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.
Quad Processor Intel Mac?
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
922 said:
Well... we'll see it. But, without the HT. As posted before Mactels or w/e won't have processors with HT. And, that being true Mac OS X probably won't recognize HT processors.
Both Dual-Core and HyperThreading count as 2 CPUs
HyperThreading makes 1 CPU look like 2 CPUs to a multi-threaded OS. To count as 4 CPUs, this system need only be using 2 HyperThreading CPUs (entirely possible) or a single dual-core HyperThreading CPU (even more plausible because dual-core HyperThreading CPUs already exist).
liketom said:
HyperThreading makes 1 CPU look like 2 CPUs to a multi-threaded OS. To count as 4 CPUs, this system need only be using 2 HyperThreading CPUs (entirely possible) or a single dual-core HyperThreading CPU (even more plausible because dual-core HyperThreading CPUs already exist).
Can someone explain to me the difference between dual-processor, and dual-core processors. (besides the fact that one is two processors, and one is one processor). Does that make any sense? Is a dual-core processor just as good as having two processors? Anyways I'm confused.
Thanks
Thanks
Dont Hurt Me said:
Excellent! This Quadra 610 that I have acting as a monitor stand for my 17" LCD is starting to get a bit long in the tooth.
javiercr said:The problem is that you can photoshop that in 20 minutes...
Make that 10 minutes on that machine
I doubt the screen shot is true, and could care less. Even so, I could not sneek that into Mexico without paying a fat-ass tax. Laptops are the way to go in Mexico. Easy to sneek in and no tax if it looks used.
My dual processor G5 shows it's a fake.
The images posted show that Activity Monitor is set to Show CPU Usage as the dock icon. My dual processor G5 shows TWO vertical scales for the CPU usage... one for each processor. In the posted images, there is only ONE vertical scale. I would think the image is a fake.
The images posted show that Activity Monitor is set to Show CPU Usage as the dock icon. My dual processor G5 shows TWO vertical scales for the CPU usage... one for each processor. In the posted images, there is only ONE vertical scale. I would think the image is a fake.
Attachments
With all that processing power Apple should make all windows run as separate applications. I don't know how to say it but I should be able to run a huge photoshop filter and still be able to work on another photoshop document, in fact, as many documents as I want, with no limits on how many could have filters running on them. Right now we are limited to the Application doing one huge thing (like a filter) at a time. That can change with more power.
risc said:
ya, but it's prob. not the intended purpose. most servers run headless anyway (or KVM'd). Now, if you were going to use that server as a workstation, then heck ya, PCI3 video all the way. But who wants a 100+Lb, rack-based monster sitting next to them? I know this from experience. @ my last job, I built several hundred of these machines for Goto.com. I had to listen to them whurr away 24/7, and I think I have hearing damage.
EricNau said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-core
OK, I can't find a good explination of Dual CPU, so I'll try to get this right..
Dual core is not quite as fast as a dual CPU system. I think, in time, this will change. Dual-core is still a new technology (2001). In a dual CPU system, each CPU has a seperate bus, and dedicated Cache. Dual-channel systems have a direct I/O to the memory array. In a Dual-core system, each core has dedicated Cache, but must be regulated by a on-board controller. This causes some delay (fractions of a micro-second). Proc. speeds are limited by the distance the signal has to travel. This is why the push for smaller dies (65nm chips), these can run faster. I think the same thing applies with a dual proc. system. Get the CPU's closer together, and they can talk faster. Now make sure the OS can use every Mhz, and it should be super fast.
--this is my opinion, and I may be wrong--
I've been led to believe that dual-core is BETTER than dual chips because the two CPUs can share data faster. More knowledgeable comments are invitedEricNau said:
Where is that rumor from? I know MacBidouille (or someplace) has shown screenshots with Hyperthreading mentioned before this one. And I know Yonah is expected in Macs, and is supposed to have HT. I'm curious if there's good reason to think HT will never come to Macs.itsbetteronamac said:
12, if you have 4 CPUsjaviercr said:The problem is that you can photoshop that in 20 minutes...
It's funny how an image like this gets many discusing the same thing again, which is not going to happen. Intel Macs will not be released eight months before the date Jobs said they would begin shipping. That would be something awesome, but c'mon, get real. From what we're used to we should at the most expect some minor updates for the PowerBooks and iBooks, probably a faster iMac, and hopefully a Dual Dualcore PowerMac, before we see any of them go Intel. I think sometimes we expect too much from Apple.
So what about an update or rumor about Wednesday's event?
So what about an update or rumor about Wednesday's event?
Actually were were getting strong hints of Physical/Logical Processor being active in Tiger, before Tiger was released.nagromme said:
At the time were debating whether this meant dual core PPCs, or that the SMT-based PPC G6 was getting close. I think the OS reports 1 physical CPU 2 logical CPU for both types -- even though SMT only has 1 actual core vs. dual cores 2 cores.
Since the same sort of kernal guts would be needed for a Hyperthreaded x86, why wouldn't Apple make use of HT-based?
Tiger has the updated SMP-ng BSD kernal ...
What ever it takes to better the PC 970
After reading some these posts, I am still confronted with the same sinking feeling.
Apple should have never dumped the PPC; after all, based upon this rumor it looks like the only way to hold the bar on performance is to double and/or quadruple the number of Intel CPUs.
Almost seems pathetic to me - but then that's the corner that Apple's painted itself into now.
Oh well, at least we have new 'Pods to look forward to...
\cynicism
After reading some these posts, I am still confronted with the same sinking feeling.
Apple should have never dumped the PPC; after all, based upon this rumor it looks like the only way to hold the bar on performance is to double and/or quadruple the number of Intel CPUs.
Almost seems pathetic to me - but then that's the corner that Apple's painted itself into now.
Oh well, at least we have new 'Pods to look forward to...
\cynicism
This thread's not about Wednesday, it's about quad-Intel Macs. I'm skeptical about the image that brought the topic up, but the possibility remains--and is interesting to discuss even though we're talking future Macs and not this week's Macs.oskar said:So what about an update or rumor about Wednesday's event?
(Also, Steve didn't say Intel Macs would BEGIN shipping at WWDC 06, he said they would be "in the market" already BY WWDC 06. That makes June the latest date for the transition to start, not the earliest. I don't know that Steve even KNEW an exact date when he made that statement.)
The switch to Intel is not about what Intel and PPC are like TODAY (although PPC does not hold its own with laptops). It's about where Intel and PPC will be in 2006, 2007, and beyond.MegaSignal said:
A screenshot today says nothing about Yonah, Conroe, Woocrest, etc.... the chips that Apple wants to be on board with, and with good reason if IBM has fallen down on the promise of the G5.
A lot of people get confused and think Apple is planning on using yesterday's Intel chips across the Mac line. But that makes no sense. Those are the chips that a G5 CAN stand toe-to-toe with pretty well. This is why the G5 (if not the G4) has some life left in it. Apple's planning ahead for when it doesn't--a smart call.
So a Intel Pentium D processor would be better than dual P4? And yes, I know it is very had to compare because there are different models of each. OK, lets try this...
Would a dual-core 2.0 GHz G5 be faster than a dual G5 2.0 GHz processor?
If this concept has been around since 2001, why hasn't Apple used it? It's been 4 years, and Apple usually seems to adopt the cutting-edge before other companies. If you don't believe me, go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_macintosh#Effects_on_the_industry
And I realize this is not a thread about Wednesday, but in case some people are reading both, I doubt Apple will introduce a PPC dual-core, right before the Intel release. It's been 4 years, and they haven't done it yet, I think they'll wait a little longer.