Mac Book Pro 13 "Core i7: The Turbo Boost function well

The 2.7 GHz Core i7-2620m team that the Mac Book Pro 13 "high-end mobile chip with the highest frequency available in the Intel catalog. It may even reach 3.4 GHz on a heart through the turbo boost, but Apple has apparently it off this feature to avoid overheating.

The Cupertino Company is yet to promote this function on the product page of Mac Book Pro, clearly indicating the frequency of 3.4 GHz that only the Core i7-2620m can be achieved in the current range. PC Pro has never yet managed to achieve this frequency in these tests, the processor remains hopelessly nailed to 2.7 GHz. Core i7-2720QM Mac Book Pro 17 "has no trouble reaching its maximum frequency of 3 GHz, so its four cores are at 95 degrees.

That's about the same temperature reached by the two cores of the Core i7-2620m Mac Book Pro 13 "at full speed to 2 GHz. This temperature is certainly high, but rather common, however, can only imagine the Turbo Boost, the processor could blithely exceed 100 °, temperatures this time potentially problematic. The English site therefore advances the hypothesis that Apple has disabled the Turbo Boost on the chip to avoid overheating. Notebook Journal (via) confirms this hypothesis: their copy is even temporarily increased to 798 MHz time to control its temperature.

Even without turbo boost, the Mac Book Pro 13 "Core i7 is a very fast machine. The question is whether Apple disables the default Turbo Boost, or if Mac OS X disables the fly: it will be difficult to know, rise in mean temperature rise mechanically. Having ourselves a Mac Book Pro 13 "Core i7 at our disposal, we will try to verify this behavior: we will update this article accordingly.

[UPDATE] Our own tests show that the Turbo Boost is indeed active on the Core i7-2620m Mac Book Pro 13 ". On two hearts, the incidence rises to 3.19 GHz (multi-core optimized implementation), so that it goes up to 3.33 GHz on a single heart (non-optimized implementation; Turbo Boost 2.0 is supposed to extend the "boost" Yet, we observe that the frequency goes down enough quickly, in very small increments (Intel explained that Core i7-2620m had 7 frequency ranges between 2.7 and 3.4 GHz).

The falling speed of the Turbo Boost seems to be correlated to temperature: the "boost" is much better during the first tests (when the processor runs at about 80 °) during the following (the processor then proceeds to over 90 °, with a peak at 97 °). It seems that Mac OS X and / or processor finely monitorent frequency to avoid overheating: it is again a function of Turbo Boost 2.0. Even in influencing the speed of the fans for the processor to overheat (remaining under the 110 ° measure), we observed no deactivation of cores or drastic fall frequency to avoid overheating.

In short, it seems that this processor is behaving as it should, with a much finer granularity of the "boost". PC Pro Notebook Journal as a tool used by Intel under Windows to test frequency: perhaps he is assigned a bug, or maybe the management of the Turbo Boost this particular model of processor is different ( or faulty) on this platform.

Adobe introduced the "ninth Elements"

The "Ninth Elements", as Adobe calls it, was presented to the press today. The big news of the ninth edition of consumer products from Adobe Premiere Elements of the arrival on the Mac.

The entire range of Elements is now available on Mac OS X. Bridge lovers will be disappointed: the browser interface on Mac Adobe disappears in favor of an organizer who was brought from the Windows version. Files, projects and catalogs are fully compatible between both platforms. Managing photos and videos, it takes the tabbed interface that can be found for example in Lightroom: Organizing (with management of keywords and display by date), edit, create (using templates) and share (with integration of social networks).

As for video, Premiere Elements 9 is therefore coming to Mac. The tabbed interface is again formatting: Organize tab is a bin with integrated import interface, the Edit tab contains themes and effects, the Menus tab of the disk to create DVDs or BDR, and Sharing tab to share .... We like it or not, but we must admit that seems very linear operation for beginners. Unlike iMovie, Premiere Elements is multitrack audio / video (99 tracks).

We can use files from different sources into one project: the first adaptation project in the format of the first file. The files will be up scaled or down-accordingly. Premiere Elements 9 is able to clean background noise of a video taken by example with a telephone or a small HD camera. The impact compresses the sound a bit, but is really effective. Premiere Elements 9 loads over 70 effects to the questionable value, but is mostly modified at will - and are mainly used on live video, without rendering time.

Similarly, the DVD menus are the default controls the placement of videos, but it is possible to modify and enrich them, depending on the degree of experience. If we can send his film on DVD or Blu-ray (one will appreciate the humor of Adobe on the topic, since we have not finished waiting on Mac compatible players), we can also make a kind of DVD Web, a Web page that appears as a menu and allows to read videos in an interactive way ... in Flash (FLV or MP4).

Image side, Photoshop Elements 9 inherits some features of Photoshop CS5, but also embellished resolutely public functions. Photoshop Elements 9 integrates also a gallery of filters in fashion, as the effect or Lomo Pop Art, but also the effects of photomontage. These effects are presented as "recipes", built in tutorials to Photoshop Elements immediately containing the necessary tools. If you are a little more experienced, you can always have access to layers that have helped create the effect or photomontage.

Elements 9 uses the engine of Photoshop CS5 for example offer repair or correction of the photos shown taking into account the content: you can now automatically fill the missing areas of a panorama, rather than the crop, or remove elements noise of an image (a kind of automated cloning tool). The results are convincing ... until we do not zoom to 100%. Finally, like Photoshop Elements Premiere 9 integrate social networks: it is possible to export his creations on Facebook or Flickr.

Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that Google may delete the H.264 on YouTube

Now in only 32.89% of Internet users could continue to visit in the state, an unthinkable sacrifice. Even when Flash will integrate WebM will require that users update their version to be able to take advantage of: the current version of Flash does not pose this problem (Flash supports H.264 since version 9 was released in December 2007). Moreover, it is hard to imagine that Google has not contractually committed with partners like Apple to maintain compatibility with their devices.

The commitment of Google behind WebM at least has the merit of clarifying the situation regarding the giving of the codec on the field of patents: MPEG-LA has repeatedly stated that the free format violated certain of its patents, and that license was under development. The industry association cannot shake indefinitely without its threats would be implemented, and assuming that they are based, Google would be a prime target, except for example, at least for damages that it might represent. Adding however that nothing prevents the MPEG-LA to choose sparingly opponents court, especially since Google has made it clear she would not come to the aid of its partners.

In short, Google's decision is a stir of HTML5, which only give relevance to Flash, where Apple had done the opposite. And so exactly was the effect of strip searched? By restoring the importance of Flash, Google could very well work to the advantage of Android, which supports this format, unlike the IOS ... while going for the white knight of free formats.

But Google did not she simply followed the logic of ecosystem? Indeed, ownership of a video codec, it was destined to become a standard, not a major strategic issue, since interoperability is a crucial element specifically for industry standards. Exclusivity is the less put on a free. Google can certainly preside freely on the future of the codec and decide its future developments, but the side effects seem even more decisive than this one advantage, at least in the medium term.

These explanations do they justify the significant costs of investing behind Google WebM? He has still cost $ 100 million into the acquisition and conversion of over 120 million videos on YouTube will certainly be expensive that few others can afford. These figures are still to put into perspective: according to various estimates, the deficit would amount to YouTube about 500 million dollars just for 2009. A straw in comparison with 6.5 billion profits made last year by Google.

WebM-H264-Flash

Then move on to content providers: the first one, YouTube, supports both the H.264 WebM. Beyond that, we must also look to find videos in WebM. And for good reason: this waltz codec has a cost, not just storage, but also encoding.

Content providers are primarily looking for the highest common denominator between all browsers and all platforms. For now, the duo Flash and H.264 that wins, because the plug-in Adobe can play H.264 video in browsers that do not have this feature. Similarly, IOS, Flash private, can play videos in H.264 format, like most mobile platforms.

Take the case of Daily motion, which hosts some 16 million videos, the 3G format (240p), SD (380p), HQ (480p) and HD (720p). To fully support the WebM, should convert each video to each of these resolutions, to ultimately do not get absolutely any benefit from the perspective of the host: support for WebM would not increase the scope of the site. Besides Daily motion receives many videos already encoded in H.264 with regard to the quantity of material to support this format natively, and encoders WebM are two to three times slower than their counterparts in H.264. Recognizing further that the MPEG-LA has decided to permanently abandon his royalties on the free dissemination of content in H.264, WebM does not even compensating on that plane.

Adobe has already announced plans to add support of WebM in Flash, and Google also speaks of a plug-in to read the WebM (probably as a codec for QuickTime and Windows Media rather than a plug-ins for each browser, read WebM: freedom, politics and ... installing plug-ins). It nonetheless remains that IOS cannot read the WebM. Site publishers who wish to remain accessible on the Apple devices will be well advised to keep H.264, which will remain readable in Firefox, Chrome and Opera through Flash.

And that's where Google's announcement demonstrates its adverse effects, far from encouraging the abandonment of Flash, it only strengthens his position. Some observers have also not failed to raise an inconsistency in the attitude of Google, if it abandons the H.264 for philosophical questions relating to proprietary code, what does the code of Flash within the one Chrome? And what about other Google products that retain their support H.264? Olivier Poitrey, technical director of Daily motion, does not mince words: "Google wants us to believe that his only interest is to advance open source, but keeping the support of this proprietary format in YouTube, Google Android and TV it demonstrates the hypocrisy of his actions. "

Also remains the thorny question of hardware acceleration, which is crucial for mobile devices, and so far the exclusive domain of H.264. Certainly, the support of WebM in hardware has been promised, but what about the current generations of hardware, and various contractual commitments with its partners YouTube?

HTML5 video: they redid the game?

Google has decided to remove the H.264 support in its browser within two months. The reason stated for this choice: the promotion and support of open formats to the detriment of the open standard (but not least the owner) what is H.264.

Here is another episode in the long battle that pits two camps around the HTML5 video tag. WebM supporters are surprised to dream that such support is crucial to switch things ... The Free Software Foundation does not hide his enthusiasm after the announcement. But despite the undeniable weight of Google, it will take much to tip the current balance of things.

Let's start by estimating the forces in place. In the field of computer browsers, only Safari and Internet Explorer remain in the camp of H.264, while Firefox, Opera and now Chrome (which was previously the only browser to support both formats) are in the camp WebM. Regarding the effective support of HTML5, only IE9 (0.46% market share), Safari 4 + (5.41%), Firefox 3.5 + (21.09%), Opera 10.5 (2%) Chrome and 3 + (9.8%) support the video tag, at least among the browsers on your computer. This still represents a minority of all browsers currently used.

Because we must not omit mobile devices, particularly iOS, whose inability to read from Flash was one of the drivers of the adoption of H.264 on the web. If not iOS assumes "only" 1.69% market share of operating systems (all machines together), it is nonetheless the backbone of mobile platforms, a highly strategic area. Other mobile OS also offer all native support for H.264, with hardware acceleration that makes reading more energy efficient.