Dual Core with 2 different processors in a Satellite A100-599!!??

Hello,
My Satellite A100-599 is a Core 2 Duo T7100 2.00 GHZ.
In Device Manager, under Processors, I have 2 processors:
Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 CPU T5500 @ 1.66GHZ
Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHZ
Is this normal? Shouldn't I have two T7200 processers @ 2.00GHZ ?
Thank You.

Hi mate,
no, its impossible that a dual core CPU has two different cores. I think its rather a software bug which displays the model not correctly. To fix this there is some bugfix from microsoft which should be availble on the microsoft website.
You can also try to update your chipset drivers from the www.intel.com website.
But physically its impossible because the cores are on the same processor casing, so I dont think that intel would sell CPUs with different cores. :)
Greets

Similar Messages

Dual-core 2.3GHz G5 processor Vs. Dual-processor 2.3GHz G5

I have just purchaced a DUAL PROCESSOR 2.3GHz G5 is there a difference with this to a DUAL-CORE ?
Apple sent me this and told me it was the same thing .
sent me RAM that doesn't fit .
so I call and they say they differ . that i need different Ram
or the newer G5 for an added cost of $500.00
is there a difference or are they milking me?
I feel as they should just send me the new one .

Hi TGX;
There are some significant differences between the Dual Core and the Dual Processor 2.3 GHz Powermacs. There is the difference in memory and there is also the difference of PCI Express in the Dual Core as opposed to to PCIx for the expansion slots in the Dual Processor. In addition the Dual Core has the 1 MB of cache for each processor which improves performance.
Personally, if it was my machine, I would send it back and request that they send what I had ordered.
Allan

13'' dual-core with 16gb ram vs 15'' quad-core 8gb ram -- ram vs cores?

Hello. I am at a point between choosing a 13'' dual-core i5 with 16gb ram vs the 15'' quad-core with 8gb ram - both retinas.
I will be using photoshop and illustrator while uploading/downloading large files constantly. After much headscratching I almost decided on the 13'' i5 because from my experience, RAM limitations is where I usually run into problems, and don't see the extra price of i7 worth it when it is still a dual-core. For the same price I can get a 15'' quad, but will be stuck with 8gb ram.
I don't care about the screen size, I have good eyes and the weigth trade-off makes this a non-issue.
I'm thinking about down the road, as either of these I'm sure will be fine solutions. I'm just wondering where does the edge really come in this case? Ram or processor / cores?
Thanks.

Thanks for your reply tjk, of course with 16gb on the 15'' for $200 more I'd have easier time, but in this case I am comparing a refurbished - the lowest 15'' 16gb I could find would cost $500 more, I just can't do it.
I should make clear that this particular comparison between 13''w/16 and 15''w/8, they are the same price (the 13 being new) - which is why I'm stuck.
To rephrase - for the same price - which will I regret less in 4 years?
As a side note, I can't believe I'm even thinking about paying this much money for something that is not upgradeable, but that's another discussion entirely.

G5 Dual Core with ATI X1900GT - upgrade to FCS2, Tiger or Leopard?

Hi everyone,
I am little confused what to do. So, maybe somebody can advise me what it would be the best.
Here is the situation:
I am still using my G5 Dual Core 2.0 with an ATI X1900GT card, 8.5GB RAM and Decklink SP (as below states). I intend to use it till the end of this year, and then to switch to the fastest at that moment Mac Pro. Now, I have 10.4.11 and FCS-1 with almost all filters from Noise Industries. Everything works perfect.
But I would like to upgrade to FCS-2, especially because of Motion3 new features. The questions are:
1. Stay with Tiger and do the upgrade to FCS-2? And after that how the Motion3 will work? With similar speed? Or better, maybe worse? (I am not afraid about Final Cut - it shouldn't be any problem, but what about Motion?)
2. Upgrade the system to Leopard, and then upgrade the FCS?
But what about the graphic card drivers? On the Ati/AMD web site there are still (from over a year) drivers for Tiger and not for Leopard. Without the proper drivers it could be a problem to install the FCS. Few months ago, when I was changing the startup disk for WD Raptor, I did the clean system installation and tried to install FCS-1. But I forgotten about installing the ATI drivers. When I tried to install, the FCS shows the info that this computer doesn't have the graphic card which support Quartz Extreme. Of course, after installing those drivers everything works OK.
So, how it could be with Leopard?
3. Will the all filters (I mean filter from Noise Industries) work fine in Motion and in FCP?
4. Will the old Motion project open correct in Motion3? I use the old project quite often.
+For those upgrades I can use another (cloned) startup disk to avoid the "dramatic" situation.+
I appreciate any help. Thanks in advance.
Marek.

Thanks for all replies.
It looks that it is not a bad idea to stay with 10.4.11, and upgrade only the FCS.
I will do this on my clone disk, and check if everything works fine.
But, is it possible to install Motion3 (from FCS2 upgrade disks) and leave the Motion2 on the same disk being installed? (I suppose no, but asking just in case)
I checked the specification of the Noise Industries - filters work fine in both system Tiger and Leopard (most of them I am using now, except of those filter which need FCP6 and Motion3), so I think I will stay with Tiger.
Peter, do you know what capabilities exactly I can loose staying with Tiger? Do you use those filters (or some of them)?
Marek.

New Search For an Upgrade Video Card for a 2.0 G5 Dual Core With PCIe

Hello again Gang
I'm looking at various cards to upgrade this Late 2005 Dual Core 2.0 which came with the OEM Geforce 6600 (LE)
Here's a few
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/579309-REG/ATI100_435928_Radeon_HD_3870PCI.html#specifications
http://www.vistek.ca/store/ProPhotoComputerAccessories/237073/apple-ati-radeon-h d-2600-xt-graphics-upgrade-kit-for-mac-pro.aspx
http://www.iunitek.com/iunitek/index.cfm?fuseaction=shop.dspSpecs&part=2487915
http://compuvest.us/(X(1)S(wp4r2i55ti5xyk452noqbn45))/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=358005&CategoryC ode=VGA_CARD&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
http://www.macmall.com/ttsvr/p/product~dpno~7200403~pdp.eaggaee;jsessionid=457CE 56365C94E63364B15D3B161B9A5
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-ATI-RADEON-X1900-XT-512MB-PCI-E-2X-DVI-MAC-EDITION_W0QQc mdZViewItemQQcategoryZ25449QQihZ022QQitemZ350193732946QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVWQQs alenotsupported
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/sys/1170662207.html
I'm not sure about Retek - I've been burned by them before
Retek Corp.
1414 Stealth Street
Livermore, CA. 94551
(925)456-9010
Any thoughts?
Thank you
Mike

Hi there!
So you got a dual core machine huh?
Let's narrow down your choices.
The Radeon 2600 and the 3870 are Mac Pro cards. They won't work in the G5.
Forget the X1300 as well.
The Radeon X1900 is a possible candidate, but it must be the G5 Edition X1900 GT. The one that you linked is for Intel macs (Mac Pro).
In fact, all cards that you linked are not candidates for the G5.
Here are your choices from slower to faster:
Geforce 6600 256MB
Geforce 7800GT
Radeon X1900GT G5 Edition
Quadro FX 4500
Geforce 7800 GTX
Check performance comparisons:
http://www.barefeats.com/mutant4.html
http://www.barefeats.com/quad15.html
Here are some links:
Radeon X1900GT
Geforce 7800 GT
Geforce 7800 GT
Geforce 7800 GTX
Quadro FX 4500

Best CS5 memory settings for MBP dual core with 8GB RAM?

The Adobe page on this suggests doing some tests (groan). But why, when there's a forum chock full of folks who've already done some..?
So, what settings have you found to work best?
Any other tweaks?
BTW I also have CS4 running in Boot Camp. if anyone can recommend the settings there I'd much appreciate it.
Cheers!

> But why, when there's a forum chock full of folks who've already done some..?
Because every composition has different requirements, every computer system is different, and every person is willing to make different trade-offs. There is no way to give a general recommendation if some people are working on web videos with hundreds of small motion graphics layers and other people are working on IMAX movies with only a few layers.
This page is the closest that you're going to get to a general recommendation:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/543440

Best Motherboard for Dual Core with AGP?

I'm stuck with a GeForce 6800GT that I don't want to replace. For a new system, what is the best motherboard that will support AMD64 X2 and AGP?
Thanks in advance.
Mike

used MSI K8N Neo 2 Platinum as it has been awarded. Go for MSI -------->

G5 dual-core with the hard drive installed crooked?

I bought a G5 2.3 dualcore standard configuration from a authorized Apple dealer. Opened the case to remove the plastic strips and noticed that the supplied hard drive was literally jammed in at a 40 degree angle and riding between below the lower rail on bay B (right side of drive) and the space between A and B (left side of drive). It can not be removed because the "buttons" on the left side of the drive have caught on the bay housing behind where the upper B track curves up into A. I applied a bit of force with no result. This does not seem possible in an Apple product yet here it is. Has this manufacturing mishap happened to others?
G5 Mac OS X (10.3.9)

Another person on another forum [mac rumors] had this same problem back in late November - look for it as I'm sure the result of their complaint was also posted. It would appear that there's a disgruntled employee somewhere on the line. This of course is completely unacceptable so contact apple and return your machine ... there's absolutely no way this could have happened any other way other than an assembly employee deliberately shoving the HDD into the bays on a 40 deg angle. If that got by QA on your machine, what else did they miss?

Crash Reporter Shows My iMac With A Different Processor (CPU).

Why does the Crash Reporter show my CPU as being AMD 64 instead of Intel on my 2009, 24" iMac?
I asked this about six hours ago, and my question was deleted without even a computer generated notice to my email saying anything like "It's not important enough".

Your original post is here: <br />
https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/793079

CoreTemp and Dual Core Center report differently.

In CoreTemp I get Idle cpu (its a q6600 stock) temperatures near the 55° degrees while DualCore Center reports around 30°. If I go to the bios window it reports the same as DualCore Center, is there an issue??? BTW I have an P7N SLI-FI. When I run all other monitoring programs I have it says the same as CoreTemp so which program do I believe. If I run Prime95 multithreaded I get around 100° C - 120° C so I'm wondering since I don't want to fry my cpu...

Quote from: Lugaidster on 17-July-08, 00:20:36
In CoreTemp I get Idle cpu (its a q6600 stock) temperatures near the 55° degrees while DualCore Center reports around 30°. If I go to the bios window it reports the same as DualCore Center, is there an issue??? BTW I have an P7N SLI-FI. When I run all other monitoring programs I have it says the same as CoreTemp so which program do I believe. If I run Prime95 multithreaded I get around 100° C - 120° C so I'm wondering since I don't want to fry my cpu...
I really wouldn't believe either Dualcore center is rather buggy but not bad for reading voltage and temps I suppose. I'm going to recommend you try Realtemp, you can d/l it from techpowerup... http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/. It's highly accurate when calibrated per the documentation, and it explains in detail how your sensors work and also some really interesting information about C2D thermal properties. That's found here... http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/docs.php. The author has done extensive testing of intel cpu's to correctly determine tjmax and has written realtemp to be extremely configurable, accurate, and user friendly.

Question about the Y2P Dual Core processor

Ok, so I was an an idiot and always thought that i7 meant quad core and was better than i5. However I just realized that there are some laptops with i5 that are quad core. On the other hand, this i7 Y2P laptop (which I won't get to play with till the 21st, since I am out of the country) has a dual core.
I now have a lenovo z570 quad-core i7 (note to Lenovo: still upset Lenovo about our power management software that never got fixed after 2 years). How much of a speed decrease am I expected to see???
I am going from quad core to dual core, 16 gb ram to 8 gb, 1 TB HDD (256 SSD + 750 HDD) to only 256 SSD.... Feels like I am compromising a lot for a touch screen.
Should I return the laptop?
Legit this whole i7 and i5 is crap marketing to get more $ imo. At the end of the day, I prefer quad-core i5 over dual core i7. What is the difference?
Looking at it, I see only a 0.4 GHz between the i5 and i7 model, both being dual core with hyperthreading. In the end, i7 is like $300 more. Why?
Feel like I overspent on this laptop cuz of a marketing gimmick.

Reading a bit more about it, I don't think there's any architecture difference, and the suggestion that these are actually the same part just programmed / binned / labeled differently sounds reasonable as Intel will not want to run two different manufacturing processes if they can get away with one.
The i7 is clocked a bit faster and has an extra MB of cache memory (those with manufacturing defects in cache might become i5s with that MB of cache disabled).
The i7 is definitely faster, but otherwise does not offer any other feature advantages that I can see, and the full-speed difference seems to be on the order of 15%, which is unlikely to make a difference in what you can use the machine for.
In gaming you might go from 30fps to 32fps say. It's probably not enough to run at a higher resolution or a higher quality setting.
Also, both processors try to run with lower clock speeds for both processor and graphics as much of the time as they can get away with, so I think most every-day activity will see nearly identical performance between the two.
Getting the 256GB SSD and 8GB of RAM is definitely worth it, so if it's then only another $100 for the i7 then maybe, but I'm really happy now that I went for the i5 since it doesn't seem like I'm missing out on anything. My i5 Y2P turns out to be a very good gaming ssytem and I have not had any performance issues with it.
Z.

Should I go with a dual core or quad core MacBook?

Hi all,
I am going to be a college student this fall majoring in a science related field. My first question is what processor I should go with. I am looking at either a 13" MBP with a dual core i7 and 8 GB of RAM (750GB HD), 13" MBP w/ a dual core i5, 8GB RAM and 500GB HD, or a 15" quad core i7 with 8GB RAM and 500 GB HD. I plan on upgrading to a SSD once prices come down in a few years and would like to stick with the MBP without Retina Display so that I can upgrade RAM and HD later on.
Will I see a noticeable difference between dual core i5 and i7? From what I have seen, it has not been much of a difference. I only plan to do light Photoshop and doubt I will do any video editing or even 3D modelling for the most part. This will mainly be used for research (web), streaming, and Office. I know that the i5 is more than capable of all of that, but I am looking to make this machine last 4+ years at least. That is why I am considering jumping up to the 15" MBP just to get the quad core and ensure that I will have a longer lasting machine.
Most of the time the laptop will be travelling around, but I will also be plugging this into a Thunderbolt Display for more screen space.
Let me know what you all think! Right now, I am leaning towards the 13" MBP with dual core i7, but this is subject to change. Will it last throughout college?
Thanks,
Sean

seanbrownie wrote:
Screen size set aside since I plan on using a TBD most of the time,
Then you want the more powerful graphics of the 15" with it's dedicated GPU to better/faster drive the external display as it's larger, and larger displays pumps more pixels so you also need the better cooling of the 15"
would adding more RAM solve the OS X upgrade issues over time?
Yes, but more RAM isn't a cure all, processors and graphics also has to be powerful to last longer.
RAM allows one to do more things at the same time, and gives a performance boot with programs with larger files it's working on (like large Photoshop and video files)
Plus, would upgrading the HD to SSD help in making the jump to say OS X 10.11, 10.12 down the road easier?
Not that much really, with the non-Retina 15" you can put in a 1TB SSD when the prices come down further
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100008120%2060041492 0&IsNodeId=1&name=513GB%20-%201TB
It would be nice to save a little on the screen size since I won't be able to utilize the 15" to its maximum potential when I'm working at my desk.
Your on the wrong platform if your looking to save money.
If you compare specs and performance of the hardware Apple offers for sale and equivilent i5/dual cores with Intel HD graphics, you'll find for $1500 buys a Mac and for $400 buys the same in a Windows PC.
Really the best value comes with the 15" as if your in that pro market for such a machine you might as well get OS X with it as PC's cost about the same in that range.
The really best value is a Windows 7 tower, that way it's parts are all upgradable and can last a decade or more on one Widnows OS version.
Several of my friends think I'm crazy spending $10,000 on Mac's in 10 years, they are still on their XP towers and haven't paid much more than $2000 over that same time.
Of course now XP is dead and they have to upgrade to Windows 7 towers, but they really get good value out of their boxes.
Mac's are not for those tight on a budget, I don't advise. A Windows machine will do the job for most people
Perhaps a Windows 3D gaming tower and a iPad?

Jdeveloper dual core processor performance problem

I have a dual core 2.4 ghz processor and 2 gig of ram and Im running Jdevloper 9.0.5.2 and my performace is terrible. Other developers in the company have non-dual core processors and they can start up in debug mode using the Jdeveloper embedded oc4j our application in 10 seconds where it takes me 4 min!!!!! It is a struts,ejb web application. Is there anything I can do to help in debug mode??? cheers.
Murray

Hi Bernard,
Which version of McAfee are you using?
On my (personal) laptop, I'm using McAfee VirusScan 9.0.10. I don't frequently run JDeveloper on this laptop, but when I do, it's not experiencing signficant startup delays (it's a very low power machine: PIII 650 512Mb)
McAfee VirusScan seems to have very few configuration options (noticably different from Norton, which I use on my corporate desktop machine). I specifically remember changing the "File Types to Scan" option to "Program files and documents only". You can get to this by right clicking the "M" notification area icon, VirusScan->Options menu, Advanced button on the ActiveShield page.
In Norton, I think I have it configured so that it only scans files on write rather than on read. I also exclude directories which contain jdeveloper installs or other large Java apps (although scanning only on write elliminates most of the performance problems anyway and still leaves your system reasonably secure).
The easiest way to convince your MIS dept that the virus checker is the source of your problems might be if you ask them to allow you to turn it off in order to test the difference it makes to performance. It's a reasonable request to make if you're trying to elliminate possible causes for the slowdown (from the description you gave, it does sound like the AV upgrade is the first place I'd start looking).
If the virus checker is the source of your problems, you'll probably be seeing massive slowness in most large Java applications that have a large number of JARs on their classpath.
Thanks,
Brian

POwerMac G5 Dual Core vs Dual Processor

Am thinking about upgrading my G4 computers and going to the G5 Powermac. More than likely a dual processor or dual core. What is the difference between the dual processor and dual core? Is there any difference between these re: efficiency and how they work overall?

A "dual processor" refers to two physically distinct and separate chips. A "dual-core" refers to 2 processors on a single chip, often sharing certain resources (eg cache, memory, etc).
As far as I know, the only dual processor G5 Apple currently offers, is the Quad, or 2 dual-cores. The 2 GHz & 2.3 GHz machines, have only a single chip with dual-cores (2 processors on each chip), to the best of my knowledge.
To the best of my knowledge, having separate chips is better whenever possible, than multiple-cores (processors) on a single chip, because multiple cores have to share resources.
However, if you can only have a single chip, multiple-cores (2 processors) are advantages. It won't double your productivity, but should give it least a 40-60% boost. This assumes that the specific software you are running, takes advantage of multiple cores. A lot of software does not take advantage of multiple cores, and having a multiple-core machine is a waste.

Quad core vs Dual core, and Inel graphics

Hi all,
I’m trying to decide between a 2012 quad core 2.3GHz i7 and a 2014 dual core 2.6GHz i5. Yes, I wish they had a 2014 quad core Haswell with upgradeable RAM and a second HD bay like the 2012, plus a faster clock speed and Iris Pro graphics, but they don’t.
The main differences I see are listed below. I didn’t list the soldered on RAM in the 2014 because I’d be ordering it maxed out with 16GB of RAM. The same with the 2012; I’d be buying and installing 16GB of RAM. So in that respect, they’re even. And price comes out about the same, $900.
             2012 Quad 2.3 i7              vs        2014 Dual 2.6 i5
2012 Ivy Bridge quad      vs        2014 Haswell dual with slightly faster single core scores
Intel 4000 graphics         vs        Iris (5100)
FireWire                          vs        2nd ThunderBolt 2 port
Mavericks capable           vs        Yosemite
802.11n Wi-Fi                 vs        ac
I’m decided on 3-4-5. My main questions deal with cores and graphics.
Question 1 is about cores. I’ve read from some people on other sites that for my low level use (email, MS Office, browsing, Youtube) I won’t even be accessing the extra cores on the quad, and that the unmaxed dual cores with a faster clock speed and Haswell CPU should actually work faster in my situation. So that’s my question. Is that true? And is that likely to hold true in the future with the trend in apps related to my usage (the quad core should still be “unnecessary” in the next 5 years or so, given my usage)?
Question 2 is about the graphics. I’ve read wildly different estimates as to how much faster Iris is than the 4000 (anywhere from about 10% to 90%). Anyone know how much difference I’m likely to see between the two, given my usage? And is that likely to hold true in the future with the trend in apps related to my usage (higher graphics intensive apps playing that much better on Iris compared to 4000, again, given my usage)?
I’m trying to buy for now, but I tend to keep my Macs for 6-7 years, so I’m also trying to look at the future.
Any benchmarks, facts or educated opinions are welcome.
Thanks!

Kappy wrote:
All other things being equal 4-cores are twice as fast as 2-cores. This is regardless of what you are doing. The only way a 2-core processor would be as fast is if it were run at twice the clock speed. But the 2-core CPU is only clocked around 10% or so faster. Now, for all that you claim you will be doing the relevant question is do you need 4-cores. My answer is that you don't. But the 2-core machine will be slower - all things being equal.
Iris is a far better GPU than HD4 or 5000. But not as fast as a discreet GPU with better performance measures. Again, you don't really need high-power GPU. Iris should meet your needs adequately for now.
But remember you want to keep the computer for 6 or 7 years. No one knows what your needs will be then. You may find whatever you buy today that meets today's needs will be inadequate for tomorrow's.
Your comments on graphics pretty much confirm the majority of what I've been reading on other sites.
The conflict is with cores. About half the people are saying for low CPU intensive tasks 4 cores are totally unnecessary, while the other half says they'll make things faster no what the task (one thing all seem to have in common is they're totally against the 2014s).
So it seems I'm left with the decision between faster performance vs better graphics.
I appreciate your input.

Dual Core with 2 different processors in a Satellite A100-599!!??

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for