I think you meant to mention terabytes of RAM for the high end rather than gigabytes. Their most expensive machines are near the top of the middle tier or the bottom of the top tier. Apple's least expensive system is maybe near the bottom of middle tier with no options but can be ordered in a configuration pushing $2000. Even Porsche with the Cayenne, much lower-tier than the rest of their stable, is not selling a low-end vehicle. The least expensive part of Alfa Romeo's line or Ferrari's line is not a low-end car. Let's pretend we're Slashdot for a second and use a car analogy.
#Usb 3.0 mac thunderbolt series
Intel Xeon E5462 2800 MHz (8 cores) rated 420 single and 2540 multiĭell workstations at that time supported 5400 series Xeons.
#Usb 3.0 mac thunderbolt pro
Xeon in Mac Pro in 2010 rated 611 single, 6280 multiīy comparison, in 2008 Mac Pro workstation: Given these scores are comparing 2010 laptops with 2021 laptops, and the 2010 laptop wins (and can be bought at around the same price!), certainly if comparing a 15 year old workstation with cheapest available machine today, yes, the 15 year old Dell will exceed the performance of at least some new machines. That's in currently shipping gear, like this HP introduced fall 2021: Celeron N4020 benchmark: 427 single, 750 multi To be fair, that model became available in 2018.Īcer Chromebooks w/ Intel Celeron N4020 have pretty bad benchmarks (~320-460 single, ~320-500 multi) but the CPU itself rates better: In this case, the 2010 Mac smokes the Chromebook.
HP 4BS38UA HP Chromebook 14 IPS HD (1366x768) Intel Celeron N3350: 288 single, 523 multi Geekbench MacBook Pro 2010 15": 2.66GHz Intel Core i7 (i7-620M): 457 single, 972 multiĪnd a currently shipping Chromebook, when sorting price low to high:
Well, yes? We aren't that much faster since 2010 if you had true top end then and true low end now.īut since talking Macs and Chromebooks, let pull up those: > Do you think a 15 year old Dell is going to match the performance of any new machine? On-topic: Thankfully the Apple Silicon USB ports are more than fast enough for DisplayLink adapters, which (in my experience) are often using an early version of USB 3.0 aka USB 3.1 Gen 1 aka USB 3.2 Gen 1. I use it after first boot if needed, and keep one for ‘4 monitors’ and one for ‘5 monitors’ (when using Sidecar with iPad) After a moment everything is working as expected.īetterTouchTool has a newish feature to capture your current window layout across all open apps and displays and lets you assign a shortcut to put everything back where you intended. Since my DisplayLink connections are both on the same ThinkPad dock (1 built-in, 1 USB), I just toggle the dock off, connect the iPad with Sidecar, and turn it back on.
I sometimes add an iPad in Sidecar mode, but that needs to connect before DisplayLink or it will error out, likely since the mini is flabbergasted at the number of monitors it sees attached at that moment.
#Usb 3.0 mac thunderbolt driver
It’s nice that DisplayLink connections let an M1 machine have unlimited displays, and that the performance of their driver under Big Sur and above has been fantastic (for me) for the past half year driving 2 extra displays. Like you said, my M1 Mac mini “officially” supports two monitors plugged in directly.
0 kommentar(er)
