The Definitive Dual Processor (crap, Dual Core) Definition

[dpaanlka]

I see that some people who call their Macs "dual processor" or "quad processor" systems being shot down and corrected now and then. "It's COREs, not processors." But is not a "dual core" basically just two processors on the same board sharing the same cache and bus?

Doesn't that still make it technically two processors? Since when is a processor defined as having an independent, dedicated bus and L2 cache? Can I free myself and tell people the Mac Pro on my desk has four processors? I mean, it technically does, doesn't it?

"Four processors" sounds a lot more impressive (and easier to understand for many people) than "four cores."

What is everyone's take on this?

[mkrishnan]

My take is that we really do have too much time on our hands. :o

[dpaanlka]

My take is that we really do have too much time on our hands. :o

I always have plenty of time for everything. :D

[840quadra]

To me, it is pretty clear that they should be called multiple cores as opposed to multiple processors. It is also what Apple states in the system profiler, and on sales material for the system. Intel also shows similar within their documentation.

My Macbook has 1 processor with two cores. :) .

65259

[kalisphoenix]

I see that some people who call their Macs "dual processor" or "quad processor" systems being shot down and corrected now and then. "It's COREs, not processors." But is not a "dual core" basically just two processors on the same board sharing the same cache and bus?

There are many ways a "quad core" machine could be set up (okay, three) -- 1pX4c,2pX2c,4px1c.

A "quad processor" machine could have a number of cores in any multiple of four.

So I prefer using "core" because it's somewhat more precise -- even though it crumbles because of the way those cores could be arranged in the machine's processor. We saw this when the dual-core G5's came out. "Is it a dual-processor or a single-processor/dual-core?" It's confusing.

(Not to mention that there are some architectural differences that result in performance differences...)

[bearbo]

i think dual core is when you have two core on one board, aka one processor, two core.

quad core is when you have 2 processors (boards), and each have 2 cores

dual processor is when you have two processors(boards) and each have one core.

if you open up a dual processor G5, you see distinctively 2 compartment of independent processors, but if you open up a dual core G5 you see one compartment

a chip is a processor, but a chip might be comprised of one OR two core, the hence dual core on one processor.

we have yet to have a quad processor mac.

[dpaanlka]

To me, it is pretty clear that they should be called multiple cores as opposed to multiple processors. It is also what Apple states in the system profiler, and on sales material for the system. Intel also shows similar within their documentation.

My Macbook has 1 processor with two cores. :) .

65259

Possibly for the system's identification that may be true. But in Apple's CHUD Processor System Preference panel (not even third party) we see this:

65264

a chip is a processor, but a chip might be comprised of one OR two core, the hence dual core on one processor.

I know that's what the term dual-core means. But each core really is an entire processor. That "chip" they're sitting on is, essentially, a really tiny daughtercard. Is it not?

There were lots of systems in the past that didn't have any L2 cache at all, and/or shared the processor's bus with other components, even other processors. So none of that can be used to define a single whole processor.

EDIT: Also, Activity monitor lists several panes as "CPU Usage" - so each of those is a CPU? It doesn't say "Core" usage:

65265

Continuing, third party apps also recognize them as multiprocessors (rather than cores):

65266

[mkrishnan]

Possibly for the system's identification that may be true. But in the Apple CHUD control panel (not even third party) we see this

I think it's something like asking what the definition of a kilobyte is. There is more than one right answer because there is more than one valid perspective. From a hardware design standpoint, because resource sharing and board layout are not the same for cores and separate processors, it makes perfect sense to call each discrete chip a processor, and then refer separately to how many cores it has. But from the operating system's perspective, the Mac Pro motherboard has four available CPUs to which CPU processing tasks can be independently assigned.

[WildCowboy]

I think it's something like asking what the definition of a kilobyte is. There is more than one right answer because there is more than one valid perspective.

No, there's only one definition of a kilobyte...the other folks are just wrong. :D

[dpaanlka]

Is it not then unfair to make a distinction of a MacBook Pro as having two "cores" but the Dual Processor Power Mac G4/G5 systems as having two "processors" - because those are cores too!

And what about the dual processor Power Macintosh 9x00 systems. Those shared both the L2 cache and bus, just like the dual "core" systems do today... it had two processors mounted to that big daughter-card, and L2 cache was located externally on the motherboard. Why would they call that dual processors and today's chips dual core?

[bearbo]

my point is (apology for underestimate you :o) there needs to be a way of distinguish 2 CPU on one board sharing this and that, and 2 CPU on 2 boards, not sharing anything..

and since the former is proven more sufficient, you need another name for that...

[dpaanlka]

my point is (apology for underestimate you :o) there needs to be a way of distinguish 2 CPU on one board sharing this and that, and 2 CPU on 2 boards, not sharing anything..

and since the former is proven more sufficient, you need another name for that...

See above post about the "dual processor" Power Macintosh 9500 and 9600.

EDIT: Or was that a response to that post? I'm not sure I understand what you mean...

[840quadra]

Is it not then unfair to make a distinction of a MacBook Pro as having two "cores" but the Dual Processor Power Mac G4/G5 systems as having two "processors" - because those are cores too!

And what about the dual processor Power Macintosh 9x00 systems. Those shared both the L2 cache and bus, just like the dual "core" systems do today... it had two processors mounted to that big daughter-card, and L2 cache was located externally on the motherboard. Why would they call that dual processors and today's chips dual core?

I am familiar with CHUD, and also am familiar that it is intended to be used as a diagnostic tool for programmers. I also understand that Multithreaded programs will see them as unique and independent processors.

I guess a decision has to be made wether the marketing, or the software is correct with defining what term is correct.

I am leaning on the marketing side myself.

[bearbo]

See above post about the "dual processor" Power Macintosh 9500 and 9600.

EDIT: Or was that a response to that post? I'm not sure I understand what you mean...

i'm not too familiar about 9500 and 9600, but i'm assuming the 2 CPUs are not on the same circuit board?

[dpaanlka]

I am leaning on the marketing side myself.

But as we can see, the marketing changes over time. We had the "dual processor" Power Macintosh 9600 with what is essentially the same exact thing as today's "Dual Core" chips - I think it is just that... Marketing.

Software, however, has never changed it's opinion of how many processors one has. I have to lean towards software, since I would also imagine it (and it's writers) know my machine better than marketing people.

i'm not too familiar about 9500 and 9600, but i'm assuming the 2 CPUs are not on the same circuit board?

No, they are on the same physical board, and they share the same bus and L2 cache - just like today's "dual core" chips - but they were called dual processor!

:eek:

Also, calling the Mac mini "dual core" but the Power Mac G4 "dual processor" leaves the impression that the G4 is somehow not dual core.

[mkrishnan]

No, there's only one definition of a kilobyte...the other folks are just wrong. :D

:D

That's what they told me about you!

[bearbo]

No, they are on the same physical board, and they share the same bus and L2 cache - just like today's "dual core" chips - but they were called dual processor!

:eek:

Also, calling the Mac mini "dual core" but the Power Mac G4 "dual processor" leaves the impression that the G4 is somehow not dual core.

but are those two CPU on one chip?

in the case of mac pro, everything is on the same motherboard, but they still are on their own 2 separate chips... aka can you physically separate the 2 CPU on the 9500/9600?

[dpaanlka]

in the case of mac pro, everything is on the same motherboard, but they still are on their own 2 separate chips... aka can you physically separate the 2 CPU on the 9500/9600?

No, you cannot.

[bearbo]

No, you cannot.

oh. then i'm not sure why can that not be called dual core

[bearbo]

oh. then i'm not sure why can that not be called dual core

but aside from that... the systems today can still distinguish between DC and DP, eh? i mean, it's relatively consistent

[dpaanlka]

oh. then i'm not sure why can that not be called dual core

Or, why that can be called dual processor, but a Mac mini is dual core?

but aside from that... the systems today can still distinguish between DC and DP, eh? i mean, it's relatively consistent

Didn't you see those screenshots of mine? Its totally inconsistent! Actually, there are far more references to "processors" than "cores."

[840quadra]

But as we can see, the marketing changes over time. We had the "dual processor" Power Macintosh 9600 with what is essentially the same exact thing as today's "Dual Core" chips - I think it is just that... Marketing.

Software, however, has never changed it's opinion of how many processors one has. I have to lean towards software, since I would also imagine it (and it's writers) know my machine better than marketing people.


You make a good point, however you are asking for a definition that you can use to tell others. Since marketing is paying money for ads, documentation, and others, it would make sense to use the marketing name for it.

Is it a Powermac G5 Dual 2.0, or is it a Dual 2.0 970fx Macintosh? Both are correct, but one is also easier to understand and discuss for more of the population than the other, mostly due to marketing.

[iMeowbot]

No, they are on the same physical board, and they share the same bus and L2 cache - just like today's "dual core" chips - but they were called dual processor!

I think you're getting to the part where this all bogs down, it's this idea that a CPU is "a chip". I doubt that this argument would even have come up in the past, when a CPU took up a few boards or a boxful of 'em.

[bearbo]

Didn't you see those screenshots of mine? Its totally inconsistent! Actually, there are far more references to "processors" than "cores."
when we are only talking about apple's own callings, apple didn't call all the CPU processors, they only called them CPU... like 4 CPUs in activity monitor and so on.

and the whole "if 2 CPU on the same chip, it's called dual core, if 2 CPU on different chip, it's called dual processor" is still consistent

it's another story with 3rd party calling, they are never consistent

[dpaanlka]

Is it a Powermac G5 Dual 2.0, or is it a Dual 2.0 970fx Macintosh? Both are correct, but one is also easier to understand and discuss for more of the population than the other, mostly due to marketing.

I agree that multiple definitions are correct. But I disagree with your "understanding" opinioin. If i tell my friends "well this is a dual processor, four core system" they have no idea what the heck I'm talking about, and it takes further explaining and just overall sounds much less simple (and much less impressive) to say "this has four processors" - which it does.

Basically, we (together) need to right now come up with a concrete definition of what the difference between dual-core and dual-processor actually is, and for that matter if there even is one.

I call for the recognition that "processor" and "core" are interchangeable, should be accepted as such in discussion, and people who say Mac minis are dual processor and Mac Pros are quad processor should not be "corrected" because they are, after all, correct.

when we are only talking about apple's own callings, apple didn't call all the CPU processors, they only called them CPU... like 4 CPUs in activity monitor and so on.

False. That control panel that says "Processors: 4" is an Apple control panel. It's part of CHUD, which is part of Xcode.

and the whole "if 2 CPU on the same chip, it's called dual core, if 2 CPU on different chip, it's called dual processor" is still consistent

But that definition is no good either because it's implying that each core is not an actual processor, which they are.

it's another story with 3rd party calling, they are never consistent

They all seem pretty consistent - they all seem to call them processors.

[840quadra]

I call for the recognition that "processor" and "core" are interchangeable, should be accepted as such in discussion, and people who say Mac minis are dual processor and Mac Pros are quad processor should not be "corrected" because they are, after all, correct.

I am with you here, I am not one that will jump in and correct someone if they use either of the terms. I only correct when people get confused and think that the G5 Quad, or Mac Pro Quad have a single chip with 4 cores.


Something else to throw in

On the definition of being on the same board. Remember that the Dual processor G4 systems had 2 processors on one board as well. However, they were each single core G4 processors that shared the same daughtercard. I have seen people become confused in the past, calling G4 Duals, the first dual core processor mac, which isn't true.

[Cromulent]

I agree that multiple definitions are correct. But I disagree with your "understanding" opinioin. If i tell my friends "well this is a dual processor, four core system" they have no idea what the heck I'm talking about, and it takes further explaining and just overall sounds much less simple (and much less impressive) to say "this has four processors" - which it does.

Basically, we (together) need to right now come up with a concrete definition of what the difference between dual-core and dual-processor actually is, and for that matter if there even is one.

I call for the recognition that "processor" and "core" are interchangeable, should be accepted as such in discussion, and people who say Mac minis are dual processor and Mac Pros are quad processor should not be "corrected" because they are, after all, correct.

Actually that would be wrong. A processor (or more technically accurate a CPU) is the chip itself. It can have 1 core / 2 cores / 10,000 cores is does not matter it is still one CPU.

A Mac Mini has 1 CPU and two cores. A Mac Pro on the other hand has 2 CPUs and 4 cores and should be referred to as a duel processor duel core system.

The reason they are called cores and not processors is because they must share resources with the other cores (cache, bus etc) and that limits there effectiveness. If you could split a duel core processor into the two separate cores and put them on different buses it would perform better than the original duel core. Of course you would have to bear in mind that there would have to be some architectural changes to get it to work.

For this reason alone it is both misleading and wrong to refer to a Mac Mini as a duel processor computer as it only has 1 CPU.

[dpaanlka]

I am with you here, I am not one that will jump in and correct someone if they use either of the terms. I only correct when people get confused and think that the G5 Quad, or Mac Pro Quad have a single chip with 4 cores.

And to further my thoughts...

The phrase "Dual Core Processor" itself doesn't make any sense. It should be "Dual Core Processing System" or "Dual Core Unit" - because you can't have a single processor that is two cores - each core is a processor! They work together via various interfacing methods, but they are two distinct processors.

A weird analogy I just thought of - if you have a shirt with two stains, you don't say "I have a two-stain stain" - each stain is an individual stain, existing together via the shirt (the "system").

[bearbo]

Actually that would be wrong. A processor (or more technically accurate a CPU) is the chip itself. It can have 1 core / 2 cores / 10,000 cores is does not matter it is still one CPU.

A Mac Mini has 1 CPU and two cores. A Mac Pro on the other hand has 2 CPUs and 4 cores and should be referred to as a duel processor duel core system.

The reason they are called cores and not processors is because they must share resources with the other cores (cache, bus etc) and that limits there effectiveness. If you could split a duel core processor into the two separate cores and put them on different buses it would perform better than the original duel core. Of course you would have to bear in mind that there would have to be some architectural changes to get it to work.

For this reason alone it is both misleading and wrong to refer to a Mac Mini as a duel processor computer as it only has 1 CPU.

i'm not gonna comment on this because i know dpaanlka is all over this now (add: and i was right :D)

...

now to dpaanlka, how would you differentiate then, between 2 core on same chip and 2 core on 2 chips?

[dpaanlka]

The reason they are called cores and not processors is because they must share resources with the other cores (cache, bus etc) and that limits there effectiveness.

Didn't I just disprove that with the "dual-processor" Power Macintosh 9600 example? Also, there are lots of computers in the past that shared their busses with other things (the Mac LC, the Power Macintosh 5200, my old Compaq Presario) and plenty of systems that didn't even have cache. Since when is cache part of the definition of what a processor is?

EDIT: In case you didn't see that - the "dual processor" Power Macintosh 9500 and 9600 systems each had two PowerPC 604 processors soldered onto a single board that shared the same single bus, and a single, external L2 cache.

Besides, there were other "multi processor" systems from various manufacturers before all this "core" nonsense - I'm sure there are other examples of a similar setup.

i'm not gonna comment on this because i know dpaanlka is all over this now (add: and i was right :D)

You know me well!

now to dpaanlka, how would you differentiate then, between 2 core on same chip and 2 core on 2 chips?

I would say a single chip with two cores/processors should be identified as a "Dual-Processor System," or "Dual-Core Chip," or something like that... but saying a single "processor" has two "cores" would be an oxymoron or whatever the term is.

"CPU" stands for "Central Processing Unit", does it not? It is not (but often misused as) an acronym for "processor" - because "processing unit" does not specify how many processors are there.

So, "Dual Core CPU" would also be correct. But it still has two processors. The "unit" in CPU (coming from "unify") suggests that there could be even two or more individual processors/cores, working together in unity.

[Cromulent]

Didn't I just disprove that with the "dual-processor" Power Macintosh 9600 example? Also, there are lots of computers in the past that shared their busses with other things (the Mac LC, the Power Macintosh 5200, my old Compaq Presario) and plenty of systems that didn't even have cache. Since when is cache part of the definition of what a processor is?

Using your logic then all computers with an integrated FPU are duel core systems. That is patently false. We are mearly talking about the CPU here. 1 physical chip inside your computer = 1 processor. Now the Power Mac 9600 may have been different and to be fair it was released before the need for a real definition existed.

Definition :
A dual-core CPU combines two independent processors and their respective caches and cache controllers onto a single silicon chip, or integrated circuit. IBM's POWER4 was the first microprocessor to incorporate 2-cores on a single die. Various dual-core CPUs are being developed by companies such as Motorola, Intel and AMD, and are scheduled to appear in consumer products in 2005.

This is why the terms are not interchangeable. If the Power Mac 9600 was marketed as a duel processor computer then that was before the term duel core was coined. I have no real knowledge about that computer though. If memory serves it used a daughter card to take the second CPU. Correct me if I am wrong, it has been a while since that computer was in the mainstream.

[iMeowbot]

"CPU" stands for "Central Processing Unit", does it not?
It does.

It is not (but often misused as) an acronym for "processor" - because "processing unit" does not specify how many processors are there.
Yes, it does: one. A CPU is made up of an ALU, control unit, registers. (this used to be intro to computers type stuff, don't they teach it any more?) Once upon a time the memory was also included, but that went away when CPUs started sharing core (when "core" meant a kind of memory).

So, "Dual Core CPU" would also be correct.
That would be a dual CPU CPU :D

[dpaanlka]

Using your logic then all computers with an integrated FPU are duel core systems. That is patently false.

Well, technically, it would be. And the Quadra 840av would have two processors too - a normal 68040 and the Digital Signal Processor. Although I wouldn't call that dual processor either - because one processor is for general computing use, while the other is very specific (as FPU is). So I shall now amend my definition to pertain only to the "general computing use" category.

A dual-core CPU combines two independent processors and their respective caches and cache controllers onto a single silicon chip, or integrated circuit.

What? How does that disprove what I am saying? If anything that is only further proof.

If memory serves it used a daughter card to take the second CPU. Correct me if I am wrong, it has been a while since that computer was in the mainstream.

No, both processors were physically on the same daughtercard.

Also, I see that each of my Xeon cores features it's own 32kb L1 cache - which suggests that they have some (even the slightest) level of independent cache management of their own. I think that further qualifies them as two processors.

[Cromulent]

What? How does that disprove what I am saying? If anything that is only further proof.

It proves it by saying that a Mac Mini is a duel core system and NOT a duel processor system. That is the difference. There is a distinction that must be made, it is wrong to call the Mini a duel processor system.

[dpaanlka]

It proves it by saying that a Mac Mini is a duel core system and NOT a duel processor system. That is the difference. There is a distinction that must be made, it is wrong to call the Mini a duel processor system.

How does that sentence prove that? I think it says quite clearly there are two independent processors.

[Cromulent]

How does that sentence prove that? I think it says quite clearly there are two independent processors.

On the same chip or integrated circuit. That is the important part.

[dpaanlka]

On the same chip or integrated circuit. That is the important part.

But you're ignoring the fact that it says two independent processors. So if someone's Mac mini has "dual cores" which, by that definition, means two independent processors - then how does it not have two independent processors?

Also, it's not "duel" - they're not fighting. "Dual" is the right word, which means two.

[iMeowbot]

On the same chip or integrated circuit. That is the important part.
See, that's not important at all. See this thing?
65273
That's a CPU. The memory is on separate boards. The number of chips is totally irrelevant.

[Cromulent]

But you're ignoring the fact that it says two independent processors. So if someone's Mac mini has "dual cores" which, by that definition, means two independent processors - then how does it not have two independent processors?

Look the definition was fairly concise. If you have two separate processors on two different chips it is a dual processor system. If they are combined on the same chip they are a dual core system.

Also, it's not "duel" - they're not fighting. "Dual" is the right word, which means two.

Thank you for that.

[Cromulent]

See, that's not important at all. See this thing?
65273
That's a CPU. The memory is on separate boards. The number of chips is totally irrelevant.

Did you even read the definition I posted above?

[dpaanlka]

Look the definition was fairly concise. If you have two separate processors on two different chips it is a dual processor system. If they are combined on the same chip they are a dual core system.

Well that just doesn't make any sense. There are still two processors in both cases. I'm aware of what the "dual core" phrase being thrown around today means - the whole point of this thread is to question the very reason it exists (because it doesn't seem to have one).

[Cromulent]

Well that just doesn't make any sense. There are still two processors in both cases.

Two processors in both cases, yes. Two processors and two chips in both cases? No.

[dpaanlka]

Two processors in both cases, yes. Two processors and two chips in both cases? No.

Who said anything about chips!??!

Why can you not say there are two processors if the friggin' computer has two processors (as you just said)???

[iMeowbot]

Did you even read the definition I posted above?

You wrote:
Actually that would be wrong. A processor (or more technically accurate a CPU) is the chip itself. It can have 1 core / 2 cores / 10,000 cores is does not matter it is still one CPU.

A Mac Mini has 1 CPU and two cores. A Mac Pro on the other hand has 2 CPUs and 4 cores and should be referred to as a duel processor duel core system.
And that's nonsense.

A CPU can be made of many components. With integration, many CPUs can be placed on one component. The number of discrete parts does not matter.

[Cromulent]

Who said anything about chips!??!

Why can you not say there are two processors if the friggin' computer has two processors (as you just said)???

Because the definition (the whole point of this thread I thought) was that a computer with two processors on the same chip was a dual core system.

[dpaanlka]

Because the definition (the whole point of this thread I thought) was that a computer with two processors on the same chip was a dual core system.

But that definition is true. It also would be correct to say two processors. It has two processors. It has two cores. Neither statement is false.

I want to bring to light how ridiculous it is to tell people their dual core systems do not have two processors.

Also, a computer with two entirely independent processors that do not share anything (like previous dual G5s) still has dual cores.

[Cromulent]

But that definition is true. It also would be correct to say two processors. It has two processors. It has two cores. Neither statement is false.

I want to bring to light how ridiculous it is to tell people their dual core systems do not have two processors.

Well what is the point of having a definition if you are just going to ignore it? That would be a dual core system. It is down to the people being told to understand what a dual core system is.

You can not just pick and choose what you want to call something because it does not fit in with what you think it should be called.

[Cromulent]

Also, a computer with two entirely independent processors that do not share anything (like previous dual G5s) still has dual cores.

Oh come on, can you not see how you are just squirming around this issue? The definition was clear a dual core system is a computer with two processors on the same chip. A system with processors on separate chips would be a dual processor system.

Maybe they should rename dual processor systems to something like independent dual processor system to make it clear so that people don't get all pedantic about definitions.

[dpaanlka]

Well what is the point of having a definition if you are just going to ignore it? That would be a dual core system. It is down to the people being told to understand what a dual core system is.

You can not just pick and choose what you want to call something because it does not fit in with what you think it should be called.

Sure you can. I have a monitor and a display on my desk, but I only have one thing.

The point is, these "dual core" Macs have both two processors and two cores. Old dual processor Macs also have two cores. You can say either one, but I honestly would just rather stick to "dual processor" or "quad processor" - because I'm sure most people in the world still do not know what a core is and how it relates to processors.

Oh come on, can you not see how you are just squirming around this issue? The definition was clear a dual core system is a computer with two processors on the same chip. A system with processors on separate chips would be a dual processor system.

Are you like, ignoring everything in this thread? No matter if there are two processors on the same chip or on twenty chips, they're still two processors. Nothing is changing the fact that there are two processors. How can you possibly tell me you do not understand this?

How does it go from having two processors to one processor when there are clearly two? Simply soldering them together?

[gnasher729]

I see that some people who call their Macs "dual processor" or "quad processor" systems being shot down and corrected now and then. "It's COREs, not processors." But is not a "dual core" basically just two processors on the same board sharing the same cache and bus?

There are different definitions around what a "processor" is. Especially IBM and Intel have been in disagreement quite often. So some people would say the for example a current (Jan. 2007) iMac has one processor, others would say it's two processors. You try to get them to agree.

They will all agree that it is two cores. When it is important, I would say it is one chip with two cores and avoid the word "processor" (for example, at some point Apple might build a one chip / four core MacPro instead of the current two chip / four core ones). (In Intel/AMD speak, the word "socket" is often used; I don't like it because again Apple could build a MacPro with two sockets, of which one is empty).

[dpaanlka]

There are different definitions around what a "processor" is. Especially IBM and Intel have been in disagreement quite often. So some people would say the for example a current (Jan. 2007) iMac has one processor, others would say it's two processors. You try to get them to agree.

They will all agree that it is two cores. When it is important, I would say it is one chip with two cores and avoid the word "processor" (for example, at some point Apple might build a one chip / four core MacPro instead of the current two chip / four core ones). (In Intel/AMD speak, the word "socket" is often used; I don't like it because again Apple could build a MacPro with two sockets, of which one is empty).

Well, since you didn't read the thread, I'll give you a short summary: We all seem to agree there are two actual processors inside all these dual core Macs. I'm not really understanding why "dual core" even exists - as two processors soldered together on a single board has existed long before the term "dual core" was coined, and it was always called "dual processor" - even back then.

The debate going on now is whether or not you can say "two processors" - which I think you should be able to, since there are two processors.

[Cromulent]

Are you like, ignoring everything in this thread? No matter if there are two processors on the same chip or on twenty chips, they're still two processors. Nothing is changing the fact that there are two processors. How can you possibly tell me you do not understand this?

Look I understand that point. The fact is one is called a dual core system and the other is not. That is all there is too it.

One use of the phrase is correct, the other is not.

It is like the dual and duel thing you corrected me on earlier. It would be like me saying "Why can't I use duel in this context? Everyone knows what I mean" and the answer is because I am wrong. The same applies here.

[dpaanlka]

Look I understand that point. The fact is one is called a dual core system and the other is not.

But both are dual processor systems.

It is like the dual and duel thing you corrected me on earlier. It would be like me saying "Why can't I use duel in this context? Everyone knows what I mean" and the answer is because I am wrong. The same applies here.

No, it's completely different. "Duel" in that context is wrong. But saying two processors is not wrong, because there are two processors.

You basically are saying "you have to say it that way because." Well sorry, that doesn't prove anything. "Because that's the way it is" is not a reason.

[bearbo]

Look I understand that point. The fact is one is called a dual core system and the other is not. That is all there is too it.

One use of the phrase is correct, the other is not.

It is like the dual and duel thing you corrected me on earlier. It would be like me saying "Why can't I use duel in this context? Everyone knows what I mean" and the answer is because I am wrong. The same applies here.

but what is wrong with saying dual processors when there ARE two processors?

on the same chip or not, there are two processors, and if there are two processors, it should be able to be called dual processor

the analogy of the dual v duel just doesn't make any sense. dual and duel are completely different and duel doesn't make any sense in this case... however to call 2 processors dual processor is not fundamentally false.

to dpaanlka: see, i can be corrected too :)

[CanadaRAM]

Yow.

OK - I scrolled past a bunch of stuff when my eyes glazed over.

For us in this business, a dual processor machine has 2 processor chips in independent sockets, no matter that those sockets are mounted on a single daughtercard (like the G4 duals) or separately, directly in their own sockets on the motherboard.

A dual core is two CPU units on a single silicon processor chip, which may or may not share some circuitry. But they are packaged into the same package with one set of pins.

A daughter card with 2 processor sockets mounted on it does not make it a dual-core.

All Dual-core machines are by definition dual-processor, but we use Dual-Processor to designate 2 CPUs in 2 different sockets. This is an identifying feature of the machine, such as differentiating between G5 towers of the same speed.

[Cromulent]

Okay bad analogy.

Lets start from the beginning. One processor is a one processor system. Now add an entirely new processor to the system and you have a dual processor system. Now combine those two processors onto the same chip and you have a dual core system. I believe we are all agreed on this.

Now calling a dual core system the same as the dual processor system is not the same. As the dual core system shares the same system bus to access RAM and other important parts of the system. This slows it down as it has the same amount of throughput as the dual processor system yet half the available bandwidth. Now I guess you could call a dual core system a dual processor system but that would be implying a system without that limit in place and thus giving the wrong impression. The important thing to note in this dicussion is not the fact there there are two processors as this has already been agreed to be the case. The important thing to note is the differences between the two whether these differences mean that a new name should be used to differentiate between the two.

In this case the difference in available bandwidth to the two cores limits them and so they do not perform to the same level as two entirely separate processors. While this maybe a small difference in most real world applications the fact that they can not perform to the same level as two separate processors is what derives the need for a different name to distinguish the two.

Maybe that has helped clear up my position?

[dpaanlka]

For us in this business, a dual processor machine has 2 processor chips in independent sockets, no matter that those sockets are mounted on a single daughtercard (like the G4 duals) or separately, directly in their own sockets on the motherboard.

A dual core is two CPU units on a single silicon processor chip, which may or may not share some circuitry. But they are packaged into the same package with one set of pins.

Yes, but both examples have two cores, and both examples have two processors. You didn't prove or disprove anything.

A daughter card with 2 processor sockets mounted on it does not make it a dual-core.

Well... it has two processors, and it has two cores. So why not?

All Dual-core machines are by definition dual-processor

Yes!!! Exactly!

but we use Dual-Processor to designate 2 CPUs in 2 different sockets. This is an identifying feature of the machine, such as differentiating between G5 towers of the same speed.

But why? I'm aware of what the phrases "dual core" and "dual processor" are accepted today as meaning. I'm calling that acceptance (or non-acceptance) into question. If I say my Mac Pro has four processors - I am not wrong.

Lets start from the beginning. One processor is a one processor system. Now add an entirely new processor to the system and you have a dual processor system. Now combine those two processors onto the same chip and you have a dual core system. I believe we are all agreed on this.

No, we didn't. Are you suggesting that your first example doesn't have a single core, your second example doesn't have two cores, and your third example doesn't have two processors?

Now calling a dual core system the same as the dual processor system is not the same. As the dual core system shares the same system bus to access RAM and other important parts of the system. This slows it down as it has the same amount of throughput as the dual processor system yet half the available bandwidth.

That's the worst definition of dual core I've ever heard, as plenty of examples of that exact setup have already been given (dual G4s, dual 9500s, dual 9600s). Those were all called dual processor systems. Independent cache, buses, access to ram and the system are not part of the definition of a processor.

Now I guess you could call a dual core system a dual processor system but that would be implying a system without that limit in place and thus giving the wrong impression.

The wrong impression to people who have bought into the false idea that the definition of a processor includes all those things.

The important thing to note in this dicussion is not the fact there there are two processors as this has already been agreed to be the case. The important thing to note is the differences between the two whether these differences mean that a new name should be used to differentiate between the two.

Regardless of whether or not you give this combination a new name, somebody saying a Mac Pro has four processors is not wrong. They are not wrong. You can not say they are.

In this case the difference in available bandwidth to the two cores limits them and so they do not perform to the same level as two entirely separate processors. While this maybe a small difference in most real world applications the fact that they can not perform to the same level as two separate processors is what derives the need for a different name to distinguish the two.

I already addressed all this several times. "Naming" the combination of two processors in this manner is perfectly fine (although, it is by no means a new thing). The problem is the name is totally wrong. You do not nail two pieces of wood together at a right angle, call it "a right angle" and then insist they are no longer two pieces of wood, nor insist that two pieces of metal combined in a similar shape are "not a right angle."

Maybe that has helped clear up my position?

Yes. I am aware of what you think.

[bearbo]

how about we call quad/dual processor/core proper noun, and 4/2 processor/core common noun... and in the form of proper noun, they specifically mean what ppl think they mean, aka dual core means 2 core on same chip, dual processor means 2 chips... and so on

and in 4/2 processor/core, it's well, if there are 4 processors there are 4 processors, whatever configuration?

how about that... (i'm playing rainbow six, so i might not be very clear :o)

[Cromulent]

The reason they are called dual core systems is to make sure that people do not misunderstand and think that the system is one with two separate processors. I don't understand why it is taking so long to get this point.

They are different and need to be distinguished.

[bearbo]

The reason they are called dual core systems is to make sure that people do not misunderstand and think that the system is one with two separate processors. I don't understand why it is taking so long to get this point.

They are different and need to be distinguished.
dual core AND dual processor configurations both have 2 separate processors.. i think you aren't understanding the point.

[dpaanlka]

The reason they are called dual core systems is to make sure that people do not misunderstand and think that the system is one with two separate processors. I don't understand why it is taking so long to get this point.

Well I think that's stupid, because they both have two processors. How can you justify telling someone "your computer doesn't have two processors" when it does?

Are you going to go up to someone and tell them their MacBook Pro doesn't have two processors?

[Cromulent]

dual core AND dual processor configurations both have 2 separate processors.. i think you aren't understanding the point.

Yes I understand that as I have stated a fair few times above. The point is that a dual processor system performs better than a dual core system because it does not share a system bus. Hence the need to differentiate between the two. If they both performed exactly the same and there was no real difference there would be no need for a different name but seeing as that is not the case.

As for the previous examples that dpaanlka keeps asserting (i.e the 9600) why does it matter? Lots of things are given new names when the need arises, I don't see how this is a different situation.

Ninja Edit : Are you going to go up to someone and tell them their MacBook Pro doesn't have two processors?

No I am going to tell them they have a dual core system. Which as we have already stated means that they have two processors on the same chip.

[bearbo]

The point is that a dual processor system performs better than a dual core system because it does not share a system bus. Hence the need to differentiate between the two.


Ninja Edit :

No I am going to tell them they have a dual core system. Which as we have already stated means that they have two processors on the same chip.

http://www.barefeats.com/dc20.html
conventional name dual core perform better than dual processor, get your facts right before speaking nonsense

is the following statement correct or not?
"Macbook Pro has two processors."

[Cromulent]

http://www.barefeats.com/dc20.html
conventional name dual core perform better than dual processor, get your facts right before speaking nonsense

is the following statement correct or not?
"Macbook Pro has two processors."

Okay I can admit that. But even so that still proves the need to differentiate between the two systems. You still have not changed my mind on the fact that a dual core system is not the same as a dual processor system.

Edit : Yes it is a dual core system.

[dpaanlka]

Yes I understand that as I have stated a fair few times above. The point is that a dual processor system performs better than a dual core system because it does not share a system bus. Hence the need to differentiate between the two.

But thats stupid - the Dual Processor 9500s, 9600s, and G4s all shared a single bus. Those weren't called "dual core." Your reason for calling something "dual core" as opposed to "dual processor" doesn't make any sense. It's just Intel marketing.

As for the previous examples that dpaanlka keeps asserting (i.e the 9600) why does it matter? Lots of things are given new names when the need arises, I don't see how this is a different situation.

Like what. What technology that has been around for decades has ever changed it's name entirely for no apparent reason whatsoever.

No I am going to tell them they have a dual core system. Which as we have already stated means that they have two processors on the same chip.

Right, so they have two processors. If they ask "does my system have two processors" - you cannot respond with "no."

[bearbo]

is the following statement correct or not?
"Macbook Pro has two processors."



Edit : Yes it is a dual core system.

is that your response to my question? if so that doesn't even make sense... lets try again

is the following statement correct or not?
"Macbook Pro has two processors."

yes or no please.

[Cromulent]

is that your response to my question? if so that doesn't even make sense... lets try again

is the following statement correct or not?
"Macbook Pro has two processors."

yes or no please.

It makes perfect sense here is the definition that you seemed to have missed :A dual-core CPU combines two independent processors and their respective caches and cache controllers onto a single silicon chip, or integrated circuit. IBM's POWER4 was the first microprocessor to incorporate 2-cores on a single die. Various dual-core CPUs are being developed by companies such as Motorola, Intel and AMD, and are scheduled to appear in consumer products in 2005.

So the answer would be yes it is a dual core system.

[bearbo]

It makes perfect sense here is the definition that you seemed to have missed :

So the answer would be yes it is a dual core system.

i need to stop before i start cursing you... try use logic and reason next time you argue

[Cromulent]

i need to stop before i start cursing you... try use logic and reason next time you argue

You still do not get it? It may have two processors but it is not a dual processor machine. It is a dual core machine. It really is not rocket science. The Mac Pro is a dual processor machine. I don't understand why people do not understand this incredibly simple point.

Late Edit : A few more points before I finish :A dual-core processor is a CPU with two processors or "execution cores" in the same integrated circuit. Each processor has its own cache and controller, which enables it to function as efficiently as a single processor. However, because the two processors are linked together, they can perform operations up to twice as fast as a single processor can.

The Intel Core Duo, the AMD X2, and the dual-core PowerPC G5 are all examples of CPUs that use dual-core technologies. These CPUs each combine two processor cores on a single silicon chip. This is different than a "dual processor" configuration, in which two physically separate CPUs work together. However, some high-end machines, such as the PowerPC G5 Quad, use two separate dual-core processors together, providing up to four times the performance of a single processor.

While a dual-core system has twice the processing power of a single-processor machine, it does not always perform twice as fast. This is because the software running on the machine may not be able to take full advantage or both processors. Some operating systems and programs are optimized for multiprocessing, while others are not. Though programs that have been optimized for multiple processors will run especially fast on dual-core systems, most programs will see at least some benefit from multiple processors as well.A multi-core processor is an integrated circuit (IC) to which two or more processors have been attached for enhanced performance, reduced power consumption, and more efficient simultaneous processing of multiple tasks (see parallel processing). A dual core set-up is somewhat comparable to having multiple, separate processors installed in the same computer, but because the two processors are actually plugged into the same socket, the connection between them is faster. Ideally, a dual core processor is nearly twice as powerful as a single core processor. In practice, performance gains are said to be about fifty percent: a dual core processor is likely to be about one-and-a-half times as powerful as a single core processor.

[dpaanlka]

You still do not get it? It may have two processors but it is not a dual processor machine. It is a dual core machine. It really is not rocket science. The Mac Pro is a dual processor machine. I don't understand why people do not understand this incredibly simple point.

Because it's fundamentally stupid.

The Mac Pro has four processors. That is not a false statement.

And your bottom definition implies the 9500, 9600, and G4s were all "dual-core" not "dual processor" which you argued against leading me to believe even you don't know what you're talking about.

So perhaps instead of saying "quad processors" in the Mac Pro, it would be more correct saying "four processors" - I can at least give into that. But if I say I have four processors in their Mac Pro, I will not take a correction by some idiot trying to tell me I don't.

[Cromulent]

PowerMac 9600 Specs :

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=112424

Note where it says second processor, see that it says optional PC compatibility card? It was a dual processor system not a dual core system.

Don't call me an idiot. I have shown you time and time again why you are wrong and yet you continue to claim that you are right in the face of evidence (just about every website out there) that claims different.

[dpaanlka]

PowerMac 9600 Specs :

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=112424

Note where it says second PC, see that it says optional, PC compatibility card? It was a dual processor system not a dual core system.

That's the wrong system entirely. Here are the correct specs:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=112402

65338

Note where it says "Processor board contains two PowerPC 604e processors." It is a single bus, and single L2 cache, shared by both processors (each processor had it's own L1, just like todays "dual core" crap). The "PC Compatibility Card" is something else. It was an Intel processor on a PCI card (either a 486 or Pentium I) that allowed you to run Windows at native speeds.

So I guess that would make it a three processor system... or not because you could only use the one Intel processor, or the two 604s... you couldn't use all at the same time.

[Cromulent]

There is no information on the IBM website stating that the 604e/ev ever ran two processors in the same chip. Apples website is vague at best stating that there were two processors on the logic board, but giving no definite information as to whether they ran on the same chip or not. Neither is there any evidence on Wikipedia. I would be highly surprised if IBM would not advertise that fact if it was indeed true. If you can show me that information I will bow out of this discussion. In the mean time you have shown me that the processors both occupied the same logic board. Screen shots are pretty hard to find of the 9600 motherboard with the CPU(s) exposed.

In fact the earliest processor I can find information about that had a dual core configuration was the IBM Power5.

Edit : That is not to say you are correct though. I still believe what I originally stated.

[dpaanlka]

There is no information on the IBM website stating that the 604e/ev ever ran two processors in the same chip. Apples website is vague at best stating that there were two processors on the logic board, but giving no definite information as to whether they ran on the same chip or not. Neither is there any evidence on Wikipedia. I would be highly surprised if IBM would not advertise that fact if it was indeed true. If you can show me that information I will bow out of this discussion. In the mean time you have shown me that the processors both occupied the same logic board. Screen shots are pretty hard to find of the 9600 motherboard with the CPU(s) exposed.

Both the processors in the 9600 are on a daughtercard, together, that plugs into the motherboard. The L2 cache is located on the motherboard, not the daughtercard. Both processors share the same bus and cache. I said that like ten times. I'm not getting this off Apple's web site, but from fact. I have several 9500s, 8600s, and had a few 9600s before. I know what I'm talking about, ask anybody that used one of these before.

And everything you're saying about a dual-core system "not having two processors" is just nonsense. You're telling us that if somebody with a "dual core" Mac says they have two processors, you would tell them that they do not. That's just dumb.

[Shadow]

Not having read the thread, I would say that 1 CPU = any number of cores in a single die. This is because a CPU is a Central Processing UNIT. That means that the entire UNIT (ie, the chip) is the CPU, because the term 'unit' covers everything in/on a chip.

[Cromulent]

Both the processors in the 9600 are on a daughtercard, together, that plugs into the motherboard. The L2 cache is located on the motherboard, not the daughtercard. Both processors share the same bus and cache. I said that like ten times. I'm not getting this off Apple's web site, but from fact. I have several 9500s, 8600s, and had a few 9600s before. I know what I'm talking about, ask anybody that used one of these before.

If the two processors do not look like the picture below it is not a dual core system it is a dual processor system.

And everything you're saying about a dual-core system "not having two processors" is just nonsense. You're telling us that if somebody with a "dual core" Mac says they have two processors, you would tell them that they do not. That's just dumb.

When did I say they did not have two processors. In the three definitions I posted it clearly stated the fact that a dual core system is a computer with two processors on the same chip.

I guess the sticking point here is the fact that you seem to be obsessed with the idea of using your own terms to describe something. That description is misleading as I have already pointed out numerous times.

The difference between a dual core system and a dual processor system (which I will repeat for the last time) is that a dual processor system is a computer with two independent processsors where as a dual core system is a computer with two processors on the same chip.

I still do not see what is so hard to understand about this. A Mac Pro is a dual processor dual core system which totals 4 cores. Each core is a separate processor but there are only two chips within the computer itself. The two processors with each chip are mearged into one as you can see in the picture below :

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core2duo-e6300/processor.jpg

this has two processors contained within it. But as you can see it is clearly one chip taking up one CPU socket on the motherboard.

If you had two single core CPUs in the same computer it is a dual processor system. If you have one dual core CPU in the system it is a dual core system. If you have two dual core CPUs in the system it is a dual core dual processor system which means it has 4 cores in total but only two physical chips contained within it.

[dpaanlka]

Not having read the thread, I would say that 1 CPU = any number of cores in a single die. This is because a CPU is a Central Processing UNIT. That means that the entire UNIT (ie, the chip) is the CPU, because the term 'unit' covers everything in/on a chip.

The definition of "CPU" was never the topic here. "CPU" does not equal "processor" nor does it equal "core."

When did I say they did not have two processors. In the three definitions I posted it clearly stated the fact that a dual core system is a computer with two processors on the same chip.

I guess the sticking point here is the fact that you seem to be obsessed with the idea of using your own terms to describe something. That description is misleading as I have already pointed out numerous times.

What? I've been saying this entire time that a "dual core" Mac should still be considered as having two processors.

Frankly, I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. So you agree that the MacBook has two processors and the Mac Pro has four?

[Cromulent]

What? I've been saying this entire time that a "dual core" Mac should still be considered as having two processors.

Frankly, I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. So you agree that the MacBook has two processors and the Mac Pro has four?

Yes but saying the MacBook is a dual processor machine is wrong. As that would imply that it has two separate processors. It is a dual core machine. Now using the definitions I have already provided that means it is a computer with two processors on the same chip. That is all I am trying to say. It is about using the correct words to describe the machine.

These terms are not interchangeable as I have been trying to point out to you for this entire thread. They are used to describe two completely different things.

[dpaanlka]

These terms are not interchangeable as I have been trying to point out to you for this entire thread. They are used to describe two completely different things.

This entire thread you've been telling me the current definition of the terms. I already know what they currently stand for, I am saying they shouldn't mean that - because there are two processors in a MacBook.

Nothing you've said has been an actual reason why anybody cannot refer to their two processors as dual processors. Because they're on one die? So! They're still two processors. That doesn't change anything at all!

You just keep giving me the definition as it is currently accepted to be and saying "this is how you have to interpret it." Well, I'm not interpreting it that way. It really just sounds like Intel marketing.

And regardless, earlier in the thread you were saying the definition of dual core is two processors sharing the same bus and cache. You've actually changed your definition through the course of this thread. I really don't you're listening to what I or bearbo is saying.

[Cromulent]

This entire thread you've been telling me the current definition of the terms. I already know what they currently stand for, I am saying they shouldn't mean that - because there are two processors in a MacBook.

Nothing you've said has been an actual reason why anybody cannot refer to their two processors as dual processors. Because they're on one die? So! They're still two processors. That doesn't change anything at all!

You just keep giving me the definition as it is currently accepted to be and saying "this is how you have to interpret it." Well, I'm not interpreting it that way. It really just sounds like Intel marketing.

And regardless, earlier in the thread you were saying the definition of dual core is two processors sharing the same bus and cache. You've actually changed your definition through the course of this thread. I really don't you're listening to what I or bearbo is saying.

Have you just ignored all the others who posted in this thread stating the same thing as me, including one who works in the industry? I really do not understand how you can not understand the need for two different descriptions.

One is on the same chip the other is two separate processors. They are a completely different architecture. What would be the result of calling them the same thing? Confusion that would be the result.

Talking about CPUs is already a confusing subject what with talking about clock speeds, socket type, upgrade ability, which RAM is compatible with which CPU and so on. Why make it even more confusing by eliminating a phrase used to tell the difference between two different architectures.

Oh and by the way, on the basis of this thread I have decided to call all Apple Macs PCs because the Apple Mac name is just a marketing term. Everyone will know I mean an Apple Mac when I say it because my use of the term makes more sense than everyone else's. Obviously this is the correct usage of the term as they are both Personal Computers and the only reason people call Apple computers Macs is because of marketing spin.

Sorry for the sarcastic paragraph above but that is basically the argument that you are using. Of course I would be correct to call an Apple Mac a PC, but the point is people tend not too in order to avoid confusion. A PC is generally accepted as being a computer running Windows on either Intel or AMD hardware. Where as a Mac is a computer running OS X on IBM/Motorola or Intel hardware.

That is why it is important to differentiate between dual core and dual processor.

[dpaanlka]

Have you just ignored all the others who posted in this thread stating the same thing as me

Have you ignored mine? What about where I said "why don't they come up with a different name that doesn't suggest other systems with two processors somehow do not have two cores." They do, after all, have two cores.

I really do not understand how you can not understand the need for two different descriptions.

Frankly I don't understand what you don't understand. All the systems in question have two processors and two cores. "Dual core" is a bad name to call two processors on a single die, because all two processor systems have two cores. What about that don't you get?

What would be the result of calling them the same thing? Confusion that would be the result.

I really think calling them dual core, when every other two-processor system also has dual cores, is more confusing than clarifying.

Talking about CPUs is already a confusing subject what with talking about clock speeds, socket type, upgrade ability, which RAM is compatible with which CPU and so on. Why make it even more confusing by eliminating a phrase used to tell the difference between two different architectures.

Because the phrase itself is confusing. It leaves the impression that only the systems specifically labeled as "dual core" have two cores, when in reality, every system with two processors has dual cores, regardless of how the chips interface with each other.


Sorry for the sarcastic paragraph above but that is basically the argument that you are using. Of course I would be correct to call an Apple Mac a PC, but the point is people tend not too in order to avoid confusion. A PC is generally accepted as being a computer running Windows on either Intel or AMD hardware. Where as a Mac is a computer running OS X on IBM/Motorola or Intel hardware.

Yes, but "Mac" can in no way be confused with "PC" - all computers that fit on or around a desk are "PCs" - but only computers made by Apple are Macs. However, in our examples, every system has both two processors and two cores. Completely different, because "core" and "processor" go together. If you have two cores, you have to have two processors, and visa-versa. They cannot be separated.

[bearbo]

Have you just ignored all the others who posted in this thread stating the same thing as me, including one who works in the industry? I really do not understand how you can not understand the need for two different descriptions.

One is on the same chip the other is two separate processors. They are a completely different architecture. What would be the result of calling them the same thing? Confusion that would be the result.

Talking about CPUs is already a confusing subject what with talking about clock speeds, socket type, upgrade ability, which RAM is compatible with which CPU and so on. Why make it even more confusing by eliminating a phrase used to tell the difference between two different architectures.


when dpaanlka and I intend to educate you that macbooks are indeed having two processors, we are not using the two processors or dual processor as the identifier of the machine, just description of the machine... the difference is the former needs to be unique, the latter needs to be descriptive. we agreed that we need to acknowledge the difference between 2 CPU on 1 chip and 2 CPU on 2 chips, but we don't think differentiate by calling them DP and DC is appropriate, thus this thread. is that so difficult to understand?

we know the current definition of DC and DP, we are challenging that. if you use the very thing we are challenging to argue, then your further arguments will be ignored.


Sorry for the sarcastic paragraph above but that is basically the argument that you are using. Of course I would be correct to call an Apple Mac a PC, but the point is people tend not too in order to avoid confusion. A PC is generally accepted as being a computer running Windows on either Intel or AMD hardware. Where as a Mac is a computer running OS X on IBM/Motorola or Intel hardware.

That is why it is important to differentiate between dual core and dual processor.

Mac is the identifier of the groups of Personal Computers(PC) made by Apple Computer, Inc. and since the word Mac is somewhat understood by majority (at least here), it is descriptive enough. but if you would to introduce Mac to a completely Mac newbie, you are not gonna tell him "this is a mac, do you not understand what this is, this is a Mac!".. however, you will tell him "this is a Mac, it's a one of those PCs made by apple, it is the only type of machine that can legally run OS X", etc.
because PC, in description, means personal computer, as you said, and just that. in term of identifier, sure, it could me machines that run Windows, Linux, MS DOS among other OSs

but no one's gonna say you are wrong if you say the mac is also an personal computer.. just like we are saying it shouldn't be wrong to say macbook has two processors.


just so you know, mac does NOT have to run OS X to be an Mac. i can erase my OS X and only install Windows, or Linux, and it's still called a Mac

[CanadaRAM]

d, I think you may have a small obsession.

There's no doubt that a dual core chip has two processors (CPUs) in it.

And that a machine with two separately chipped CPUs has in fact two "single core" CPUs. And Processor is understood to mean either a Central Processing Unit or more commonly, a generic term for a single self-contained chip that has one set of pins.

Hence a Dual Core Processor is 2 CPU cores in one processor chip.

We're talking about the naming convention that you only refer to 'Core' if there are more than one CPU on the silicon inside one chip.

Not daughter card. Not any other configuration. 'Core' has no distinguishing meaning if there is only one of them. It's like saying that I am a single twin, when I don't in fact have a twin sibling. The word twin implies the special case that there are two siblings born at the same time. Saying that there is a Core implies more than one CPU on the wafer. Which is not the case on single CPU processor systems, no matter how many processor chips it contains.

You can debate semantics all you like, but it comes down to the usage that is understood by the user group. The industry calls multiple CPUs within a single chip that fits in a single socket, a multiple Core processor, and when there is a single CPU on the chip, no matter how many individual chips are installed in the machine or on daughter cards, they are referred to as processors and the word Core is never used. (as it was never, ever used on 9600's or G4s)

Here's some analogies: If I put duallies on the back of my 2 wheel drive pickup, then technically it is a 4 wheel drive vehicle because there are 4 wheels on the driving axle. But 4 wheel drive is understood to mean 4 driving wheels on two axles at opposing ends of the vehicle, so while it would be defensible on a technicality, I would be using the term incorrectly.

A horse is a quadraped. A human is a biped. Two humans walking together are not a quadraped even though they do have four feet.

Two transit busses are not the same as one double-decker bus. We don't call a regular bus a single-layer double decker. Double-decker is a term used to differentiate a bus with two floors on chassis.

[Cromulent]

Have you ignored mine? What about where I said "why don't they come up with a different name that doesn't suggest other systems with two processors somehow do not have two cores." They do, after all, have two cores.

That is correct as I have already stated in a previous post a better name for a dual processor system might be something like independent dual core system or the like. Unfortunately though I am not in a position to put this into effect.

Frankly I don't understand what you don't understand. All the systems in question have two processors and two cores. "Dual core" is a bad name to call two processors on a single die, because all two processor systems have two cores. What about that don't you get?

I understand completely. The point is that just because something is true does not necessarily mean that it is correct to use a different term.

I really think calling them dual core, when every other two-processor system also has dual cores, is more confusing than clarifying.

I disagree.

Because the phrase itself is confusing. It leaves the impression that only the systems specifically labeled as "dual core" have two cores, when in reality, every system with two processors has dual cores, regardless of how the chips interface with each other.

I do not think it does. A processor is single core. Saying dual processor means dual cores by default. I do not see the possible reason for confusion using these two naming conventions.

Yes, but "Mac" can in no way be confused with "PC" - all Mac OS and Windows computers are "PCs" - but only computers running Mac OS are Macs. However, in our examples, every system has both two processors and two cores. Completely different, because "core" and "processor" go together. If you have two cores, you have to have two processors, and visa-versa. They cannot be separated.

Not necessarily I am running Windows on my Mac Pro. Does that mean it is no longer a Mac when I boot into Windows? No it does not. My analogy still holds.

[dpaanlka]

d, I think you may have a small obsession.

When is this ever not the case?

There's no doubt that a dual core chip has two processors (CPUs) in it.

Super!

Not daughter card. Not any other configuration. 'Core' has no distinguishing meaning if there is only one of them. It's like saying that I am a single twin, when I don't in fact have a twin sibling. The word twin implies the special case that there are two siblings born at the same time. Saying that there is a Core implies more than one CPU on the wafer. Which is not the case on single CPU processor systems, no matter how many processor chips it contains.

Excellent... so why should people who say their dual core systems have two processors be corrected as if wrong? That is what I am not understanding. By your definition, "dual core" is merely a term for a specific arrangement of two processors - which is acceptable to me if people understand that "dual core" does not mean there is only one processor, but rather a very specific arrangement of two processors.

My analogy still holds.

No, because you can't call a PC a Mac no matter what. I changed my post to "computers built by Apple" before you posted to address this... probably while you were creating your post.

[Cromulent]

when dpaanlka and I intend to educate you that macbooks are indeed having two processors, we are not using the two processors or dual processor as the identifier of the machine, just description of the machine... the difference is the former needs to be unique, the latter needs to be descriptive. we agreed that we need to acknowledge the difference between 2 CPU on 1 chip and 2 CPU on 2 chips, but we don't think differentiate by calling them DP and DC is appropriate, thus this thread. is that so difficult to understand?

Not at all. It is just the fact that your description of the machine is only used by yourselves, just about everyone else uses the identifier as the description as well (in this case dual core).

we know the current definition of DC and DP, we are challenging that

If you know the current definition then I really do not see what their is to challenge. But none the less I'll take you up on that.

From your above statement I take it we are all clear on the definition of both terms and are in complete agreement with what these terms mean (correct me if I am wrong).

You can call the MacBook anything you like, dual core, dual processor, laptop whatever. The point I am making is that there are generally accepted names for certain things and in this instance this is one where the generally accepted term is different from the one you have been using. The fact that you think that term is stupid, unreasonable, marketing is really irrelevant.

I think the reason that people correct you is so that new users (of computers in general especially) start to see the difference between the two architectures through the use of differing terms to describe them. If I was a new user and no one made that distinction obvious to me I would be incredible confused if someone said that actually you only have one chip in your computer for the CPU. I would think that people had been lying to me saying that I had dual processors.

if you use the very thing we are challenging to argue, then your further arguments will be ignored

That is an incredibly bad way to have a debate with someone. I have had many discussions with people were neither side is willing to back down, simply saying 'further arguments will be ignored' just shows that you have nothing of use left to say.

[bearbo]

Not at all. It is just the fact that your description of the machine is only used by yourselves, just about everyone else uses the identifier as the description as well (in this case dual core).
we are trying to point out the fact altho it's identified as dual core, it indeed actually have two processors (sure it's cramped in one chip, it still has two processors)


If you know the current definition then I really do not see what their is to challenge. But none the less I'll take you up on that.

i cannot believe you still dont understand... we are trying to say to ppl who claim it's wrong that dual core has 2 processors, are actually wrong.


From your above statement I take it we are all clear on the definition of both terms and are in complete agreement with what these terms mean (correct me if I am wrong).

you are correct

You can call the MacBook anything you like, dual core, dual processor, laptop whatever. The point I am making is that there are generally accepted names for certain things and in this instance this is one where the generally accepted term is different from the one you have been using. The fact that you think that term is stupid, unreasonable, marketing is really irrelevant. we are not saying the generally accepted names are wrong, they are correct if you don't implying anything with them, but if you meant "dual core" doesn't have 2 processors, then you are wrong.

i'm also saying that, as stated above, ppl who think dual core doesn't have two processors, are wrong.


I think the reason that people correct you is so that new users (of computers in general especially) start to see the difference between the two architectures through the use of differing terms to describe them. If I was a new user and no one made that distinction obvious to me I would be incredible confused if someone said that actually you only have one chip in your computer for the CPU. I would think that people had been lying to me saying that I had dual processors.

it's incredibly misleading to tell owner of macbook that they only have one processor when they have two... at least that's the way the term dual core is implying.



That is an incredibly bad way to have a debate with someone. I have had many discussions with people were neither side is willing to back down, simply saying 'further arguments will be ignored' just shows that you have nothing of use left to say.

cutting my sentence by half and taking only half of it eh? now that's a bad way of debating. i am saying if you use the very thing i'm challenging to argue, and not adding ANY thing else, your arguments will be ignored.

[Cromulent]

we are trying to point out the fact altho it's identified as dual core, it indeed actually have two processors (sure it's cramped in one chip, it still has two processors)

They do in fact have 2 processors so you would be correct in saying that.

Where you would be wrong was if you called it a dual processor machine as I have already stated, and seeing as we have already said that we both agree on the definitions of both terms you would know this.

That is the entire point of this thread. I can not argue this point in any other manner. It always comes back to this point.

[dpaanlka]

They do in fact have 2 processors so you would be correct in saying that.

Where you would be wrong was if you called it a dual processor machine as I have already stated, and seeing as we have already said that we both agree on the definitions of both terms you would know this.

That is the entire point of this thread. I can not argue this point in any other manner. It always comes back to this point.

So, saying a Mac Pro has four processors is fine, but not "quad" processors? Is that the finality of all this?

Four vs. Quad?
Two vs. Dual?

[Cromulent]

So, saying a Mac Pro has four processors is fine, but not "quad" processors? Is that the finality of all this?

Four vs. Quad?
Two vs. Dual?

I would call the Mac Pro a dual processor dual core machine. 2 processors each with 2 cores = 4 cores split over two chips.

[bearbo]

I would call the Mac Pro a dual processor dual core machine. 2 processors each with 2 cores = 4 cores split over two chips.

so would you say mac pro has two processors or four processors? because obviously, if you have gone to elementary school, four does not equal to two

[Cromulent]

so would you say mac pro has two processors or four processors? because obviously, if you have gone to elementary school, four does not equal to two

4 cores split over two processors. Seeing as a core is equivalent to a processor it comes out as 4. Hence the dual processor dual core statement.

[dpaanlka]

4 cores split over two processors. Seeing as a core is equivalent to a processor it comes out as 4. Hence the dual processor dual core statement.

So, in conclusion, it has four processors. Four cores split between two dies. Not two processors.

"Dual core, dual die" is a better description.

[Cromulent]

So, in conclusion, it has four processors. Four cores split between two dies. Not two processors.

"Dual core, dual die" is a better description.

That would satisfy me as a description, yes. The only real reason that such a distinction has to be made between a core and a processor is if a core is refered to as a processor, what do you call the superstructure of a dual core chip. A processor? Well, no you can't as the two cores are called a processor. A CPU, maybe still not particularly clear as a CPU is often refered to as a processor itself.

Anyway I think that just about sums it up :). Nice to meet someone as stubborn as myself every now and again :p.

[gnasher729]

Well, since you didn't read the thread, I'll give you a short summary: We all seem to agree there are two actual processors inside all these dual core Macs. I'm not really understanding why "dual core" even exists - as two processors soldered together on a single board has existed long before the term "dual core" was coined, and it was always called "dual processor" - even back then.

The debate going on now is whether or not you can say "two processors" - which I think you should be able to, since there are two processors.

Since you didn't read my post before complaining, I'll try to explain it again: There is no generally accepted definition of "processor". Insisting that there is one doesn't make it so. When shown the same computer, some will say that it has two processors, some will say it has one processor. You can claim that your definition is "the" right one as long as you like, that doesn't change the fact that other people use other definitions. And insisting on a terminology that isn't well defined and globally accepted is only going to create confusion and pointless shouting matches.

[dpaanlka]

Since you didn't read my post before complaining

You know, this thread has come a long long way since that post, so I'm assuming you didn't read past that either. Besides everybody here seems to agree what a "processor" is.

[Zwhaler]

If you are talking to people who don't know jack about computers and you feel that they would be far more impressed by you saying four "processors" rather than four "cores" just say four processors if it will make you feel better :o

But technically, the Mac Pro has 4 cores within 2 processors. Because inside the computer, there are two actually processors, and within those processors are two cores. Its like having a car with a V6, you don't call it a "six engine" car, because it only has a single engine with six pistons (the pistons coorespond to the cores). Some people have high-performance go karts with multiple engines, and that is like saying you have a dual processor computer (like in the mac pro) rather than saying quad processor, when in reality it is dual core dual processor.

Don't worry though, in the future there will be single processor, 50 core computers :o

[dpaanlka]

But technically, the Mac Pro has 4 cores within 2 processors. Because inside the computer, there are two actually processors, and within those processors are two cores.

That's already been proven false many many times in this thread. Please read the entire thread.

Its like having a car with a V6, you don't call it a "six engine" car, because it only has a single engine with six pistons (the pistons coorespond to the cores). Some people have high-performance go karts with multiple engines, and that is like saying you have a dual processor computer (like in the mac pro) rather than saying quad processor, when in reality it is dual core dual processor.

No, it's not like that at all.

[RacerX]

Interesting discussion here...

It is funny, when Macs first started out, you would have systems with a CPU (like the 68000, 68020 or 68030) and in some cases an FPU (like the 68881 or 68882). There was a lot of confusion when Motorola released the 68040 because the FPU was moved onto the same die with the CPU. And what was even more odd was the fact that they could turn off the FPU within the chip (which was the 68LC040).

One of the aspects of this change was the fact that software the required an FPU would warn you that it didn't see either the 68881 or 68882 co-processor when run on 68040 systems. Some software would work fine after the warning while other software wouldn't.

So, where did this whole dual core thing come from? It came from IBM.

IBM's POWER series was designed for their high end workstations and servers running Unix. By the end of the 90's they were selling workstations with 2, 4 or 8 processors (either the PowerPC 604e or the POWER3 series) to get the performance they wanted. And when they started designing their new 64 bit processor, they decided the put two processors on the same die within a single chip. This was the POWER4 chip.

Part of the key to this idea can actually be traced back to Cray, who realized that to design his supercomputers to be as fast as possible, he needed to shorten the distance the information had to travel. Many people thought that the round designs of Crays were for stylistic reasons, when infact it was to shorten the distance between components.

This same philosophy has been behind much of what we see in processor design today. By putting both the CPU and the FPU on the same die, the distance between them is nearly eliminated, making faster systems and taking less space and resources. By moving part of the memory onto the die (L1 cache) key instructions can be kept almost at the processor (rather than having to retrieve it from main memory). In the case of the later 604e series systems, L2 was given a faster dedicated bus and the G3 and G4 improved on that idea even further. Finally people moved L2 memory right into the chip itself (eliminating the need for a special bus between the L2 cache and the processor).

IBM took this whole idea to the next level with it's 400 series PowerPC processors which had things like a USB controller built into the chip itself... they were basically computers on a chip.

When IBM thought that they might have problems moving their 32 bit based clients (who were using 604e and POWER3 series based systems) to the POWER4 and beyond, they decided to build a transitional chip... based on a single core of the POWER4, but that could execute both 32 bit and 64 bit instructions. The original G5 was a modified single core version of the POWER4.

Back to the question of the thread, a lot of this has to do with how processes are executed on a system... a processor is, after all, the thing that executes the processes of applications.

In the days of the 9500MP, 9600MP and the Daystar multiprocessor systems, System 7 wasn't able to see more than one processor. Daystar wrote some software (which Apple licensed for using in System 7 and later) to allow applications to address the additional processor (or processors in the case of some Daystar systems that had up to four processors). But if apps didn't know that the processors were there or weren't written to take advantage of them, you only got the performance of a single processor system.

Mac OS X changed this... but not by much. Applications still need to be written to take advantage of multiple processors. If they aren't, then they will be executing all of their processes on a single processor. The advantage of Mac OS X is that the system can decide what app executes on what processor. An app that uses a lot of a CPU may get a processor to itself while other (less intensive) apps use another one.

Oddly enough, Adobe's Premiere 6.5 for Mac OS X was only able to use a single processor where as Final Cut Pro could use more than one. This was (in my opinion) Adobe's way of crippling the app to sell their PC Preferred campaign from back then.

Where am I going with all this? Basically, software hasn't changed.

If you have an application that can only execute on one processor, you are effectively no better off with two cores than you would be with one... because the cores are processors. And Mac OS X will allocate both cores in the same way that it would if they were two physically separate chips.

So where is the advantage? We're back to the distance issue... and by having all the processors in a single chip along with large amounts of cache all communicating at the same clock speed as the processors themselves makes multi-processor aware apps significantly faster.

Remember, the primary limitation in computing is the speed of light. There is nothing you can do to go faster than the speed of light, so the obvious solution (as Cray pointed out years ago) is to shorten the distance.

Multi-core chips are multiple processors connected with an incredibly fast bus with almost no distance between them. But from a software perspective, each core is just a processor.