New To Mac-Forums?

Welcome to our community! Join the discussion today by registering your FREE account. If you have any problems with the registration process, please contact us!

Get your questions answered by community gurus Advice and insight from world-class Apple enthusiasts Exclusive access to members-only contests, giveaways and deals

Join today!

 
Start a Discussion
 

Mac-Forums Brief

Subscribe to Mac-Forums Brief to receive special offers from Mac-Forums partners and sponsors

Join the conversation RSS
Apple Rumors and Reports Discuss what's going on with Apple in this forum

New Powerbooks and Powermacs after all?


Post Reply New Thread Subscribe

 
Thread Tools
Meyvn

 
Meyvn's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 24, 2004
Posts: 726
Meyvn will become famous soon enough
Mac Specs: Black Colorware PowerBook 1.67 GHz G4, 2 GB DDR2, 100GB 7200 RPM

Meyvn is offline
Up to scratch in desktops?

'cause when it rains, you know it pours.
QUOTE Thanks
lil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meyvn
Up to scratch in desktops?
Definitely.

Don't let the 'M' scare you. I have long held the opinion the Pentium 4 was a poorer processor design than the Pentium III. The latetr at the time just could not be pushed farther.

The Pentium M is if anything a Pentium III that was re-designed a little.

They are fast processors indeed, remember how the early Pentium 4s were shown up by the Pentium III? Same thing applies now, a 2.2GHz single core Sonoma Pentium M can really hold its own with a 3GHz Pentium 4.

The mobile tag should not be taken as meaning 'lesser', it has more energy management, which can cause a speed hit, but not a massive one.

If anything the fact it runs much cooler means that heat generation is less of an issue, meaning less drastic cooling required, quieter computers and in the case of iMacs, Mac Minis, PowerBook etc. - less chances of overheating.

Vicky
QUOTE Thanks
MadSkillzMan

 
Member Since: Apr 11, 2005
Location: Cleveland Ohio
Posts: 398
MadSkillzMan is on a distinguished road
Mac Specs: Dual G5 powermac

MadSkillzMan is offline
Does intel even have a dual CPU soloution that is != Xeon?

new vid 8/8/05
QUOTE Thanks
prodikal
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

intel, has the dual core. but if you are talking about dual cpu i think the only other multi cpu chip is the over priced itanium
QUOTE Thanks
jsnoah

 
jsnoah's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 30, 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 39
jsnoah is on a distinguished road
Mac Specs: MacBook Pro... 2.33GHz C2D, 2 gb ram. 120gb hd. 250gb external firewire HD

jsnoah is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by macEfan
300gb hard drives?


What can you do with a 300 that you can't with a 250??? Just a little wondering is all! Peace!

Bring out the newbs! I needs me a new PB and PM!!!
QUOTE Thanks
PowerBookG4

 
PowerBookG4's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 08, 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 6,190
PowerBookG4 has much to be proud ofPowerBookG4 has much to be proud ofPowerBookG4 has much to be proud ofPowerBookG4 has much to be proud ofPowerBookG4 has much to be proud ofPowerBookG4 has much to be proud ofPowerBookG4 has much to be proud ofPowerBookG4 has much to be proud ofPowerBookG4 has much to be proud ofPowerBookG4 has much to be proud of
Mac Specs: Mac Pro 8x3.0ghz 12gb ram 8800GT , MBP 2.16 2GB Ram 17 inch.

PowerBookG4 is offline
why would you want a 300gb hd, when you can get a 400gb hard drive.

My Website
Blog
I love my hosting company!
I was on the M-F honor roll for Febuary:2006
QUOTE Thanks
Meyvn

 
Meyvn's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 24, 2004
Posts: 726
Meyvn will become famous soon enough
Mac Specs: Black Colorware PowerBook 1.67 GHz G4, 2 GB DDR2, 100GB 7200 RPM

Meyvn is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by lil
If anything the fact it runs much cooler means that heat generation is less of an issue, meaning less drastic cooling required, quieter computers and in the case of iMacs, Mac Minis, PowerBook etc. - less chances of overheating.

Vicky
Oh, naturally it's a better processor than the P4. Incidentally, when they got rid of the PIII was when I lost my faith in Intel as a company in the first place. What I was getting at is, 'Is a dual-core M a better processor than a dual-core G5?' And although it's very efficient for its clock speed, can they push its clock speed much farther?

'cause when it rains, you know it pours.
QUOTE Thanks
MadSkillzMan

 
Member Since: Apr 11, 2005
Location: Cleveland Ohio
Posts: 398
MadSkillzMan is on a distinguished road
Mac Specs: Dual G5 powermac

MadSkillzMan is offline
Honestly, i thought a dual CPU anything will outperform a Dual Core. I know for a fact HT is just a cheap imitation of SMP, you only get roughly 30% of a performance boost

new vid 8/8/05
QUOTE Thanks
technologist

 
Member Since: Mar 30, 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 4,744
technologist has a reputation beyond reputetechnologist has a reputation beyond reputetechnologist has a reputation beyond reputetechnologist has a reputation beyond reputetechnologist has a reputation beyond reputetechnologist has a reputation beyond reputetechnologist has a reputation beyond reputetechnologist has a reputation beyond reputetechnologist has a reputation beyond reputetechnologist has a reputation beyond reputetechnologist has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 12" Apple PowerBook G4 (1.5GHz)

technologist is offline
Intel dropped the Pentium-III because it couldn't scale to faster speeds, and AMD was breathing down its neck. The Pentium-4 was less efficient, but it did have room for growth.

Only with the P-M was Intel able to ratchet up the Pentium-III's clock speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadSkillzMan
Honestly, i thought a dual CPU anything will outperform a Dual Core. I know for a fact HT is just a cheap imitation of SMP, you only get roughly 30% of a performance boost
A dual-core CPU has two complete processor cores, with shared access to on-chip caches. Performance should be about the same, possibly better, than two individual single-core processors.

More importantly, it's cheaper to manufacture than two singles.
QUOTE Thanks
lil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meyvn
Oh, naturally it's a better processor than the P4. Incidentally, when they got rid of the PIII was when I lost my faith in Intel as a company in the first place. What I was getting at is, 'Is a dual-core M a better processor than a dual-core G5?' And although it's very efficient for its clock speed, can they push its clock speed much farther?
Yes. Witness the problem with the 970FX, 3GHz?

You're kidding the 2.7GHz needs water cooling. The new 970MP may have room for growth but not as much as Intel.

But -- here in lays the rub. The Power Mac will probably be the last to switch to Intel IMO. I have gone into the reasons in great detail before, but put succinctly, the 970MP is rumoured to have a 3.5GHz ceiling - that gives a lot of breathing space for Apple to continue producing a PPC based Power Mac whilst through consumer (read not mission critical) Macintoshes switch to Intel for all the bugs to be ironed out.

By this time the Pentium M with the Yonah core will be very well developed and ready for release into the Power Macintosh range, and by that I mean late 2006 or early 2007.

I could be very wrong though.

As for the Pentium 4, as technologist said in a better way than me, the Pentium 4 was an easy way for Intel to ramp up clock speeds, even if in reality they were slower than the PIII to start with. Witness how the Pentium III Tualatin 1.13GHz ran as fast as a 1.7GHz Pentium 4.

Vicky :flower:
QUOTE Thanks
lil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Dual cores will be quicker than dual processor, physically they are much closer together allowing quicker access to registers instead of being routed out of the CPU onto mainboard and into the second CPU.

Also dual core CPUs are designed to work as a pair, so they are 'aware' of each other and thus can intelligently optimise their data processing accordingly. Dual CPU even though quite intelligent, each CPU is still kind of working along the idea that I'm the only guy in here slogging my guts out, when really its not. Dual CPU tends to need more software optimisation (Read: designed to use 2 CPUs, this could be done to the OS level) to make use of the two processors, where as dual core tends to be a much more hardware based thing.

Does that make sense?

Vicky
QUOTE Thanks
Meyvn

 
Meyvn's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 24, 2004
Posts: 726
Meyvn will become famous soon enough
Mac Specs: Black Colorware PowerBook 1.67 GHz G4, 2 GB DDR2, 100GB 7200 RPM

Meyvn is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by lil
Does that make sense?

Vicky
Perfectly.

'cause when it rains, you know it pours.
QUOTE Thanks
lonerider

 
lonerider's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: 150
lonerider will become famous soon enough
Mac Specs: iBook G4 1.2 1.25Gig RAM Emac 1.42Ghz 1GB RAM

lonerider is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by technologist
A dual-core CPU has two complete processor cores, with shared access to on-chip caches. Performance should be about the same, possibly better, than two individual single-core processors.
That's not really true - depends on what you're doing.

Two individual CPUs have two paths to memory. A dual core chip means each individual core has to share the same bus to memory.

It's really hard to find valid comparisons between a single dual-core process and a dual processor rig. Simple reason being, there arent any dual processor P4s so such a comparison is lopsided (ie comparing a dual core P4 to a dual Xeon is not the same).

That said, there are dual Opteron systems that can be compared to dual core opterons. The results favor the dual opteron systems over the dual core systems, sometimes by a wide margin.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/...00-part-l.html

Near the bottom of the above link, you find a dual core Opteron compared to dual single core opterons. The single core opterons were running at 2.4Ghz, the dual core opterons running at 2.2Ghz. The comment below was concerning a comparison of a single dual core CPU vs dual CPUs :

"The general performance gain in SPECfp_rate2000 is from 16 to 40%. It speaks in favor of true dual-processor systems based on Opteron (and NUMA in particular) versus dual-core (SMP-like) solutions."

Basically what they are saying is that the dual single core opterons beat the single dual-core opteron by 16-40%. Give them 10% for the clock speed difference and you find that the dual setup will still beat a single dual core by 6-30%. Problem with making that adjustment is that dual core processors are pretty much universally running at a lower clock speed than the single core systems.
QUOTE Thanks
Meyvn

 
Meyvn's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 24, 2004
Posts: 726
Meyvn will become famous soon enough
Mac Specs: Black Colorware PowerBook 1.67 GHz G4, 2 GB DDR2, 100GB 7200 RPM

Meyvn is offline
This still doesn't address the problem that so many applications don't take advantage of dual processor systems, whereas dual core distributes tasks among its cores on its own.

'cause when it rains, you know it pours.
QUOTE Thanks
iaminvincible

 
iaminvincible's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 12, 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 81
iaminvincible is on a distinguished road
Mac Specs: 15" MacBook Pro, 2.16Ghz, 1GB ram

iaminvincible is offline
I know this is not related to the topic you are discussing, but will the new powerbooks have the isight built in? I heard that rumour at some places...or is that going to only be with the powerbooks with the intel chips? or not at all? Thanks.

An apple a day keeps the doctor away...
QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


« Cheap RAM: am I missing something? | New iMAC »
Thread Tools

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
X

Welcome to Mac-Forums.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this community the ultimate source for your Mac since 2003!


(4 digit year)

Already a member?