Envy 17-j050ex is it quad core or dual core

Hello,
the HP envy-j050ex. in the specs page of the link below mentioned that it's processor is dual core.
http://www8.hp.com/sa/en/products/laptops/product-detail.html?oid=5399952#!tab=specs
and @ intel website they said that the processor intel-core-I7-4702MQ is 4 cores per 8 threads in the link below.
http://ark.intel.com/products/75119/Intel-Core-i7-4702MQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz
i saw the device in the local store, i like it, but this issue makes me confused i need to know.
please check this issue for me.
Thanks in advance,
Best regards,
Eng. Mohamed Salah
Mechatronics Engineer
00966 561494449
[email protected]

Hi,
Intel® Core™ i7-4702MQ is a quad-core processor. And your link shows 4 cores - quad is 4. By the way a Q also means Quad.
Regards.
BH
**Click the KUDOS thumb up on the left to say 'Thanks'**
Make it easier for other people to find solutions by marking a Reply 'Accept as Solution' if it solves your problem.

Similar Messages

HT1544 Can I install snow leopard in a Intel Core i5 dual core, 2.5 GHz Mac mini?

I whant to install Snow leopard in a Intel Core i5 dual core de 2.5 GHz Mac Mini, is there any problem to do it?

Not in Minis after 2010.

Should i Take the more expensive Mac mini (quad core) or dual core

Hey guys!
I don't now if I should take the Mac mini with dual core or quad core
I have never had a Mac so I don't now if the quad core (200$ more) is better than the dual core :o
I use it only for standard things (email, web, twitter Mac App Store games)
But it also should not stuck at bit more powerful apps and run crystal clear !!!
I want to have the Mac mini for few years !
Thanks now!

The difference in real performance between dual core
and quad core machines is highly dependent on the
apps one uses and how many at the same time.
If you really only ever have one or perhaps two apps
open at once and if these apps are like web browsers
or email, you may never really notice a difference.
However, if you have many apps open at once or use
apps that can utilize many cores at the same time (typically
imaging and video apps), then there will be a significant
performance increase.
As far as gaming, by and large the most significant impact
on game performance is the graphics processing unit (GPU).
The integrated Intel HD4000 GPU in the Minis can typically
handle mid range games but will struggle on the very highend
games.
Also, if apps are not designed for mutiple core usage, there will be
now real improvement between 2 or 4 core machines. As a matter
of fact, I have a few apps that are faster on my MBP 13" 2.7 GHz
2 core i7 than on my quad core i7 2.0 GHz Mini Server for this
very reason.
So, the bottom line is that for some a quad core machine will
blow away a dual core machine while for others, there will be
no noticable difference.

New Quad vs 2007 Dual Core 3.0 Gigahertz

I had an early 2007 Dual Core 3.0 gh Mac Pro with 12 gb of ram. Thanks to a burglar it is gone. Poof.
Which of the 3 new quad core Mac Pro's would be an equivalent? My dad needs to duke it out with State Farm... CPU speed vs 8 Core using Adobe Photoshop 7 (I think) and Adobe Premiere Pro CS3?
Rachael

You might want to also take into note, that 2009 MPs are running DDR3 memory, vs. DDR2 on the 2008. Speed is faster on DDR3, and has more bandwidth.
There have been a lot of discussions on the DDR3 implementation; whether its better performance wise to install in "threes" (triple-channel) or just to install "bigger amounts" of ram in dual channel. I.e. 12 GB vs. 16GB. Apparently it just depends on what type of work you're doing. In some cases "more" ram will benefit you; in more intensive app work triple-channel w/less GB will benefit better.
Also the Quad 2009 can take up to 16 GBs (still little pricey though...)
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory
This might help too:
http://www.barefeats.com/nehal08.html

Quad core or dual core i3

i dont know which computer to chose. should it be quad core with 2.5 ghz or dual core i3 with 3.2 ghz?

There is so much more beyond just the CPU too - such as graphics chipset. Again, it all depends on the usage scenarios. Some workloads don't parallelize well, so work better on a higher-clocked but lower core count CPU. Others parallelize well and are better on a quad-core.
*disclaimer* I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee of Best Buy, Geek Squad, nor of any of their affiliate, parent, or subsidiary companies.

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.

Is the iphone 5 a quad core or dual core?

The subject line says it all. Anyone know the answer yet? If it's a dual core how is it better than the A5X in the iPad 3?

Confirmed: http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/iphone-5-what-we-didnt-get-50009172/
Also the quote Apple gave about the iPhone 5 being the slimmest smartphone is incorrect:
http://androidandme.com/2012/09/smartphones-2/the-iphone-5-unveiled-as-the-world s-thinner-smartphone-or-not/

Disco Plus Single Core v Dual Core

Discoverer Plus on a Quad/Dual Core processor machine has severe performance issues.
We've tested it against a machine with less RAM but single porcessor and is so quicker on the single core...
Any ideas?

Hi
On a client machine, there are known issues with hyper-threading which is using machines that have multiple cores. If you are using Discoverer 10.1.2 these issues have been fixed. I would advise you to patch up your Discoverer server to 10.1.2.2 using cumulative patch 6.
I have placed a posting concerning patches on my blog which you may find useful:
http://learndiscoverer.blogspot.com/2008/04/most-useful-patch-numbers.html
Best wishes
Michael

/proc/cpuinfo shows only 1 core on dual-core CPU [SOLVED]

I've recently gone from Arch i686 to Arch x86_64, and now /proc/cpuinfo shows only one core even though it's a dual-core CPU.
cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 23
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8400 @ 2.26GHz
stepping : 6
cpu MHz : 2266.542
cache size : 3072 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 1
core id : 0
cpu cores : 1
apicid : 0
initial apicid : 0
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 10
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc up arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm sse4_1 lahf_lm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority
bogomips : 4534.96
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:
Have anyone experienced similar problems on x86_64?
Could it possibly be a kernel related error?
/AcId
Last edited by AcId (2010-09-08 21:33:27)

dmesg shows some iterensting info about "Unsupported number of siblings" ?
dmesg | grep CPU:
SMP: Allowing 1 CPUs, 0 hotplug CPUs
setup_percpu: NR_CPUS:16 nr_cpumask_bits:16 nr_cpu_ids:1 nr_node_ids:1
PERCPU: Embedded 29 pages/cpu @ffff880001800000 s88832 r8192 d21760 u2097152
SLUB: Genslabs=13, HWalign=64, Order=0-3, MinObjects=0, CPUs=1, Nodes=1
RCU-based detection of stalled CPUs is disabled.
Verbose stalled-CPUs detection is disabled.
CPU: Unsupported number of siblings 2
mce: CPU supports 6 MCE banks
CPU0: Thermal monitoring enabled (TM2)
weird, boot CPU (#0) not listed by the BIOS.
Brought up 1 CPUs

Quad Core Versus Dual Core on a Mac

I am going to upgrade to one of the new 27 inch iMacs. I use CS4 Premium Design Suite, PS, IL, ID and a little bit of DW. Does anyone have a comment or thought on any real benefit to a Quad Core processor? Do any of these apps support the multi threading that makes use of quad core technology? The little bit of research I have found on the internet suggests that there is not any significant performance improvement with the current software such as CS3 and CS4. The exceptions seem (and only seem) to be with some CAD applications and high end video editing.
Any input or factual data would be greatly appreciated.
Floyd

Mark, I know what paid for my G5 Tower compared to what I can get from the new iMacs is incredible.
I do ad layouts in Illustrator, sometimes very large layouts 6 feet by 4 feet for menu boards. I use Photoshop extensively for pre layout work and for my own photography. I do a bit of video work but nothing major. I use either iMovie or Final Cut Express, again mostly simple stuff, not to much rendering.
I'm probably going to put 8 gig of ram, running Snow Leopard, For what I am comparing, the Quad machine is about $300 more the the Duo Core. The Quad processor speed is 2.66 ghz, the Duo Core processor is 3.06 ghz. so this is where it gets all muddy. Duo has faster processor but if the software I use does not have the "treading" capability to make use of the 4 cores than it seems that the duo is a better choice. Am I making proper sense out o this. It used to be so much easier to compare the options.. And no one seems to want to post a list of programs that truly benefit from Quad Core.
By the way I could care less about gaming benefits.

Quad core or dual core?

I'm debating to get the 13' or the 15' macbook pro & my sole tie breaking reason is which processor is best for my needs. I'm a very big multitasker, I'm talking internet opened with 10+ windows, some with heavy java/graphics working on the page(s), GIMP open & a few other folders/files open at a time. But I also game, not going to be doing a lot of it on it, but on occasion I might run a game as well as a video capturing software in the background while I'm playing. And I also will be editing big video files. So which processor is best suited for all this?

"I'm a very big multitasker"
Quad core.
Computers run many processes at once. Take a duel core processor clocked at 2.5 GHz, for example, vs. a quad core processor clocked at 2.2 GHz. The best analogy is driving. A two lane road with a the speed limit of 170 MPH. A four lane road with a speed limit of 150 MPH. When there is no traffic, you will arrive at your destination faster taking the first route. But when there is a bunch of traffic, you will be stuck in a bumper to bumper jam. Even though the speed limit is higher on the two lane road, you will arrive at your destination faster taking the four lane road. There are more lanes available to maintain the flow of traffic. There is always traffic. Your computer runs many processes in the background, and individual applications run multiple processes at once. Processing power is a combination of both the speed limit and the number of lanes. For your purposes, a quad core processor would be best.

Quad core vs dual core for motion

Hello all,
I'm just about to invest in a new Mac Pro, With the following specs
x1900 512 mb graphics card
3x 750 gbHDD (raid 2 at 3GBs and 256K bit) 1 independent
4 x 2gb memory
But I'm confused as it is wether spending the extra 600 pounds on going from a 3ghz DC to a quad core. I want to soup up my projects with motion graphics, in particular using 3D. How much more performance will the extra processing power give me. If anyone can give me a real time answer that'd be great.
I.E. how much more time will i spend waiting for it to render etc.
Thanks very much for all help, I really want to get this right before buying.
Cheers
Fred

"...Motion uses the graphics card to do all its drawing, so while having a faster processor is always going to help, you will see much more improvement by getting the biggest baddest graphics card out there..."
But doesn't this only apply to the building - playing - interacting - tweaking aspect of using Motion in real-time? So while you're actually creating inside Motion, it's mostly GPU.
When you're finished inside Motion, I feel like you're going to implement the creation in one of two ways: Send it to FCP, where it's going to want to render - which falls back onto the CPU(s). Or you're going to export a self-contained movie from motion. Again, CPU, right? Or is there something I'm misunderstanding about how Motion functions under-the-hood?
If I'm wrong, then the Processors won't likely have a huge effect. But anytime it's time to actually render, I'd think you're bouncing back to CPU's again - not just GPU. In which case the Quad Core is going to help out.
Just thowing out some theories....

About Quad Core and Dual Core PowerMacG5

Hi everyone,
A guy is selling two Power Mac G5.
I'm not so familiar with these G5 line-up, and i'm asking for help.
He send me pictures, he took pictures of both Power Mac's from inside.
In one of them was written only G5 (like this:
Another one was written G5 two times(like this:
So can anyone help me which one is the Quad Core 2.5GHz? And is this Two Processor one from Late 2005 or older?
Respect, Leon.

Hi Leon, if he doesn't know...
Find the Serial# & use it on one of these sites, but don't post the Serial# here...
http://www.chipmunk.nl/klantenservice/applemodel.html
http://www.appleserialnumberinfo.com/Desktop/index.php
How to find the serial number of your Apple hardware product...
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1349

How to run two thread parallel y on two cores of dual-core ??

I want to run two threads on two cores ???
is there any package which support parallel computing??
can we do this by using java.util.concurrency pakage??
Thanks you
please Reply.....

vikram_p wrote:
I want to run two threads on two cores ???ok
Threads are automatically spread over the available cores, as the OS sees fit.
is there any package which support parallel computing??Java does so without any external libraries.
can we do this by using java.util.concurrency pakage??yes
One question mark per question is plenty, thank you.

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.

Envy 17-j050ex is it quad core or dual core

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for