[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>So that means a dual is better then a quad because it has fewr processors? So if hypothetically a dual 1.2ghz and a quad 867 come out the dual 1.2ghz would be faster or better? Then what's the point of a quad?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, no, no... it also depends very much on how heavily threaded your apps are...
If you have an old app with zero multithreading, that single thread can only run on one processor. There is no way to "split" a thread to work on multiple processors. If you have a quad 800 MHz Mac, a single-threaded app would only be able to use a single 800 MHz chip. In this case, a single 867 MHz CPU should be better.
However, newer apps are are becoming much more threaded because of Mac OS X's oo-nature. If you have a very multi-threaded app, it'll run great with many many processors. If said app had a hundred threads, it'd be best run on a hundred processors, even if they're much slower processors. In this case, a quad 350 MHz Mac would (*in theory*) run circles around a single 867 MHz Mac because all the threads can be evenly distributed to use up all of the four slower processors (which -again *in theory*- actually amount to 1400 MHz!). Of course, that doesn't mean it won't run well on single processor machines; the OS will simply put all the threads on the single CPU (which would have to be very fast to evenly compete with the multi-procs).
Right now Apple has chosen the best of these two paths. They are selling the mid-speed CPU as a duallie. Unless Motorola starts getting huge gains in their yields, we won't be seeing multiple processors across the board (although that would be sweet!).
Am I making any sense yet? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>