Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Each cpu core is up to 100%. So with a dual core machine you get up to 200%. My MacPro gets up to 800%...
Ah, got it. But wouldn't it make more sense for activity monitor just to divide by "2" on a dual core (since precent implies a limit of 100?)
 
Ah, got it. But wouldn't it make more sense for activity monitor just to divide by "2" on a dual core (since precent implies a limit of 100?)

Maybe - but if you go over 100% then you can see that the app is multithreading and using multiple CPUs.

Given that most computer CPUs these days are a similar speed (2 to 3GHz) and more power usually comes from having ore CPUs, the % rating is also quite a good measure of relative speed.

There's probably some marketing in here too...
 
Ah, got it. But wouldn't it make more sense for activity monitor just to divide by "2" on a dual core (since precent implies a limit of 100?)

Either way is good..

One thing I like about this way is if a process is unresponsive in OSX, Activity Monitor shows it using 100% CPU and so is readily identifiable. On Windows, it's at 25% (on a quad core machine) or 12.5% (on an octo core) so it's not as obvious.

Since many processes execute only on one core/processor, I think it makes sense to specify that process' CPU usage just in terms of that core.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.