If a particular software can use all of a core 2 duo processor now, why wouldn't it be able to use all of a core 2 quad? We've had core duo processors for years now and if you go into Activity Monitor you can see just about every software I can think of is multi-threaded. Take a handbrake encode for instance. That's like one process that definitely uses both cores to full advantage. Isn't OS X designed to be capable of inteligently handling multi-threaded apps? I remember this argument about the benefits of multi-core vs single going when Apple first moved to Intel.
I'm betting that the System will feel generally faster in a quad versus duo mac if the total Ghz is significantly greater. The 1.73 quad has 30% more total GHz than a 2.66 duo.
Unfortunately, programs are designed to take advantage of however many threads the company decides it needs, or is easy to program for. A fair amount of programs will only take good advantage of one core, many two, and others as many as are there.
Wanna bet? The OS will spread quite a bit of its Services across those cores they never could do in the past.
Anyone that ever came in contact with BeOS running on a BeBox knows that threading and multicore is fantastic for responsiveness. I never got to lay hands on the actual setup myself but my God the speed was incredible.
Wanna bet? The OS will spread quite a bit of its Services across those cores they never could do in the past.
If you set someone down and do the computer equivalent of a blind taste-test, they won't be able to tell the difference between a dual and a quad until they start opening lots of apps and heavily multitasking, or do something like video encoding.
For system responsiveness, it's a minuscule improvement compared to single vs. dual. Adding RAM and faster storage would do far more for that. I/O is a big limiting factor.
Comments
If a particular software can use all of a core 2 duo processor now, why wouldn't it be able to use all of a core 2 quad? We've had core duo processors for years now and if you go into Activity Monitor you can see just about every software I can think of is multi-threaded. Take a handbrake encode for instance. That's like one process that definitely uses both cores to full advantage. Isn't OS X designed to be capable of inteligently handling multi-threaded apps? I remember this argument about the benefits of multi-core vs single going when Apple first moved to Intel.
I'm betting that the System will feel generally faster in a quad versus duo mac if the total Ghz is significantly greater. The 1.73 quad has 30% more total GHz than a 2.66 duo.
Unfortunately, programs are designed to take advantage of however many threads the company decides it needs, or is easy to program for. A fair amount of programs will only take good advantage of one core, many two, and others as many as are there.
It won't. A lot of applications are faster on a quad than a dual, but general system responsiveness won't be.
Wanna bet? The OS will spread quite a bit of its Services across those cores they never could do in the past.
Wanna bet? The OS will spread quite a bit of its Services across those cores they never could do in the past.
Anyone that ever came in contact with BeOS running on a BeBox knows that threading and multicore is fantastic for responsiveness. I never got to lay hands on the actual setup myself but my God the speed was incredible.
Give me Quad Core or give me... something bad.
Wanna bet? The OS will spread quite a bit of its Services across those cores they never could do in the past.
If you set someone down and do the computer equivalent of a blind taste-test, they won't be able to tell the difference between a dual and a quad until they start opening lots of apps and heavily multitasking, or do something like video encoding.
For system responsiveness, it's a minuscule improvement compared to single vs. dual. Adding RAM and faster storage would do far more for that. I/O is a big limiting factor.