Yep. Open Activity Monitor right now and sort by number of threads - every thread can be run on any available CPU and/or core under OS X.
Attached screenshot taken with a 2 Safari 3.1 tabs open: one to this forum, one to disney.com
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel To Launch Quad-Core "Mobile" Processor In Q3 2008
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Attached screenshot taken with a 2 Safari 3.1 tabs open: one to this forum, one to disney.com
*sigh*
Ok, that's kind of like saying toasting marshmallows on the flames is "using" a TITAN V rocket.
Yes, you have a thread running on the core, but unless the other core is already at 100% it's not saving you more than a few seconds a day. Maybe.
Every stat you put in that post is just plain BS. "90% of users don't see a benefit from dual-core"? you have to be kidding me. I would bet nearly 90% of users can subjectively tell a dual core from a single core. It makes a large difference if you are a multi-tasker. Quad cores are much less useful, usually only for rendering graphics, large photoshop transformations, video editing/encoding, etc. Although that will change in the future.
And your other arbitrary figure of CPU being the bottleneck 10% of the time seems wrong as well. I don't have any technical figures, but I would put the number alot higher than that. Same RAM/HDD, I would bet you see a significant improvement moving from a 1.8Ghz core 2 Duo to a 3.2Ghz core 2 duo, and A LOT more than 10% of the time.
smaller, faster, stronger....
Then it will be about how fat the transport links are (and how many of them are there). Of course Intel will finally be joining the party
Well, for the last 3-4 years or so, I would imagine factors such as processor microarchitecture (and thus instructions/clock) and cache subsystem would be much more important than clock speed with comparing processors from different generations...
Um WRONG! It was IBM that promised Steve Jobs a 3Ghz cpu (in less than 12mths) of debuting the G5 cpu @ 1.6/1.8/2.0Ghz! AMD, Intel & IBM had issues with SOI technology during that 12mth period ... trying to break 3Ghz. I recall, only AMD reached 3Ghz milestone and many ppl that ordered those server chips for their desktops didn't see much of a boost in performance. Hence the reason for ALL of the chip companies going multi-core.
Wow Nehalem; with memory controller on die & possible/optional GPU on die (TRUE Ecstasy) will be incredible for high end Mac Pro's and also for XServes! Remember the XServes??? Apple does sell these.
low 1.8/2.4Ghz Nehalem cpu's with 4-Cores may make it to iMac's but not until a revision 3rd QTR next year I think. By then the iMac SHOULD have a new design, and the MacBook Pro should deserve a new shell design as well - not just in materials (I'd like to see Magnesium as it dissipates heat better than aluminum), but something innnovative, and fresh ... something that goes POP when you see the new design just like going from the G3 to the Titanium Powerbooks.
You guys realize of course that no computer manufacturer has ever been known (at least to me) to be "the first guy on the block" with the latest processor technology. IMHO until Apple releases a true 64 bit version of OS X quad core processor would hardly even benefit those among us on the forums here @ macrumors, so again IMHO you would only truly benefit from a quad core processor based mac in a high demand setting such as a server or workstation used for Graphic, Video, or Music Editing and production, other then that you would be wasting you money on a quad core machine for every day use.
Please elaborate
IMHO to make the switch to a quad core processor, you need a 64 bit operating Frame work to open up the full bandwidth of the processor, so as i said earlier at the present juncture in the Technology sector the only viable place for economical deployment of a quad core or (128 Bit) processor is either in Movie,Music Production and editing, Graphical arts especially applications such as Architecture (in specific use with high processor demand Computer aided Design Programs such as ArchiCAD or Auto Cad) or as mentioned in my prior post The server room.
IMHO to make the switch to a quad core processor, you need a 64 bit operating Frame work to open up the full bandwidth of the processor, so as i said earlier at the present juncture in the Technology sector the only viable place for economical deployment of a quad core or (128 Bit) processor is either in Movie,Music Production and editing, Graphical arts especially applications such as Architecture (in specific use with high processor demand Computer aided Design Programs such as ArchiCAD or Auto Cad) or as mentioned in my prior post The server room.
And Leopard isn't 64-bit? Please enlighten on this subject.
I'm quite glad that you decided to reply.
Let me close out by saying that the only place were Apple could benefit from an immediate adoption of the rumored quad core Processors is in the Xserver Product Family Well pardon my assertion that leopard is not a 64bit OS. Moving on, to the subject of the practical setting in which deploy a 128bit based solution, If you think about it the only appropriate application is in situations where high demand rendering applications are being used on a daily basis like In the drafting department of an Architecture / Engineering or Ario Space firm because of the fact that cad is a processor clock cycle hogging application.
I fail to see how the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 is a replacement for the Xeon 5400 Series.
Actually, a quad-core processor would be a waste of CPU and electricity, unless you're doing compute-intensive stuff. The Xeons and high-zoot graphics they're putting in Xserves is frankly a waste of money. What you want is lots of memory (which is cheap) and a big pipe between memory, disk, and network.
Keep in mind that the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 is designed to fit the same thermal profile as the current Core 2 Extreme X7900 used in the iMac 2.8 GHz. Quad core iMacs are a rather hot topic.
I don't see the need to discuss the Xeon or Mac Pro/XServes when this processor is more then likely going to see its first use in the iMac 24".
Most people aren't doing large photoshop transformations or video encoding, nor will they. And most of those that do occasionally, don't do it on a regular basis. Do some? Of course. I do. And guess what, I'm one of the ones that actually benefit from dual core. Does my wife? No. She sees no "real" benefit from a dual core cpu. She is far closer to the typical user than I am. In fact, without telling her, I set up a process running in the background to encode video using "one core". It ran two weeks and I asked her how her computer was running every day. She never noticed. And she uses her computer all day long for work.
Unless the cpu is close to 100% usage, it's not a significant bottleneck. The typical user never sees cpu usage go over 20% unless there is something wrong. And they think they need a faster cpu if it does. Which is exactly my point. Unless your cpus are pegged at or near 100% more often than not, you don't need more or faster cpus.
Using my above example, on a MBP C2D 2.33GHz, in Safari 3.1, I go disney.com and surf around a bit... something my 6 year old child does regularly... all of the Flash UI stuff there pushes both cores on my CPU meter to about 30 - 40% with spikes up around 75%. As processor capacities go up more web sites will be doing rich UI interfaces like that and having multiple browser windows/tabs open to such sites is exactly what multi-cpu/core is good at mitigating.
If you're at 100% CPU you're already using too much. In fact, if you're over 80% I'd bet you could measurably detect a loss in responsiveness. It's kind of like having a 200+HP engine in your car - you don't need that much power most of the time, but when you want to pass someone on the freeway, it's sure nice to have.
While it's true that most computer users don't use CAD, PS, Pro Tools, Final Cut Pro, and other visual or audio intensive programs, a larger number of MAC users do in my experience. So many of my MAC friends and colleagues are artists, web designers, architects, film makers, sound editors, musicians, and professional photographers. It makes sense to me that the MAC Pro lines would cater to these needs - even in the laptop since some of us need to keep working even when traveling.
With QPI (same thing as HyperTransport IMHO) L2 cache is not relevant. Everyone here is going to be shocked when Intel stops using crazy big L2 caches on all but the Xeons. I also take it not many people noticed that the Core 2's rely on L2 cache quite a bit more than the K8/K10's do.
or 30"
A lot of the same arguments about quad core laptops not being necessary are the same people were using for dual core laptops.
If your friends are architects, they're not using MACs. AutoCAD doesn't run on OSX and according to AutoDesk, it never will.
Unless, of course, they bought an overpriced Intel iMac and laid out the additional $300 for the Windows OS.
Every (professional) architect & engineer I know runs AutoCAD & StruCALC on a PC (2.0Ghz Processor, 4Gb of RAM & 500Gb hard drive for under $600, imagine that!)
Uh, there are Computer Aided Design Programs for Mac. And then there is also your solution. As for your pro PC lean in that there are less expensive ways to run these programs ... great! I really don't care what platform you prefer or anyone else. As long as people have choice and are content. Just like I don't care whether someone drives a Taurus or a BMW.
I am surrounded by a family of Mac using Architects btw. We all have our personal experiences.
Quad cores nowadays SOUND great, but most of the Quads won't perform better then good (intel) dual cores. Many aps can't use the power of 4 cores.. Hardware is going so fast by the time everything is Quad the software is optimized for dual cores.
A properly written app doesn't have to be optimized for a specific number of cores. It scales to the capabilities of the machine at hand.Quad cores nowadays SOUND great, but most of the Quads won't perform better then good (intel) dual cores. Many aps can't use the power of 4 cores.. Hardware is going so fast by the time everything is Quad the software is optimized for dual cores.