money, with each probably getting you a substantial amount of the same performance.
If Apple goes back to PCIe slots then those people can buy workstation cards, but for everyone else it makes way more sense to use gaming cards.
There is a difference between Gaming focused architecture, and Professional, compute focused architecture.
Navi may not be compute architecture, at first glance.
Yes, but 30 bit output (10 bits per channel) is available only on workstation cards.
You should be able to trademark the combination of letters and numbers, But not the numbers themselves. What i am trying to say was that Nvidia cant prevent AMD from using numbers like 3080, 4080 and such. “Geforce RTX” is trademarked, but not 2080. So AMD is free to use “RX 3080” if they choose to. Nvidia probably won't care since they can always move onto another set of model numbers like they did in the past.
AMD has historically used Radeon RX, and they both often use three-digit numbers with x80 signifying a top consumer card (well, AMD sometimes had an x90 and has used x95 at least once for a weird two chips on one card beast). NVidia broke pattern with the 2080 following the 1080 (instead of the 1180), and AMD has one-upped them. Not sure who started this pattern, but it would be hard for either to say "it belongs to us" now...
The vast majority of professional users in my circle use workstation cards. It depends entirely on the profession.
Can you tell me why you took part of my post out of context, since I clearly stated that the RX 3080 would be great for a xMac, and then clearly stated that the forthcoming 7nm Vega 2 GPU(s) would be great for a Mac Pro...?!?
But that’s a hypocritical opinion he had, because Apple even under him launched new iPhones every year. They haven’t updated the Mac Pro in 5. They have dominated the smartphone market profits and launch a new product every year, they have an forgettable share of the PC market and hardly ever update their computers now.
Kind fly’s in the face of Jobs opinion back then.
I'd say Jobs' opinion is more irrelevant because Apple isn't a monopoly of anything except profits. Whatever their faults are, they aren't attributable to "we had nowhere to go so we promoted marketing guys". Even if you take the tack that it's Tim Cook's fault that still doesn't jive with Jobs' critique.
It isn't hypocritical at all. Turning out lots of product iterations every year would be indicative that "product people" do have a heavy hand in running the company. Pretty sure Jobs said around the time of the iPhone introduction that Apple was going to shoot for about 10% of the cellphone market. They never were trying to get to monopoly state. The objective was to carve out a profitable 10% and keep it. Which mean incrementally refining the product to keep that stake. Hence the long, overlapping development pipeline for the phones ( 18-24 months phones coming at 12 month intervals).
For the more traditional PC market there really isn't much to do. Macs have about 6-7% of the market and Apple's product update turnover has kept them in that range. The Mac Pro was absolutely not 100% essential is maintaining that at all ( they have currently have it, never lost that percentage range , and didn't really highly focus on Mac Pro). When you have less than 10% of the market and one product is around 1-2% of that 10% ... that product isn't a strategic (flagship) factor.
Folks like the arm flap and say that this stall on Mac Pro is all Tim Cook. Jobs' fingerprints are all over this . It aligns up with the strategies he put into place before he stepped down. The overall market changed and the Mac Pro wasn't a primary growth factor ( not just for Macs but the overall classic PC market). Stake out the profitable (and growing) approximately 10% is straight out of Jobs playbook. Apple doesn't have to beat Microsoft/Windows in volume to 'win'. (Jobs declared the "PC wars" over back in the 90's. ).
Not really. Besides Tim Cook came out of operational engineering. Not Sales. Not Marketing. The Market folks have a role. But honestly the Industrial design ( Ive and his elves ) are inhibitors. There may be "too much" product design dogma ( ever thinner iPhones ) now. A real marketing ( not spin master but folks who can do real market analytics ) would be putting some of the breaks on that sooner. [ entry iPad is one example slowly coming out of that mania. ]
People are reading to much into the modular thing. Apples own definition of modular is a headless mac and the Mac Pro is allready modular today...
That makes the Mac a mini modular then, yet all you can replace on that is the memory and fan... one would hope Apples idea for a modular Mac Pro it’ll no doubt charge thousands for, will actually let you change more than that! But this is Apple who just lurves soldering stuff to the motherboard..