6 ms·
A lot of those "up to"s are expressing user options, though -- "up to" 512 GB RAM means that there are configurations that include that, but also cheaper config
by addaon 23d ago
A lot of those "up to"s are expressing user options, though -- "up to" 512 GB RAM means that there are configurations that include that, but also cheaper configurations that don't. That's a pretty different beast than "up to 4.3x faster performance", which means (presumably) that exactly one benchmark showed a 4.3x improvement and the rest showed less -- which is to say, means very little.
- freehorse 23d agoExcept for the prices of course, where they use “starting at 5,499$” instead of “up to 18,299$” to indicate user options.
- seviu 23d agoThe cleaning cloth went down in price about 50% There is some consolation there
- HumblyTossed 23d agoOnly because it doesn't contain RAM.
- datakan 23d agoDon't give them any ideas
- garbageman 23d agoMoore's Cloth
- fl0ki 23d agoBut was the compatibility table updated?
- m463 23d agoI thought it was funny years ago when apple would report the power in watts of some systems like the mac mini. But for the mac pro, they would say something very obscure. "100-120V AC or 200-240V AC (wide-range power supply input voltage)" and the maximum current is "12A (low-voltage range) or 6A (high-voltage range)". They're trying NOT to say it had a 1440 watt power supply.
- addaon 20d ago> They're trying NOT to say it had a 1440 watt power supply. It isn't, though. That rating is for circuit sizing. Power supplies are rated by their output power. If you assume an 89% efficiency for the power supply, and assume 1.0 PFC, and assume that it must be able to supply its rated power at the critical corner (low voltage), and assume zero margin on the current rating, then this is a 1068 W power supply. More likely its design spec is around 1000 W; it certainly can't be 1440 W.
- FireBeyond 22d agoOh, that's for the 256GB option. Based on their math, I'd hazard the 512GB option being $23,799+. ($4K to go from 96 to 256)
- mihaaly 22d ago> A lot of those 46, actually. 46. I am pretty certain that the explanation lies completely elsewhere... (overuse of overstatements, for the sake of manipulation, perhaps? something that makes their saying unreliable this way - e.g. they forget to mention the other end of the range, or perhaps the mean, completely .... except when it is good for them, e.g. prices ... that's borderline to lying this way...)