Forums | MacLife

so your saying fingerjello doesnt know smurf ?

fingerjello wrote:

Mac rumor sites around the web are saying that the "One more thing..." will be a Dual-Core G5 CPU with some other (long needed) updates.  Considering how Apple loves to overprice a new product, keep in mind WHY dual core processors even exist.

1. The dual core CPU will run at a lower clock speed than the current single core
2. The dual core is intended to be a cost saving solution for those who want/need dual processors.
3. Many programs will run faster on a higher clocked single core than a lower clocked dual core / multi-CPU computer, because not many programs are coded for it and/or the performance gain is only during rendering or specific actions. 
4. For "workstation" class computers for "professionals", the dual core CPU allows someone with a phat wallet to have essentially 4 CPUs in one machine.  For example, 2 dual core Opterons, or 2 dual core Xeons.

that said, here's what we should expect from Apple

1. Lower price on all Power Macs if they have a single dual-core CPU.  Significantly lower!
2. The high-end should have 2 dual-core CPUs (possibly higher cost) if lower than 2.7 GHz, otherwise it will be slower than current Power Macs.
3. Apple should show real world benchmarks for once.  Not SPEC or synthetic benchmarks.  Not Cubase SX on a PC vs. Logic on Mac.  Not Premiere on PC vs. FCP on a Mac, etc.  And show HARD NUMBERS, not % faster, so that the consumer can actually compare to their own system. 
4. The high-end Power Macs and Xserves should have 2 dual core CPUs to remain competitive, along with PCIe graphics, DDR2 memory, and SATA2 drives.... considering Apple is once again years behind with current tech. 

A "Pro" graphics card for ONCE would be nice too.

Are you bitching 'cause your poor and can't afford one? Poor baby.

Most apps that need significant CPU power are also multi-threaded. Graphics and video applications in particular. My Browser, Firefox and my newsreader, Thoth are both multi-threaded. Heck, every app I actually care about is.
Trivial things like games usually dont benifit of course.

Every cocoa program that uses a GUI uses multiple threads. Now how many of those threads that are actually doing work is a different matter. I'd say almost all apps have all their computational work on 1 thread, with the others being events etc. If you add some audio or video (from QuickTime or another framework), those will usually be in different threads, though.

I doubt the PowerMacs will have dual dual core processors any time soon. Possibly a new über expensive model, though.

I thought I read it somewhere that the real benefit of Dual Core is to have 2 different core, as a example one would be your typical cpu core while another might be design to optimize for lets say video coding/whatever!

pcguy wrote:

I thought I read it somewhere that the real benefit of Dual Core is to have 2 different core, as a example one would be your typical cpu core while another might be design to optimize for lets say video coding/whatever!

Where on earth would you pick up an idea like that?
None of the dual core designs from AMD, Intel, Motorola or IBM is anything but matched pairs.

I can't seem to found the article, I think it was when Intel first announce the dual core and their vp mention that they are excited about the future of dualcore, and that eventually they will roll out dualcore with different "core" that can take advantage of special purpose!

not the exact word, but I think that seem to be the idea!

fingerjello wrote:

Digital wrote:

Mac OS X is optimized for multithreaded applications. And just about every app I have has more than 2 threads.

Go over to barefeats.com and look for yourself.  Very few apps benefit from the 2nd CPU, and those that do are often only a 10-30% improvement over a single CPU of the same speed.  You're just buying into the buzz words and not looking at test results.

Mac users who are afraid to look at test results sure get angry when their Apple Cult ID Card turns out to be an overpriced piece of plastic.  I ran some photoshop tests on my new Dell m20 laptop and was pleased to see it smokes a dual 2 GHz Power Mac in photoshop and every 3D program, while costing a lot less and weighing 4.5 pounds.

Is that before or after the laptop gets infected by 2200 malware viruses, kicks off 40 pop up windows, and then grabs its chest like Fred Sanford and declares "OH ELIZABETH!!! IM COMING FOR YOU HONEY!!!" and then Blue Screens.

I don't care if Intel puts a nuclear accelerator in their hardware, I wouldn't let my neighbors yap dog use Windows.

Hultramagnus wrote:

fingerjello wrote:

Digital wrote:

Mac OS X is optimized for multithreaded applications. And just about every app I have has more than 2 threads.

Go over to barefeats.com and look for yourself.  Very few apps benefit from the 2nd CPU, and those that do are often only a 10-30% improvement over a single CPU of the same speed.  You're just buying into the buzz words and not looking at test results.

Mac users who are afraid to look at test results sure get angry when their Apple Cult ID Card turns out to be an overpriced piece of plastic.  I ran some photoshop tests on my new Dell m20 laptop and was pleased to see it smokes a dual 2 GHz Power Mac in photoshop and every 3D program, while costing a lot less and weighing 4.5 pounds.

Is that before or after the laptop gets infected by 2200 malware viruses, kicks off 40 pop up windows, and then grabs its chest like Fred Sanford and declares "OH ELIZABETH!!! IM COMING FOR YOU HONEY!!!" and then Blue Screens.

I don't care if Intel puts a nuclear accelerator in their hardware, I wouldn't let my neighbors yap dog use Windows.

Anyone who is as shallow as you(from the post you just make) does not deserve to own such fine hardware as
Dual 2.7Ghz G5 w/8 gigs ram
23" Cinema HD Display
Powerbook 1.67Ghz/1.5gig/100/Superdrive

I've got an old cube - scarcely cutting edge tech.  However, I recently popped in a dual processor upgrade from OWC, dual 1.5 G4's.  With a handy widget, I can monitor the load on my processors, which I do from time to time for fun.  They are usually within 10% of each other's load and the dials move up and down more or less in unison.   

Now, that wouldn't be happening if there wasn't some sort of load balancing mechanism would it?  Without one wouldn't one processor peg at 100% then the next task goes to the other one?  Obviously I don't know much about this stuff, but just looking at it it seems as if the ordinary home user programs I use are spread between the two, apparently to some benefit.

PS:  I'm perfectly aware that it is beating a dead horse to have upgraded my cube.  But for about the cost of a mini I got to keep a computer which I find fun to have on my desk functional for quite awhile longer.  Besides it is at least as functional as a mini, which was my only real alternative for the money I was willing to pay.

so im planning on getting a 2.0ghz dual core powermac.  is this gonna be better than the  2.0ghz dual processor powermac?

fingerjello wrote:

Digital wrote:

Mac OS X is optimized for multithreaded applications. And just about every app I have has more than 2 threads.

Go over to barefeats.com and look for yourself.  Very few apps benefit from the 2nd CPU, and those that do are often only a 10-30% improvement over a single CPU of the same speed.  You're just buying into the buzz words and not looking at test results.

Mac users who are afraid to look at test results sure get angry when their Apple Cult ID Card turns out to be an overpriced piece of plastic.  I ran some photoshop tests on my new Dell m20 laptop and was pleased to see it smokes a dual 2 GHz Power Mac in photoshop and every 3D program, while costing a lot less and weighing 4.5 pounds.

You assumed that i said that each app uses each thread at full load. They don't hense no performance boost. But those apps that do, you see a very significant speed bump. Next time, try to make an argument out of logic, not logical fallacies.