Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Sep 2017 16:40 UTC
Apple

With the iPhone X revealed, we really have to start talking about its processor and SoC - the A11 Bionic. It's a six-core chip with two high-power cores, four low-power cores, and this year, for the first time, includes an Apple-designed custom GPU. It also has what Apple calls a Neural Engine, designed to speed up tasks such as face recognition.

Apple already had a sizeable performance lead over competing chips from Qualcomm (what Android phones use) in single-core performance, and the A11 blasts past those in multicore performance, as well. Moreover, the A11 also performs better than quite a number of recent desktop Intel chips from the Core i5 and i7 range, which is a big deal.

For quite a few people it's really hard to grasp just how powerful these chips are - and to a certain extent, it feels like much of that power is wasted in an iPhone, which is mostly doing relatively mundane tasks anyway. Now that Apple is also buildings its own GPUs, it's not a stretch to imagine a number of mobile GPU makers feeling a bit... Uneasy.

At some point, these Apple Ax chips will find their way to something more sizable than phones and tablets.

Thread beginning with comment 648841
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

Ah, the mythical Web based thingy.

Naturally it relies upon an always on internet connection that charges by the bit for data going over it.

So there I am on a shoot and take a whole bunch of images with my new Nikon D850 (47MP). Say around 24Gb for a decent day in the field.
1) How long to copy that lot up to the cloud for the cloud version of Lightroom to work on it?
2) How much will that cost me from the middle of the Amazon rain forrest? Do you want an extra arm with that?

Sure, for a lot of people the cloud/web versions will work. But for a huge percentage of Photographers out of the studio? Forget it.
Have laptop, will travel and process images.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

shotsman,

Ah, the mythical Web based thingy.

Naturally it relies upon an always on internet connection that charges by the bit for data going over it.

So there I am on a shoot and take a whole bunch of images with my new Nikon D850 (47MP). Say around 24Gb for a decent day in the field.
1) How long to copy that lot up to the cloud for the cloud version of Lightroom to work on it?
2) How much will that cost me from the middle of the Amazon rain forrest? Do you want an extra arm with that?

Sure, for a lot of people the cloud/web versions will work. But for a huge percentage of Photographers out of the studio? Forget it.
Have laptop, will travel and process images.


Yeah, I was hearing on the news about people who got their power back after the hurricanes but still had no internet or cell service. Internet may be extremely limited for some until the infrastructure is fixed. Obviously this is a major failure mode for "cloud apps" that would otherwise work if they were local apps (things like GPS could be extremely useful, but your screwed if you rely on an online service like google maps).

Of course these are drastic circumstances, but the cloud services can and do fail under normal circumstances too, ie amazon outages, google outages, microsoft outages, isp outages... One of the very few games I reluctantly bought off steam was a multiplayer party game from jackinthebox games. I thought would be fun to use during a holiday party. Low and behold, the jackinthebox cloud service was connecting and disconnecting all night. This failure mode would not have been an issue with a local version. And despite the fact that I own a perpetual license, it will stop working whenever they deem to take down the service. With local software, you can run it on your terms, but with remote "cloud" software, you become completely dependent.


Technology has gone between local versus "cloud" since the easiest mainframe days. The main difference was that back then the trends were motivated by cost and technological factors. These days the decision to have remote services is often made for advertising, snooping, and marketing reasons even when it conflicts with robust engineering.

Edited 2017-09-14 13:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

Service Workers.



There's no reason those exact same apps won't work without the internet as long as you've loaded the page even once.

Reply Parent Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Jesus, the more things change... the more they stay the same.

I remember reading similar posts where people used to film cameras could not envision the feasibility of digital imaging and processing of photos on the field.

When the auto was introduced, people used to horses were wondering about what happens when you run out of hay.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Troels Member since:
2005-07-11

Nice examples, though i don't see how the apply here.

Both your examples were obvious, of course they would eventually improve and be better than the old alternatives, anything thinking otherwise had to little knowledge to judge it. Just like driverless transportation is obviously the future now.

Thinking the web approach to all software is anywhere near as obvious an improvement is much less clear, just like so many other things that were previously hyped to take over the world, but never did.

Reply Parent Score: 3