Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'll worry about it when software has the ability to keep up with a Core 2 Duo, let alone 4-6-8 or 16 core. Until the software is developed, it's just a waste buying multi core processors
I don't know if I subscribe to this short-sighted thinking. I'm still working on a G4 (Dual 1GHz) and plan to retire it in Feb '09 after seven years of service. I then plan on getting Apple's top machine then and keep it for a decade.

Software versions may come and go but the machine will stay --> long enough for developers to catch up and write code that will take advantage of my machine.

Perhaps I'm in the minority for keeping my systems for so long, but I feel that a decent machine should at least give me 5 years of service. A great machine (and expensive) should give quite a bit more.
 
I don't know if I subscribe to this short-sighted thinking. I'm still working on a G4 (Dual 1GHz) and plan to retire it in Feb '09 after seven years of service. I then plan on getting Apple's top machine then and keep it for a decade.

Software versions may come and go but the machine will stay --> long enough for developers to catch up and write code that will take advantage of my machine.

Perhaps I'm in the minority for keeping my systems for so long, but I feel that a decent machine should at least give me 5 years of service. A great machine (and expensive) should give quite a bit more.

In June 2002 I got a G4 iMac and had it up until Feb. 2008 when I got a MacBook Pro. It was an awesome machine that lasted a long time, but really started showing it's age towards the end. I'll probably do the same with my MBP.
 
As far as I'm concerned we are 3 Years Late on this. It should have been implimented in Tiger. The Day the first multicore/Intel system came out. Its not just Apple to Blame here.... Its Intel.... Why did you wait so long....They were selling SNAKE OIL all this time.

Tiger does take advantage of multi-core processors.

Multi-core like machines have been around for a long time. I worked on one that was bult in the mid 1960s. What's happened recently is only that the price has come down to where they can be on every desktop now. At first the 2nd (or 4th) "core" was in it's own cabinet, then later each was a board level device then later they would fit on a chip and now they are two, four or eight to the chip. (Sun's sparcs currently come in 8-core versions) Programmers have been thingking about mutli-core now for decades.

But everyone has it backwards. The problem is not how to do today's jobs with more cores. We really are close (well within an order of magnitude) to as good as we can get at that. What we need to do is think of NEW tasks that these new thousand core machines will enable. We really do not need to watch a DVD movie at 1000X speed and be done with it in six seconds. For the most part today computers just sit there and wait for user input. I can think of many uses for massive compute power. There are many kinds of jobs that today's computers just can't handle. Some simple examples...

Why do I need to hold a mouse? Why can't the computer simply look at my hand. Same for "multi touch" why must I use a touch pad why not just move fingers in the air? With enough cores the computer could completely disappear and be built into the building.
 
This seems like a grand concept but until the developers can exploit the full potential of these multicores there is no point investing in such high-end multi-pro systems.

That is not true. First, almost every real world computer program has SOME tasks that can be sped up. Second, even if you have a task which is truly linear with no possible gain from MP, extra cores still allow you to run other tasks at full speed without impacting the speed of the first task.

Seems you missed my point there. Its not that multi core technology wont have any advantages over the single core m/c but to utilize the full potential we will applications and processes with algorithms that can take advantage of this raw power. Ofcourse it will improve the execution of applications to run dramatically because it will give each application its own processor to run. Its like having your own power house in everyhome. But to take advantage of 20 cores for running two application at maximum alllowable speed we dont have the proper software foundation as yet. And this is the defining moment that technologies like Snow Leopard's Grand Central would bring.
 
Didn't say I know more. But I do know. You can't keep adding devices (cores) to a unified memory system and not have problems keeping those cores from stepping all over each other as they access a memory. Only a fool can't see that.

And, yet, there are multicore systems out there that are faster than single core systems. I guess all your worries aren't an issue.

Obviously, the more cores you have, the more likely you are to have memory issues. No one said otherwise. But Intel is showing that there are various methods to deal with it so multiple cores still help. You haven't shown anything except your ability to whine and complain.

No, the poster said engineers need multiple cores. Wal-Mart shoppers aren't engineers, hence their use of the computer does not benefit from multiple cores, as debated in this article: 100s or 1000s of cores.

LOTS of people benefit from multiple cores. I don't run scientific software, but I often run a number of apps at the same time and I benefit. And some of the apps I run benefit by themselves.

Your argument that no one benefits from multiple cores is just plain wrong.

Dell & HP both sell it as new. And it was possible to run the majority of apps at full speed, even with a single core. Because most people barely use their computer. Running an MP3, an email app, and a web browser doesn't take much CPU.

I guess you can include Apple in the category of know-nothing blow hards.

You're just plain wrong - unless you've rewritten the laws of physics. When you are running multiple apps on a single core processor, it is going to be slower than running them all on separate cores. Yes, there are tricks to minimize the performance penalty, but there is always a penalty. The fact that you think you can run multiple apps just as fast on one core as on multiple cores establishes beyond any doubt that you don't know what you're talking about.



Because what you don't understand is that the only benefactors of multiple cores are (BY definition) "a small number of CPU-intensive apps." Duh.

Wrong. As I said, people who use multiple apps benefit even today. And even if your statement WERE true, so what? Only a small percentage of car users benefit from air bags. Should we stop installing them?

But the point is that Apple and Intel are working toward a situation where ALL apps benefit from multiple cores.
 
I really need a new computer, my G5 crawls along these days. I was considering moving up to a PowerMac for my next purchase, since they are due to be updated here fairly soon.

But... if Apple is going to have a quad-core iMac on the market before too long, I could wait for that.

I really hope we get some more developments on this story.
 
I really need a new computer, my G5 crawls along these days. I was considering moving up to a PowerMac for my next purchase, since they are due to be updated here fairly soon.

But... if Apple is going to have a quad-core iMac on the market before too long, I could wait for that.

I really hope we get some more developments on this story.

Apple doesn't pre-announce their systems and relying on rumors is risky (have they shipped the PowerBook G5 that I've been waiting for for 4 years?). But even if you want to rely on rumors, I haven't heard any of a pending quad core iMac.

The answer is always the same. If you need a new computer and they meet your price performance needs, you buy one. Waiting for some predicted event is probably a waste of time - unless you don't need the computer at all and it's pretty clear that something is coming very soon.

Sure, there will eventually be a quad core iMac. But why not wait for the 8 core iMac?

What are you planning to do with it? The current iMacs are quite fast for all but extreme number crunching stuff.
 
Isn't Grand Central a railway station.

Then rather than the same app using lots of cores I think Apple will organise the apps so they play together in a better way. When we get 10 - 20 cores in a few years the apps will still be mainly single threaded. That is why Apple has chosen the railway analogy. A train is like a single threaded app. Grand Central will help these to work together more smoothly. That is why on a Dual Core we will see only minor performance improvements.
 
But... if Apple is going to have a quad-core iMac on the market before too long, I could wait for that.

Very unlikely. The QX9300 quad-core mobile CPU is not due till Q4 of this year and will run over $1000. So you'd be looking at $2499+ as the base price (in a 24" configuration with 2GB RAM, a 500GB HDD and 8800GS video).
 
Isn't Grand Central a railway station.

Then rather than the same app using lots of cores I think Apple will organise the apps so they play together in a better way. When we get 10 - 20 cores in a few years the apps will still be mainly single threaded. That is why Apple has chosen the railway analogy. A train is like a single threaded app. Grand Central will help these to work together more smoothly. That is why on a Dual Core we will see only minor performance improvements.

Sorry, I don't see it. Multiple apps already run quite well on multicore processors. OS X already does a good job of distributing single threaded apps to available resources, so Grand Central isn't needed if that's all they're looking at.

Grand Central SEEMS to be a process/api/whatever to help developers to make individual apps distribute their work across multiple cores. That is, you'll benefit from all the extra cores - even if you're only running a single app.

Keep in mind that we're already looking at 16 core systems in the near future and Intel is talking about hundreds. No one is going to be running hundreds of single threaded apps. In fact, even 16 cores is too many if all you're running is single threaded apps.
 
hundreds of cores? hell yeah mother ****ers. jay and silent bob up in the hizzouse. I also want at least 16tb or ram up in that bitch as well
 
hundreds of cores? hell yeah mother ****ers. jay and silent bob up in the hizzouse. I also want at least 16tb or ram up in that bitch as well

somebodies ignorant... and the wannabe slang aint making u seem much more intelligent.

10 years from now people would have said "ROFL 500Gb HARDDRIVE1!! :D :D :D D:D thats classic the day THAT happens pigs will fly" or "4GB of RAM???!?!?! lol, *insert really lame slang*"

Do you understand what im saying? now those things are very basic....

the future SAYS processors will improve by cores, not by clock speed simply due to over-heating. (makes sense, once a processor gets TOO fast it gets to hot)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.