G5 single 1.8 to a Intel Quad 2.66????

How much of a jump in rendering time should i see?
Current machine single 1.8 with 512 RAM, going to 2.66 Dual with 2G RAM
I do a lot of work with encoding flv for web, mostly sports highlights. So typically short packages of under 3 minutes. Now it takes what feels like hours to encode.
ANyone have any real numbers for me to see the time saved?
Thanks
creative Bond

Should be quite noticeable. There are of course many factors but we took a 40-minute sequence that took an hour to render on our Dual 1.8 that only took 30 minutes to render on the 2.66 Intel Quad.
Mike

Similar Messages

Intel Quad Core QX6700 + Dreamweaver 8 + CuteFTP Pro Problem

I know you guys probably can't help me with CuteFTP, but here
goes with DW8 anyway:
Ok, last week I upgraded from my single core CPU to the nice
Intel Quad Core Extreme QX6700 Kentsfield. It wasn't until today
that when I wanted to put up Dreamweaver 8 and my CuteFTP program
for some website updating, I noticed that DW8 would not startup
unless all but 1 core was disabled otherwise the system would hang
and lockup. CuteFTP would not even load up reguareless if 1 or all
4 cores were running.
Previously, I was using WS FTP Pro 2006, but it is not
compatable with IE7 which was the reason why I switched to CuteFTP.
I don't care if the workload is distributed over the
multicores as it is just website editing, nothing fancy. I would
just like to know if there is a way to just get it to run with all
4 cores active. So far, every Adobe program I have runs fine with 4
cores, it is just DW8 and CuteFTP which are finiky. I purchased it
when it was under Macromedia which could be a factor.
If anyone could help me out, it would be great!
PS: I know website design doesn't need 4 cores, lol! I am
also a CGI graphics artist in advance production classes at my
university, hence needing the 4 cores for rendering!

Unfortunately, you'll probably have to wait for a CuteFTP
update, too.
If there's a support forum or contact for CuteFTP, ask them
what to do.
"NITRO1250" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:euukct$run$[email protected]..
> Downloaded the 8.02 update and it fixed the problem.
Does anyone know of a
> way to fix Cute FTP?

IMac Intel Quad duo & 10.4.5 Update

I have a brand new iMac - it worked perfectly with 10.4.4 which was already installed. I upgraded to 10.4.5 via Software update yesterday. Since then the machine has significantly slowed in response and numerous errors occur.
This morning after checking the discussions for similar 10.4.5 issues (which are numerous) I decided to run a hardware test and the disk repair utilities off the boot disks. No problems were detected during these tests.
Some of the issues I've noticed since upgrading are as follows :
a. SYSTEM PREFERENCES - generally very slow to open and quit. Especially when opening Date & Time - this seems to hang in both 10.4.4 and 10.4.5. I have the PID sample files if they are required by Apple. THIS HAPPENS IN BOTH 10.4.4 and 10.4.5.
b. SAFARI refresh much slower e.g Apple home page
c. iPHOTO 6 crashed on opening. Wouldn't allow me to report a problem despite clicking on "Report Problem". Re-opening of iPhoto mcuh slower as is viewing and scrolling. THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN 10.4.4 AFTER I RE-INSTALL FROM BOOT DISKS
d. iCAL - slowed right down. THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN 10.4.4 AFTER I RE-INSTALL FROM BOOT DISKS
b. GO > NETWORK : no longer works. (it did in 10.4.4 becuase I transferred old files from my old AGP G4 using an Ethernet connection). It appears briefly once only but dissappears immediately. (the time it took 10.4.5 to initiate File sharing on the Intel was four or five times longer than on my Powerbook 800Mhz (File Sharing on both was started at approximately the same time in order to copy files.). THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN 10.4.4 AFTER I RE-INSTALL FROM BOOT DISKS
d. iTUNES - when playing multiple tracks/playlists it will skip the end of every song and jump into the next. This has never happened before, and I have not configured anything since the new installation and subsequent software upgrade. This happens in 6.0.3 and the newest version - the last 5 seconds are skipped on every track/song/audio/podcast etc. THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN 10.4.4 AFTER I RE-INSTALL FROM BOOT DISKS
e. FRONT ROW took at least three to four minutes looking for artists in my iTunes directory ; eventually the rotating icon dissapeared, and the menu system became responsive again. In 10.4.4, the day before, it all worked instantly, with no delaying rotating icon.THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN 10.4.4 AFTER I RE-INSTALL FROM BOOT DISKS
f. Accessing .mac account through the System Prefs; again compared to the day before with 10.4.4 it was hugely slower. So slow that I went to make a coffee. (I have a 1.5-1.7Mps broadband connection.).THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN 10.4.4 AFTER I RE-INSTALL FROM BOOT DISKS
I decided to Re-intall 10.4.4 from the boot disks. The customisable options (e.g to turn off Norwegian / Korean fonts; not to re-install iWork trial etc) was not available; it took three attempts for it to recognise that the "install" key had been pressed (I've isolated any mouse issues by using two different mice). There was no need to press three times - it is just slow (10secs +) to respond.
Apart from the SYSTEM PREFERENCES, 10.4.4 is significantly better. You can see by my comments in CAPS in a-f above.
Is anyone else experiencing similar issues or is there a potential issue with my install ?
Rgds
Paul
iMac Intel Quad Duo Mac OS X (10.4.5)
G4 AGP 500Mhz Mac OS X (10.4)

Hi Paul, just wondering, are you a new first-time Mac user? Anyway, FYI, it's a Intel iMac Core Duo, not a "Quad duo", "Core Duo" is the name of the Intel chip iMac is using.
I am hopefullying assuming that there's nothing wrong with the hardware of your iMac, and dives right in what may be the cause of your iMac since the software update.
If you have read enough of this Discussion, you may have come across what is known as the "ritual of doing any Software Updates or Install" as I call it:
1.Before starting Software Update, unplug all external devices, FireWire, USB, hubs etc etc, not just turning them off but unplug the cables off your iMac
2.Repair Disk Permission
3.Restart the iMac if you wish, then start your SU, do not run any other apps.
4.After finishing SU, restart your mac; If you are updating OS or Security Updates, Restart is required.
5.Repair Disk Permission again
6.Shutdown and re-plug in everything and start up your mac as normal.
The above procedure is to help prevent any "aftermath" of people experiencing from little problems like general slow down to crashes or Kernel Panic just because they did not repair permisson, or worse, run "tons" of other things while doing SU together as well.
Since you have re-install OS, you can try again to do the Software Update, but maybe this time you can follow the suggested procedures, it works for me and ever since the very first OS X 10.4.1 update until now, I have not experience any major problems on my 3 macs.
Cheers

Intel quad core i5 versus i7

Intel quad core i5 versus i7. A lot of the posts I see on this are old. Am about to purchase a new iMac and this is the sticking point. I do not do video or heavy duty gaming. Sometimes work with photos. Usually try to buy the upper end, but if the i7 is not worth it??? Just don't want to be sorry if I do not get it.
Another question. Is there any rumor of new processors for the iMac? If so, I would wait a bit before purchasing
Thanks

Answering your questions helps here.
1. Worth it? It's a cost thing for sure. Moving up to device longevity (future prospects) the 8-core is $2,000 more than 4-core, while the 6-core is just $500 more. K5-models are way more than display updates in D500 and D700. The processor are dumping the 1600's and moving to the 2500's. If you try and mix-match, you bottle-neck. With two generations on the sales rack. be careful!
2. 2500's ARE the new processor. Follow these links to http://ark.intel.com and spec your Mac Pro stats vs. the processor stats. Apple store back room tech advised me to line-up the dots. Processor and Memory are easy: 3.7GHz to 12GB, etc. Fit to Graphics involves droping from 4 options to 3 options... but only at first glance. D300 is definitely a 3.7-12 selection. Using it anywhere else is asking for trouble. Dual D700 is your crossfire PC W9100 spec. You can over-kill without worry, out of curiosity. D500 is a respectable Unix adaptation for 3.5-16 and for 3.0-32. The former is for gamers, fast vid only (sort-of-thing). The later is for multi-threading.
Lining up the dots may sound like a game... but it's not for folks like me who like less friction and more compatibility.
Read the Intel Unix stats.
http://ark.intel.com/products/75779/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1620-v2-10M-Cache-3_ 70-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/75780/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1650-v2-12M-Cache-3_ 50-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/75279/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2690-v2-25M-Cache-3_ 00-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/75283/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2697-v2-30M-Cache-2_ 70-GHz
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

Intel quad core i7 2.6 vs 2.7 GHz

hello,
I would like to buy a macbook pro, but now I doubt which intel quad core I should choose.
Is there a noticeable difference between the 2.6 and 2.7 GHz?

the only time you'll see a difference between the 2.6GHz and 2.7GHz if you're using benchmarking software which most are sythetic and not real world conditons (what we'll use it for).
In paper, the difference of the 2.6GHz level 3 cache memory at 6MB and the 2.7GHz level 3 cache memory at 8MB looks good. In reality, you will not see a difference or benefits going with the 2.7GHz.
suggestion - if you're buying a NON-Retina Macbook Pro get the 2.6GHz and use the money you save to buy either a 16GB of RAM or a SSD drive.
good luck

If P965 platium MS-7238 support intel Quad Q8200 and Core2 E7500?

If P965 platium MS-7238 support intel Quad Q8200 and Core2 E7500?
Thank you.

Not officially, no.
Look here: http://global.msi.eu/index.php?func=prodcpu2&prod_no=266&maincat_no=1&orderby=cpu_name%20ASC#menu

MSI P6N-SLI AND INTEL QUAD CORE Q8200 NOT SUPPORTED ? BIOS FLASH ?

HI,I have MSI-P6N SLI (MS-7350) pc mainboard and my new processor Intel Quad Core Q8200 not running on this desk.
It possible some bios update or something ?? :(
thanks for answers

Quote from: DaLoona on 02-September-10, 02:46:27
According to this:
http://global.msi.eu/index.php?func=prodcpu2&prod_no=1141&maincat_no=1&orderby=cpu_name%20ASC#menu
"Yorkfield" 45nm quadcores are not going to work on this board, only "wolfdale" 45nm dualcores and even that depends on revision, like Jack mentioned.
So your Q8200 is a no go unfortunatly.
Only the older 65nm "Conroe" quads will work.
and fastest intel processor (not 45nm quad core) ?

Intel Quad Core for Premiere - is this a smart choice ?

Hi everyone,
I'm wondering if Intel's new Quad Core processor ( 2.4 Ghz ) will give a good boost to system performance over an older Intel 3.2 Ghz Ht chip.
I have seen test results where a 1.6 ghz dual core Intel processor has lost in speed tests vs regular 3.2 ghz chips ( not dual core )
So I'm puzzled,, will a Quad Core chip have any advantage when running Premiere ?
I'm hoping there is a clear cut answer here, and I look forward to any responses.
Thank you,
Dave.

Guys...
Before you all go out and throw a party...
My understanding is that with regards to CS3:
1. 32bit XP normally supports up to 2gigs of ram. 4gigs if you modify a line in the bootstrap file. But 4gigs is divided into 3gigs for apps and 1gig for system stuff.
2. 64bit XP is not supported.
3. 64bit Vista is not supported yet.
Here's the specs from Adobe:
- Intel® Pentium® 4 (1.4GHz processor for DV; 3.4GHz processor for HDV), Intel Centrino®, Intel Xeon® (dual 2.8GHz processors for HD), or Intel Core Duo (or compatible) processor; SSE2-enabled processor required for AMD systems
- Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional or Home Edition with Service Pack 2 or Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise (certified for 32-bit editions)
- 1GB of RAM for DV; 2GB of RAM for HDV and HD; more RAM recommended when running multiple components
Here's the memory specs for xp from Microsoft:
Operating systems based on Microsoft Windows NT technologies have always provided applications with a flat 32-bit virtual address space that describes 4 gigabytes (GB) of virtual memory. The address space is usually split so that 2 GB of address space is directly accessible to the application and the other 2 GB is only accessible to the Windows executive software.
The 32-bit versions of the Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Windows NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition, operating systems were the first versions of Windows to provide applications with a 3-GB flat virtual address space, with the kernel and executive components using only 1 GB. In response to customer requests, Microsoft has expanded the availability of this support to the 32-bit version of Windows XP Professional and all 32-bit versions of Windows Server 2003.
Windows 2000 Memory Support. With Windows 2000 Professional and Server, the maximum amount of memory that can be supported is 4 GB (identical to Windows NT 4.0, as described later in this section). However, Windows 2000 Advanced Server supports 8 GB of physical RAM and Windows 2000 Datacenter Server supports 32 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature of the IA-32 processor family, beginning with Intel Pentium Pro and later.
Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 Memory Support. The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature.
The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. When the physical RAM in the system exceeds 16 GB and the /3GB switch is used, the operating system will ignore the additional RAM until the /3GB switch is removed. This is because of the increased size of the kernel required to support more Page Table Entries. The assumption is made that the administrator would rather not lose the /3GB functionality silently and automatically; therefore, this requires the administrator to explicitly change this setting.
The /3GB switch allocates 3 GB of virtual address space to an application that uses IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the process header. This switch allows applications to address 1 GB of additional virtual address space above 2 GB.
The virtual address space of processes and applications is still limited to 2 GB, unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. The following example shows how to add the /3GB parameter in the Boot.ini file to enable application memory tuning:
However, knock yourselves out on getting the biggest baddest processors out there.
regards,

2.0 GHz Intel Quad core i7 vs. 3.7 GHz Intel Duo Core i7 Processor: Why not make the Quad Core 3.7GHz?

I don't really understand processors, but is the 2.0GHz Quad Core i7 really a better processor in terms of performance? If it has 4 cores why not give it greater processing speed like 2.7 or 3.0 GHz?
I am asking because I am thinking about getting the high end Mac Mini, but I see that it's processor runs at 2.0GHz and the others in the line run at 2.5 and 2.7 respectively. Why is this?

I'm really oversimplifying here, but...
Let's just assume that each core runs at full speed all the time, the total performance of that processor would be the sum of the running totals of each core:
Duo Core i7 = 2 (cores) * 2.7 GHZ = 5.4 Ghz total processor power
Quad Core i5 = 4 (cores) * 2.0 GHZ = 8.0 Ghz
Like I said, oversimplified. But, you get the point. Not to mention, most apps still aren't optimized, so at a given time they only use a single core anyway. In this case, it'd be more beneficial to have more cores, since they would (hypothetically) be able to run more simultaneous processes (four vs. two in your case).
I gues the greater question is: what were you planning on using the mini for? Most CPUs go underutilized anyway, so you may be better off getting a 2.0, and maxing out your RAM and maybe adding a SSD. Those upgrades (the SSD especially) will result in a very noticeable increase in performance.

Are all intels quad-core?

I went to Best Buy to buy a laptop today and I went to buy a AMD quadcore because there were no Intels that I saw in my price range with more than one core. Well the associate there told me that all the Intels are quadcore, so I left without purchasing anything because I wanted to do my research on it before I pay this much money for something, but I cannot seem to find much on it online. So I was wondering can anyone confirm that all Intel processors are quadcore now? I did notice that all the laptops with Intel processors didn't have how many cores were in the name as the AMD did. He also told me, it would be best not to buy a computer with an AMD processor.

i5 (certain models) and i7 do have quad. Even my i5 does and it's EOL (i5-2500K). No, it doesn't hyperthread. What is absolute is that of the three, only the i7s have quad and hyperthreading together.
That being said, it is better to have a really beefy processor when doing video editing especially if you are doing any sort of 3D work. Most video editing software relies on the multicore processors way more than GPUs. Hence why you have video shops such as Pixar putting the beefiest processors in their machines. Like bobberuchi said about integrated graphics, skip that. It comes on most Intel chips these days, so you can't really get around it, but offloading whatever it can to the GPU will definitely save you some cycles here and there.
My recommendation, grab the i7 with hyperthreading. The quad cores with a logical 8 will carry you much farther than the greatest of video cards. Most of my friends who are in the industry figured that out the hard way. However, doing any serious video editing work will probably choke out the laptop and hard drive space will be finite. You can always plug in an external hard drive, but it will be slower.

Refurb. 27'' 2.93GHz Intel Quad-Core i7 (July'10) vs new i5 or i7???

I am looking for an iMac for use specifically for photoediting. I'm ignorant with computers for the most part.
I'm looking at the 27'' refurbished because it is cheaper and I will upgrade the RAM myself to 8g. Here's the link.
http://store.apple.com/ca/product/G0JP0LL/A?mco=MTA4MjcxODg#overview
I think the screen is a little to big for me, but its almost the same price as the 21.5'' 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
Do I need i7 or should I go i5? Do I go with a new iMac or the refurbished (it only has 1TB storage too...)
Help.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=8
Decide for yourself but a system based on i5 750 isn't that much more expensive compared to one based on C2Q. Also note that the LGA-775 (the socket for Core 2 Quad and Duo) is basically dead, there won't be a lot more CPU's released for that socket.
I also wouldn't bother with high end video cards unless you're planning on working with 3D a lot

Intel Quad core speed .vs I5 or I7 chip

Can anyone tell me if there is any appreciable speed increase going from the Standard Intel Qaud core processor up to
the i5 or i7 chip for use with Photoshop CS4? I am trying to buy a new machine and can't tell whether the higher end chips will give me any speed advantage for the extra money. I plan on having 8GB memory no matter what I buy with high end graphics card on a Windows 7 machine.
Thank you!

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=8
Decide for yourself but a system based on i5 750 isn't that much more expensive compared to one based on C2Q. Also note that the LGA-775 (the socket for Core 2 Quad and Duo) is basically dead, there won't be a lot more CPU's released for that socket.
I also wouldn't bother with high end video cards unless you're planning on working with 3D a lot

New NI CompactRIO calls the question, "¿Quien is mas macho, Intel quad-core Atom or 4-year-old i7?"

Perhaps you remember the Saturday Night Live TV sketch from 1979 where Bill Murray played a game show host who asked the show’s titular question, “¿Quien es mas macho?”
Today, Matt Spexarth, Principal Product Manager for Embedded Systems at National Instruments (NI), called the NI CompactRIO controller introduced this week at NI Week—the model cRIO-9039, which pairs a 1.91GHz, quad-core Intel Atom CPU with a Xilinx Kintex-7 325T FPGA—the highest-performance CompactRIO ever released. That includes the existing cRIO-9082 controller, which pairs a 1.33GHz, dual-core Intel i7 CPU and a Xilinx Spartan-6 LX150 FPGA. So both the processor and the FPGA have been upgraded in the new CompactRIO controller. The NI cRIO-9039 controller es mas macho.
NI Model cRIO-9039 Controller in an 8-slot CompactRIO Chassis
The new NI CompactRIO controller runs security-enhanced NI Linux Real-Time. It has an SDHC card slot for non-volatile storage and can directly operate a local, graphical UI (user interface) as a human-machine interface. Another key performance feature, noted Spexarth, is a bank of DDR3 SDRAM attached directly to the Kintex-7 FPGA to allow the FPGA to directly handle large data sets, to process large FFTs for example.
As with the entire line of NI CompactRIO controllers, you program the cRIO-9039 controller using NI’s LabVIEW graphical development environment with its many add-on modules including LabVIEW FPGA. In addition, the new CompactRIO controller maintain compatibility with the many CompactRIO plug-in I/O hardware modules.

Whygirl,
it reads as though an internal disk upgrade (and possibly a battery replacement) would suffice for you, and those two together would be far less expensive than a new MacBook Pro. Yes, you could install either a HDD or a SSD in place of its current internal HDD. You could look at the Hitachi Travelstar 7K1000 as an example of a suitable 1 TB HDD; SSDs are more expensive per unit of storage than a HDD, but might be worth the extra cost if your apps are disk-bound. (I put a Samsung 840 PRO into my 13-inch Mid 2010 model, and it’s been working well.) Note that Chrome might be responsible for the extra heat (and the extra heat is responsible for the increased volume from the fans kicking in); Chrome isn’t optimized for use on 64-bit versions of OS X, like 10.8.5.

Upgrading from a 20" G5 to Intel Quad Core

I'm considering the purchase of a new iMac 27". I'm wondering if most of my work on this computer is transferable, photos, movies, Appleworks, Final Cut Express 3.5.

User data is generally usable on a new iMac, as long as the application that created the document runs on the new iMac.
AppleWorks is an old PowerPC program. On an Intel Mac, it will run using a translation feature called Rosetta, and people have reported here that it still works fine. It should be possible to open AppleWorks documents using iWork, Apple's current office suite (a separate purchase).
Most older software that are PowerPC apps will work using Rosetta, but if there is a more current Universal or Intel version of the app available, you should switch to it.

X60 and Intel quad core?

hi, everyone!
i would like to know if it is possible to change my standard processor to a faster one. my specs is standard to x60 1706 8kh. can i change the processor Intel Core Duo 1.83 GHz to IntelQuad Core 2.66 GHz? if not, what is the fastest processor i can use?
thanks.

Before manufacturer goes out and design a product, he lists the priority that they want in the product. In the X series that would be weight, portability, battery life, etc. So obviously, when size is at stake and you have to lose weight, you would try to save weight in everything you can. I guess Lenovo could have included a socket and normal CPU, but that would add weight but more importantly thickness to the laptop. Competition is tough, and critics are out there to pick out any weaknesses against the competitor, and in ultraportable market, that would be weight and size.
While, outright speed is not the main goal of portable laptops like that of X series, as most people whom use it are road warriors, where most of their applications are not overtly CPU and GPU intense like they would on something like T61p. Most of these people probably just read a couple of documents and surf the web...
So this is a good case of getting the priority right for the Manufacturer to target the major market for the product.

G5 single 1.8 to a Intel Quad 2.66????

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for