Quad Core Computers.......

Carnage

Support BGOL
Registered
Just wanted to see what you guys thought of the new Quad Core computers. Is there really a need for them now? And does anybody have one yet? Fill me in....

Quad Core
Four-core CPU, like the Kentsfield, processes very well multi-threaded applications (typical for video editing, ray-tracing, or rendering), where its processing ability may approach a double of its each half's equally clocked dual-core CPU. It cannot reach almost double of its each half's equally clocked dual-core CPU due to a loss of performance resulting from the narrow memory bandwidth and operating system overhead of handling twice as many cores and threads. Single or dual-threaded applications alone, including most games, will not benefit from the second pair of cores of a quad-core CPU over an equally clocked dual-core CPU. Kentsfield's relatively small increase in FSB and processor speed over Core 2 Duo's does not alone boost the overall performance for those applications, however a high-speed, low latency RAM may bump up the numbers. Nevertheless, a simultaneous use of (multitasking) several processor-demanding single/dual-threaded applications on a four-core CPU will see a dramatic overall performance increase over an equally clocked dual-core CPU. A four-core CPU is useful also to run the both client and server processes of a game without noticeable lag in either thread, as each instance (up to four) could be running on a different core.
 
You can cop a mac with dual quad cores and if youre doing audio or video work at the high end thats cool. The only other purpose would be servers for business. Their is not rational justification for that for most everyday users. Even math people or engineers etc are most likely better served by operaitng systems and hardware that are more in tune like Unix systems - AIX, HPUX etc
 
The new G5s are 8 core.

Consumers wouldn't begin to know what to do with that. A Mac Mini/Imac/MacBook is more than enough for the average pro-sumer.
 
JD Walker said:
The new G5s are 8 core.

Consumers wouldn't begin to know what to do with that. A Mac Mini/Imac/MacBook is more than enough for the average pro-sumer.

Agreed....I got a Quad G5 Mac (The last PPC they made before going to Intel processors)....I use mine for Music...It kicks plenty ass...Lookin to get The Next generation of The 8 Core Macs....It makes since for CPU intensive applications like Music and Video as pointed out....
The other problem is you have to have software that utilizes all those processors for the shit to have any real benefit....
Fortunately I utilize programs that do and the next Mac OS should utilize those 4 and 8 core machines even more effieciently....But yea if you just comin to BGOL and burning CD's and DVD's it does not make sense to shell out the loot for those Beast.......
 
Thothprod said:
Agreed....I got a Quad G5 Mac (The last PPC they made before going to Intel processors)....I use mine for Music...It kicks plenty ass...Lookin to get The Next generation of The 8 Core Macs....It makes since for CPU intensive applications like Music and Video as pointed out....
The other problem is you have to have software that utilizes all those processors for the shit to have any real benefit....
Fortunately I utilize programs that do and the next Mac OS should utilize those 4 and 8 core machines even more effieciently....But yea if you just comin to BGOL and burning CD's and DVD's it does not make sense to shell out the loot for those Beast.......

From what I've heard it took Intel a long time to catch up with that PPC Quad Core you have, and that the 8 core machines aren't much faster. I may be wrong.
 
Are there even any consumer oriented applications threaded for four or more cores? If the only advantage would be to run more applications simultaneously--e.g., compiling a Linux kernel while playing a video game--I'd imagine that I'd be cheaper just to have multiple computers.
 
what sucks about quad core processing, is that many apps out there are so used to writing their programs only to perform on one processor. which is a narrow-minded approach by the app makers, as this doesn't give you any real performance gains.

I have dual xeons that are hyperthreaded, and i use that machine with divx, because it can take advantage of dual processing, and let me tell you shit compresses my shit like that. i record a lot of tv shows to compress them later, and having a 2 dual core xeons, is the way to go. it sucks though not being to fully utilize the power of the processor though, since every other program on the machine is single processor-minded :mad:

of course i'd still get quad-core shit for the extra L2 cache cores and have the feeling like i have 4 processors instead of 2 would be the shit.
 
G5s were the last of the PPC architecture high end workstations offered from Apple inc., the new Quad and 8-core Mac workstations are called Mac Pros. I have a Quad Mac Pro, with 3gb RAM, the thing is blazing!!! That said the reason that the 8-core Macs aren't faster as of yet is because most apps haven't been written to optimize or take advantage of the extra horsepower. I'm a graphic artist and designer, the programs that I use most are Photoshop and imaging applications, the 8 core Mac Pros run these apps at the same speed as the quad-cores, so no need to spend another $1500+ for horsepower I can't use. The biggest thing is RAM, 2-4GB of RAM will be sufficient for most rigs as anything over 4GB RAM is rarely ever tapped into in most computing environments. 8-Core Macs are good right now for scientific and mathematical applications and some very very high end video editing/encoding fields and maybe even some audio/music editing.
 
heiesuke said:
G5s were the last of the PPC architecture high end workstations offered from Apple inc., the new Quad and 8-core Mac workstations are called Mac Pros. I have a Quad Mac Pro, with 3gb RAM, the thing is blazing!!! That said the reason that the 8-core Macs aren't faster as of yet is because most apps haven't been written to optimize or take advantage of the extra horsepower. I'm a graphic artist and designer, the programs that I use most are Photoshop and imaging applications, the 8 core Mac Pros run these apps at the same speed as the quad-cores, so no need to spend another $1500+ for horsepower I can't use. The biggest thing is RAM, 2-4GB of RAM will be sufficient for most rigs as anything over 4GB RAM is rarely ever tapped into in most computing environments. 8-Core Macs are good right now for scientific and mathematical applications and some very very high end video editing/encoding fields and maybe even some audio/music editing.

I thought the CS3 apps were written to take advantage of these the extra processing power and especially the extra RAM.
 
thoughtone said:
Wait for the AMD/ATI fusion processor. Video processor on the same die as the microprocessor.

Bro I don't even know what that means... :confused: ...my Macs from 99...G3s still hold me down...and I used to use music apps heavily...now it's just Photoshop...if I had the loot to burn I wouldn't mind test driving some of these new Macs though...
 
Carnage said:
Just wanted to see what you guys thought of the new Quad Core computers. Is there really a need for them now? And does anybody have one yet? Fill me in....

Quad Core
Four-core CPU, like the Kentsfield, processes ....

Just finished building a QX6700 Quad core setup w/ a Intel P35 chipset that have the 1333 FSB - Blazing even without the applications that take advantage of the quad core. I just used some high-speed, low latency RAM Mushkin modules that can handle the QX6700 bandwith and my system is zooming. Booting Linux, Plan 9, WinXP SPX, and VISTA 64. Trust me it's the way to go cause in a couple of months prices will drop and you will find them everywhere. Intel is phasing out single core processors and moving to Dual and Quad.
 
You all are forgetting virtualization. With that many cores and max memory you can
run virtual machines. I know you can dual boot OSX and Windows, but why not just
have the ability to fire up Windows, Linux, <whatever other os> without a drop in
performance within the OS you are running.
 
Back
Top