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.
Why we need 2 processor?
- Thread starter feyn-man
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have no clue what you are asking so I will give it a shot.
Are you asking what is the difference in lets say PowerPC G4 compared to Intel Core 2 Duo?
A G4 processor is just one processor on a single chip.
Intel Core 2 Duo is 2 processing cores on a single chip, so you have 2 processors in 1.
The speed difference is quite large.
The fastest PowerBook was at 1.67Ghz G4 wise.
Right now the fastest MacBook Pro is 2.6GHz. So (correct me if I am wrong) you have 2.6GHz x 2= 5.2GHz of speed. I might be wrong on this, I might need some correction here.
Are you asking what is the difference in lets say PowerPC G4 compared to Intel Core 2 Duo?
A G4 processor is just one processor on a single chip.
Intel Core 2 Duo is 2 processing cores on a single chip, so you have 2 processors in 1.
The speed difference is quite large.
The fastest PowerBook was at 1.67Ghz G4 wise.
Right now the fastest MacBook Pro is 2.6GHz. So (correct me if I am wrong) you have 2.6GHz x 2= 5.2GHz of speed. I might be wrong on this, I might need some correction here.
Turn off your processor?? I dont think so. I don't see how that would help the buzz issue at all. Performance with 2 I am guessing is much better than one.
Just because you have two cores on a single package does not make it go faster than their separate speed. What it gives you, however, is much better performance with software that is multithreaded or if you are multitasking.
I was talking about that thread:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/390991/
Did I misunderstand that?
Not quite. You don't double the clock speed.
For example, a quad core at 2.6Ghz isn't 4x2.6Ghz.
Disabling one core will have an adverse effect on your battery life, because the remaining core will be denied to go into a lower power state.
Performance isn't the same with one processor.
This isn't the first time where disabling a core is a workaround to buzzing.
I believe that if you were to have a perfectly multi-threaded application, it would be able to accomplish the same amount of work on a 4*2Ghz processor as it would on a 1*8GHz processor.
However, since the world is not perfect....
Correct, at least that's what I understand.
But as you said, things are not perfectly multi-threaded
Heck, a lot of things still aren't multi-threaded at all, let alone perfectly done.Running two processors will usually give you better performance than two. Some argue that if you use single-threaded apps it doesn't make a difference, but that isn't true since the OS is running plenty of applications and processes in the background so having another core to help handle those is better than disabling one core, which will result in less speed.
Guy up there's right about the futility of dimming a processor. You can turn one core off with software, but it doesn't increase battery life. I tried it some time ago, and actually got slightly worse battery life (according to the timer) than I did with two cores. I also tried this back in the day on a Gateway, and had the same result. Bottom line: stick with both cores.
one of the main reasons for doing two cores on one chip is heat
single core processors (eg pentium 4s) got as fast as they could when air cooled (around 3.8GHz)
the solution was to get two cores on one chip, which dont get as hot and are also more powerful
single core processors (eg pentium 4s) got as fast as they could when air cooled (around 3.8GHz)
the solution was to get two cores on one chip, which dont get as hot and are also more powerful