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
Voidness said:
Yup, Ht is pretty well useless, save for the fact that it speeds up multitasking, if only very slightly. Hyperthreading makes the computer processor think that it has a siamese twin, and allows the execution of two process threads simultaneously. This is all well and good, but half the time, it makes things run slower than than if they weren't running HT. Go figure. I'll stick to two real processors.
And what about those processors named Ituran, or Ituran2? They can't be used on future Powermacs???
Powerbook 30 True or not"?
Now come on - think
You have got a cool quad chip
a 30 inch LCD screen (I here it maybe plasma)
and the powerbook form factor
is that not ****ing cool? Or what
Girls could have a white pearly one and the guys get a black/blue like the iPods?
Just a hint from steve!!!!!!!!!!
Now come on - think
You have got a cool quad chip
a 30 inch LCD screen (I here it maybe plasma)
and the powerbook form factor
is that not ****ing cool? Or what
Girls could have a white pearly one and the guys get a black/blue like the iPods?
Just a hint from steve!!!!!!!!!!
Well Since IBM AND INTEL AND MOTO
THInk about it IBm has the G5 intel has the Pentium 4 Amd got Amd64 and moto got the brains of mobility why not combine it - Ibm can do that
Oh yeah that leave ati and nvdia to have some fun with there new chips
Sony = Cell
IBM + INTEL + MOTO+ ATI+ NVIDIA+ MICROSOFT+ APPLE=G7
THInk about it IBm has the G5 intel has the Pentium 4 Amd got Amd64 and moto got the brains of mobility why not combine it - Ibm can do that
Oh yeah that leave ati and nvdia to have some fun with there new chips
Sony = Cell
IBM + INTEL + MOTO+ ATI+ NVIDIA+ MICROSOFT+ APPLE=G7
Itanuionon
Well I think the ibook should be black and white for school kids and made from titanimo and al
with all the music they want
and Doom3 preinstalled Quake 4 is going to rock!!!!!
and have Blue-ray why ****ing have DVD? So lame!!!
and Maya Ed 7?
Well I think the ibook should be black and white for school kids and made from titanimo and al
with all the music they want
and Doom3 preinstalled Quake 4 is going to rock!!!!!
and have Blue-ray why ****ing have DVD? So lame!!!
and Maya Ed 7?
a core is a CPU
A "dual-core chip" is two CPUs on one chip of silicon (or two chips in one package).
There's almost no way to determine from a program (short of calling specific core-aware APIs) whether a dual-CPU machine contains two single-CPU chips or one dual-CPU chip (dual-core chip). (Not quite the same for HT - you can easily check performance and see that your two CPUs aren't about twice as fast.)
A "core" is everything you've always called a CPU - registers, ALUs, cache, etc.Evangelion said:
A "dual-core chip" is two CPUs on one chip of silicon (or two chips in one package).
There's almost no way to determine from a program (short of calling specific core-aware APIs) whether a dual-CPU machine contains two single-CPU chips or one dual-CPU chip (dual-core chip). (Not quite the same for HT - you can easily check performance and see that your two CPUs aren't about twice as fast.)
AidenShaw said:
I think it's pretty safe to assume that ANY quad-CPU workstation now or in the near future, mean 2x dual-core CPU's. Everyone is moving to dualcore, and having 2x dualcore CPU's makes alot more sense than having 4x single-core CPU's.
Benjamin Rozens said:
$DEITY I hope not! LCD is the future, whereas plasma is losing popularity fast.
again, a core is a CPU
You should have said:
I think it's pretty safe to assume that ANY quad-CPU workstation now or in the near future, mean 2x dual-core chips. Everyone is moving to dual-core, and having 2x dual-CPU chips makes alot more sense than having 4x single-CPU chips.
"Dual-core" is simply a cheaper way of getting dual-CPU, and a much cheaper way of qetting quad-CPU.
I repeat "a core is a CPU".Evangelion said:
You should have said:
I think it's pretty safe to assume that ANY quad-CPU workstation now or in the near future, mean 2x dual-core chips. Everyone is moving to dual-core, and having 2x dual-CPU chips makes alot more sense than having 4x single-CPU chips.
"Dual-core" is simply a cheaper way of getting dual-CPU, and a much cheaper way of qetting quad-CPU.
Just give me dual-core, dual-proc G5s tomorrow and MacIntel can feck off for another five years.
you mean...
A "dual-core, dual-proc" would be a single chip, with 2 CPUs like today's dual G5s.
It would be a great way to make a dual-CPU iMac G5....
You mean dual-core, quad-proc G5s, don't you?rxse7en said:
A "dual-core, dual-proc" would be a single chip, with 2 CPUs like today's dual G5s.
It would be a great way to make a dual-CPU iMac G5....
AidenShaw said:
He was correct.
A dual processor system, where each processor has two cores.
It seems to be the standard way that the industry is handling the concept of multi-core and describing systems based upon them. Another way is, e.g., "dual socket". Another way is how the processor appears topographically (e.g., number of connections to the bus).
Intel's dual-core Xeon is in fact a multi-chip-module (MCM) (from what I've read online). I don't know if it appears as two loads on the bus, or if there is an arbiter on the package. If it appears as two loads on the bus, it is merely SMP on a package and not dual-core.
So you have for example:
1P 2C = 2 cores in a single processor (as you suggest would be nice for the top-of-the-line iMac G5)
1S 2C = same as above, different terminology
2S 1C = 2 single core processors (e.g., current PowerMac)
2S 2C = 2 dual-core processors (e.g., rumoured PowerMac)
4P 2C = 8 cores over 4 processors.
and so on
amd would say 4
AMD says dual-core is "two processors on a single die"....
IBM thinks that a core is a processor as well:
My main point is that a "core" is logically everything that you've always called a CPU.
In common language, calling a single dual-core system a "dual CPU" and a dual-dual a "quad CPU" is simpler, clearer, and much less prone to confusion.
There's no need to check bus loads - a core is everything a CPU has always been, regardless of how it's connected or built.
Hattig said:
AMD says dual-core is "two processors on a single die"....
IBM thinks that a core is a processor as well:
My main point is that a "core" is logically everything that you've always called a CPU.
In common language, calling a single dual-core system a "dual CPU" and a dual-dual a "quad CPU" is simpler, clearer, and much less prone to confusion.
There's no need to check bus loads - a core is everything a CPU has always been, regardless of how it's connected or built.
AidenShaw said:
Well duh! My point is that people are getting extatic at the idea of "quad-CPU intel PowerMac", while we are expecting 2x dualcore G5 PM's, which ARE "quad-CPU PowerMacs". Quad-CPU machines are nothing strange these days, and I fail to see what the fuzz is about.
I think it's pretty reasonable to talk about CPU and cores. CPU is the chip that's in the computer and that chip may have one or more cores in it. But if we started calling the individual cores as CPU's, we would start to REALLY confuse things! Add to that the weirdoes who call the computer itself (in case of PM, the tower) CPU's. Then we would have something like "My CPU has two CPU's in it with two CPU's in each CPU". No, I maintain that it's best to talk about CPU's and cores, with each CPU having one or more cores in it. In the past it did make sense to think that core == CPU == core, since each CPU was just a single core. But things are changing. When people think about CPU's, they think about the processors in their computer. It does not matter in the end how many cores that CPU has, to Joe Sixpack that is a technical detail he's not interested in. When he looks in to his 1x dualcore-machine, to him, it will have a single CPU.
Just give me quad-core G5 tomorrow and MacIntel can feck off for another five years.
AidenShaw said:
That'll do !rxse7en said:Just give me quad-core G5 tomorrow and MacIntel can feck off for another five years.
Platform said:Do you mean Ithanium
If so, don't think so becasue they are very rare and has had little development.
Yeah, my mistake. I mean Ithanium processors, you´re right. Because I heard that the concept of this line of processors are the best for high performance...
Thank you!
Evangelion said:
Bang on and well said !
i'd be suprised if this wasn't the general consensus between even the most tech savvy of us.
AidenShaw said:
Yes, I'm not saying a CORE isn't a CPU. However the industry is saying that a "processor" may have many cores so as to differentiate between "processor cores" and "processors" for things like SPEC, etc.
There is a need to check bus loads for seeing if something is dual-core (shows up as one bus load, the cores are behind an arbiter (i.e., on AMD this would be the SRQ)) or simply two CPUs on the same package with the bus running between them (e.g., Pentium D).
When I hear "Quad Processor" I think "Quad Socket", not "Dual Socket with Two Cores Per Socket". See that lazy imprecise language that you like causes confusion!
A processor is something you can buy, a single entity. I can't buy half a dual-core! Therefore ONE processor can have MULTIPLE cores.
So does this mean that software has to modified to take advantage of the second core, as is the case with the current dual G5 systems?
If this is the case then i don't see the big fuss, at this time. I have a dual G5 and the only real benefit i get from the 2nd processor is when am rendering with Cinema4D. There are not alot of software that are multiprocessor-aware.
So at this point it will be something like out 64bit G5 processors, it does nothing but it sounds cool
If this is the case then i don't see the big fuss, at this time. I have a dual G5 and the only real benefit i get from the 2nd processor is when am rendering with Cinema4D. There are not alot of software that are multiprocessor-aware.
So at this point it will be something like out 64bit G5 processors, it does nothing but it sounds cool
a CPU "processes instructions and data"
This definition of CPU applies to the core - that's the only thing that "processes instructions and data".
For the layman (joe 6pack), his dual-core is a dual-cpu machine - he's been told by the ads that it's better because it can do two things at once.
Maybe we should get all new terminology, and ditch the old, for the new multi-core world. Intel seems to be trying that, with "execution core" referring to the core, and "processor" referring to the package.
_________________________
There are a lot of people here asking questions about "what does dual core mean".
The honest, useful answer is that a core is a CPU - talking about bus loads and arbiters is nonsense.
While Einstein proved that Newton was wrong about the Apple - gravity is still a very useful explanation for what we see happening around us.
Being "understood" by the typical user is far more important than being absolutely correct in every nuance.
This definition of CPU applies to the core - that's the only thing that "processes instructions and data".
For the layman (joe 6pack), his dual-core is a dual-cpu machine - he's been told by the ads that it's better because it can do two things at once.
Maybe we should get all new terminology, and ditch the old, for the new multi-core world. Intel seems to be trying that, with "execution core" referring to the core, and "processor" referring to the package.
_________________________
There are a lot of people here asking questions about "what does dual core mean".
The honest, useful answer is that a core is a CPU - talking about bus loads and arbiters is nonsense.
While Einstein proved that Newton was wrong about the Apple - gravity is still a very useful explanation for what we see happening around us.
Being "understood" by the typical user is far more important than being absolutely correct in every nuance.