Quad core and Four core cpu's

Hi guys,
i have a silly question my macbook pro of late 2011 has Intel i7 cpu runs at 2.2 GHz and has four cores ,now my question
is Quad core and Four cores is one and the same.
Please donot lough my question.
prabh s

Thank you very much.
prabhi s

Similar Messages

Applications Core and Applications Core(Attachments) library

Hi,
I have installed jdevstudio 11114 install .exe . I was trying to add - Applications Core and Applications Core(Attachments) library in Model but couldn't find in the "Add Library" list. So, wanted to know from which version and above these libraries are available?
Actually I want to use "Attachments feature" in ADF. So, Can we get these libraries externally and add it to JDEV 11.1.1.4 version or I will have to use different version to access Attachments feature?
Thanks in Advance.
Best Regards,
Shalini Jain

Hi,
Thanks for Replying. ADF InputFile Component is for uploading only. What I want to achieve is - I want to display Attachments for a particular Requistion_Header_Id in EBS. These attachments are stored in FND_ATTACH_DOCUMENTS and the other FND related tables. That is why I was looking for that particular library. In case you can guide me on some other way to achieve this functionality, then it will be really helpful.
Thanks in Advance.
Best Regards,
Shalini

Deciding between a Quad-Core and 8-Core

Hi, I am getting ready to purchase a new Mac Pro and trying to decide between a Quad-Core with 3.33 and 16 GB RAM or 8-Core with 2.26 and 32 MB RAM.
I use Adobe CS4 Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks, Dreamweaver, Flash, InDesign, Quark 8, Parallels, MS Office and occasionally Final Cut Pro 5.
My current machine is almost four years old. I keep my machines 3-4 years.
Any advice or suggestions?

Partitioning a boot drive helps... if the 2nd partition is just junk, clutter, static files, archived, or maybe those "Download" or updates you want to keep around for later.
Another use, a small 30GB emergency-only boot volume to do repairs (but best to be on one of your other drives of course, using small portion.
A 640GB WD Caviar Black is cheap and fast and nothing to sneeze at (stock OEM boot drive, doesn't hurt). A pair of 10K 300GB is nice, or two in RAID0.
System - Data - Scratch - Backup is a good way to use the 4 drive bays.
BUT! and HOWEVER! having at most 20GB (and probably less) is not a good idea. 10GB free minimum is cutting it close. Programs and the system like free space - unfragmented too. I try to keep 50% free, or at least 60GB. And find a 150GB is fine - for just the OS and applications (though apps can vary, X-Plane can take 60GB itself).
So I'd pick up a drive today, whether $70 640GB or 10K 300GB $189 (try Newegg too).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136555&Tpk=VelociRaptor %20600GB
You can always add drives and use some for backups (2 for each volume you have at least). The main thing, to get the Mac you need or want.
The 3.33's do show up on SPECIALS, and go even quicker
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_pro
edited

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

New Mac-quad core or 8 core for youth club studio...

Hi there.
I have some money to kit out a studio in a youth club. I'm going the Mac route and Logic pro will be one of the programs we run. Once ive spent the cash thats it, so I'm hoping to go as powerful as possible.
I am looking at the new Nehalem quad core and 8 core models. At first I was going to opt for the 8 core (this may seem like overkill for a youth club, but I have worked with them for some years and we finally have a chance to get some really tasty kit!), but then I read the following article that suggested on paper that the 2.66ghz quad core is actually faster than the 2.26ghz 8 core;
http://www.macworld.com/article/139507/2009/03/macpro2009.html
I have been trying to find out if Logic Pro is a program that can make use of the extra cores. I am guessing not, but have not been able to find confirmation on this.
Question is, for longevity and a super fast machine, what would you recommend. I could get a slightly faster quad core than the base unit, but I am guessing in the future to go up to 8 core, you would need a completely new machine pretty much rather than upgradeing. I have mostly been a PC user, so these top end macs are a bit new to me.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
Many thanks
Smoulders

I disagree that Logic fully uses all 8 cores (16 including the hyperthreading cores). Logic seems to max out at 8 threads, and it is able to take advantage of hyperthread cores. The result of this is that while it uses 8 cores on an octo machine, it also uses 8 cores on a quad machine (4 cores plus 4 HT cores), and the difference between the two is considerably less than it should be.
Hopefully soon there will be a version of Logic that uses 16 threads and takes advantage of HT on the octo machines, but in the meantime, much of the available CPU power is going unused. An octo can max out at 1600% cpu use, but logic is lucky to make it to 400%. It can reach that same level on a quad core i7. Same goes for Logic benchmarks, the difference in actual processing power isn't much, especially if the quad is at a higher clock speed.
Anyone who has an 8 core machine can test this, there's a Processor control panel that lets you disable cores (or hyperthreading). If you disable four cores, it will just use the hyperthreading cores instead with only a minimal loss of CPU power in Logic.

2014 Mac Pro, 12-core vs 8-core

I regards to Adobe CC performance, I am weighing between Apple's new Mac Pro 8-core and 12-core options, with dual AMD Firepro d700 GPUs, without a red-rocket. I would like this computer to be a 7-ish year computer, or longer. I understand the 8-core is crazy powerful, and pretty darn future-proof. Will there be a benefit to spending the extra $1500 on the 12-core or just calling-it at the 8?
My workflow is all Adobe, and I am shooting all projects in full 4k at lowest compression available (6:1 Redcode with the Scarlet?, 3:1 for a run-of-the-mill 5k timelapse?). My projects range from 4-6-min highly polished and graphics-intensive sizzle reels or industrials, to 15-20 min presentation reels. There will be OCCASIONAL, but not frequent, 23 or 48 min pilots on the order for 2014. There are also occasional TV spots in the mix as well, for older clients. All projects are completed soup-to-nuts by me, with very rare and limited exceptions. Those exceptions being a rare Cinema 4D counterpart to a larger project. For those instances, I WOULD want to be able to handle the projects delivered by a vendor working with 3D modeling, although that's rare, and for "special occasions only!"
I'm sure you don't have all of the answers, but I'd like to get your perspective on the whole 8-core vs. 12-core debate. Thank you for your time!

I regards to Adobe CC performance, I am weighing between Apple's new Mac Pro 8-core and 12-core options, with dual AMD Firepro d700 GPUs, without a red-rocket. I would like this computer to be a 7-ish year computer, or longer. I understand the 8-core is crazy powerful, and pretty darn future-proof. Will there be a benefit to spending the extra $1500 on the 12-core or just calling-it at the 8?
My workflow is all Adobe, and I am shooting all projects in full 4k at lowest compression available (6:1 Redcode with the Scarlet?, 3:1 for a run-of-the-mill 5k timelapse?). My projects range from 4-6-min highly polished and graphics-intensive sizzle reels or industrials, to 15-20 min presentation reels. There will be OCCASIONAL, but not frequent, 23 or 48 min pilots on the order for 2014. There are also occasional TV spots in the mix as well, for older clients. All projects are completed soup-to-nuts by me, with very rare and limited exceptions. Those exceptions being a rare Cinema 4D counterpart to a larger project. For those instances, I WOULD want to be able to handle the projects delivered by a vendor working with 3D modeling, although that's rare, and for "special occasions only!"
I'm sure you don't have all of the answers, but I'd like to get your perspective on the whole 8-core vs. 12-core debate. Thank you for your time!

Quad-Core or 12-Core for FCP 7.0.3 and AfterFX?

Hi Folks, I am ready to buy a new MacPro. My main use is FCP 7.0.3 and AfterFX.
We all know 12-core is obviously much better, but Is there such a great difference on performance, especially rendering time on both softwares runing on the 12-core rather then on the Quad-core? Even if we pack a Quad-core with lots of RAM and a better video board? Any other crucial items to go for?
Thanks for your help!!!!

You likely won't see that much difference between a 4 core and a 12 core with FCP7 as it is a 32bit program and is not optimized for multicore processors. (it also can not make use of more than 4GB RAM) While SnowLeopard, Lion and now ML are full 64 bit Operating Systems, they can only do so much with legacy code. More important for FCP responsiveness is disk throughput.
On the other hand, the current version of AfterEffects is 64bit and can take advantage of a multi-core CPU. It also can take great advantage of all the RAM available.
One other point - don't forget the GPU. I'm running a nVidia Quadro 4000 (instead of an ATI card) in an 8 core MacPro and both Premiere and AE take full advantage of it for processing acceleration.
Have fun.
x
edit- The benefit of increasing the number of processors is not linear - that is - 8 processors will not be twice as fast as 4. In some cases, the increasing complexity of managing the overhead can outstrip the benefit of the additional cores. If a program is not optimized for it, more cores wlll not speed things up. And, in the case of the 12 core machine, you are paying a huge premium for non-measurable performance.

Info QUAD-CORE and Oracle 9i

If we purchase a machine with a quad-core cpu, will the database be able to take advantage of it? Or are we better of with multiple dual-core processors? Or one dual-core processor?
upgrade oracle 9.2.0.1 to 9.2.0.8?
Tanks

Well, assuming that you are going to use the Windows 64-bit version of Oracle 9i (9.2.0.2), then I'd go with the 64-bit processors. And, if you can get quad cores, then I would go for them and I'm pretty sure that the database will use them all, having seen it use dual core processors in the past.
Oracle don't seem to worry about the number of processor cores for their licensing (at least for enterprise edition) as they license in other ways but you should watch for other products you might install on the server that do. I once worked with an ETL tool called AbInitio, which does licence per core and they charged an absolute fortune becuase we were using dual core processors!
I'm assuming that you are going with Oracle 9i due to a need to run an older version? Otherwise, I'd recommend an upgrade to either 10g or 11g.
cheers,
R

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.

Question about Quad Core 2.93 and Octo-Core 2.66

OK, so forgive me cause I am asking a question that has been asked a zillion times. I have read and searched and read and searched, however, I still don't quite understand a few things.
I am a huge Aperture user. I shoot the Canon 1Ds Mark III and use photoshop a lot as well.
I am still confused. What is the difference in performance between a
loaded 8 GIGs ram Quad Core 2.93 or
a middle 8-Core 2.66 12 gigs RAM
I read benchmarks after benchmarks, but most use games for their stats and that does not help me. I read the boards, but it is all so confusing what people think. I went to the Apple store, and of course, they immediately said 8-core! hahaha.
I hear an 8-core can be slower at single core apps than a quad core and so on and on.
please help me!

Hi-
this question si about what the ** is the difference between a Quad 2.93 and a Octo 2.66.
The question is pretty vague.
Maybe asking "What benefit do I get from an octo core as opposed to a quad core?" would be better.
To understand the main difference, and the main benefit of an octo core over a quad core, understanding the concept of multithreading is necessary.
Basically, Multithreading is the ability of a system to break tasks up into portions (threads), and assign these portions across multiple CPU cores, enabling the calculation, thus the process, to be be completed faster than if the entire process were to be done on a single core.
Because of this, more cores allows for faster completion of system functions. Yes, it's faster.
Currently, some software isn't quite up to snuff in supporting/utilizing multithreading abilities of multi core systems.
But, that is changing, and changing rapidly.
Soon, all software will be able to utilize the multithreading ability of a multi core system, and greater increases in system performance will be realized.
In the upcoming OS 10.6 release, further enhancement of multithreading operation will be seen.
What this all means to the end user, say in Photoshop, is, work will fly, complex enhancements will be almost instantaneous, and productivity can be increased.
Along with the multi core, multi channel memory will also allow for the use of larger amounts of RAM, with out the bottlenecking that occurs in singe channel systems.
Again, everything works faster.
The octo core allows for more physical RAM, which, even now, but more so in the near future, always helps with memory hungry applications like Photoshop.
Basically, the biggest difference between the two machines, is the octo core is more future proof- that is, it will support future software enhancements better than the quad core.
And, we are talking +near future+.
I believe the Quad is limited to 8 gigs RAM, not 16.
Both machines can use 4GB DIMMs, so the quad core can use 16GB and the octo core can use 32GB.
Buying RAM from a trusted third party vendor can reduce costs greatly, without affecting the Apple warranty.
Again, Apple employees are telling you what the book says, what they currently offer, not what can be done.
Apple store said SDD in a Mac Pro is not a good idea at all. Again, more conflicting suggestions.
The Apple store will not recommend anything that Apple is not officially selling.
SSDs work, and they work well.
Just ask Samsara, or some of the other hot rodders on these forums.
And because I don't understand scratch disk, SDD disks, raptor drives etc, this all is not getting me anywhere. thus, why i tried the Apple store.
Ask. Study. Use Wikipedia.
Educating oneself is paramount to improving decisions, questions, work and life........
SSD - The future, now. Fast, expensive (but coming down in price), no moving parts (reliable)Solid State Drive
*Raptor Drives* - A family of 10,000 RPM SATA drives from Western Digital. These drives are high performance. They make systems run faster.
*Scratch Disks* - These are additional hard drives (in addition to the system drive) that allow for greater utilization of virtual memory- the writing of files, temporarily, to hard drive, to free up physical memory and allow faster calculations of processes.
Anyone who does work with video or photography software, must have a working knowledge of the benefits of a scratch drive.
Photoshop runs +way faster+ with a fast scratch disk.
When seeking advice on any forum, the more specific the question, the easier it will be for contributors to provide advice that is pleasing to your senses.
I've given you my take on what I feel may be your questions intent.
Hopefully, it wasn't a waste of time.....

[SOLVED] (Arch)Linux and Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 ??

hey everybody,
i just bought a new pc, a core 2 quad Q8200 and i have problems to get it work - even with other distros. I instert the install discs, i get the first screen where i can select Boot Live CD blabla, then i just see its unpacking the kernel and after that i just get cryptic errors. then it stops.
On arch i tried the ftp-i686 and ftp-x86_64 isos, both with the same result. i even tried other distributions. GRML: the same. Debian Installer: the same again. (just that the screen stays black on the other dirstros and i see nothing else).
could anyboy help me, please ? i think i used the correct isos, didnt i?
greets chris
Last edited by dude83 (2009-04-01 11:56:06)

well, it's definitely not the processors fault, i have q8200 running without problems - even overclocked:
$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 23
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz
stepping : 7
cpu MHz : 2800.185
cache size : 2048 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 4
core id : 0
cpu cores : 4
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 arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm sse4_1 lahf_lm
bogomips : 5602.71
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:
what exactly is the error message?

Dual core vs quad core and nvidia vs ati

I'm curious to hear opinions and experiences from both sides...i'm considering purchasing an iMac w/ a quad core and I want to know more about how it performs against a dual core in these areas: Second Life, DVD burning, iMovie, iTunes, Toast, GIMP, Audacity, etc...
I would appreciate any input on this topic...thanks so much!!!

Sorry, yes it will suffice? if so how many years would I expect this computer to last me? (Sorry I'm really new to apple)

4 cores or 8 cores and which video card to choose

My father and I are presented with a dilemma. Should we get 8 core model or the 4 core model at several hundred dollars cheaper?
I have never actually bought for myself a computer, and I want to make this one last. At the moment, 8 cores is completely top of the line, and assuming I choose such a model, I will probably have an exceptionally well computer that will last be many, many years.
I am most likely going to at all times be running Windows and Leopard side by side using Parallels and have a game running in Windows and developing, browsing, chatting, watching movies, ventrilo, etc. in the other space.
For this reason, would it be wise to purchase the 8 core model? It is considerably cheaper to add the extra quad core with Apple as it is nearly half the price of one found on newegg or a dell configuration. I really want this computer to last and use it for a long time and play the most top of the line games with my friends such as Age of Conan, Crysis, etc. Also, I will have a 24 inch monitor that I will also need my computer to power.
My current computer cannot even run Age of Conan at the lowest quality settings. I figure if I want to be able to run this game at 1920x1200 resolution in Parallels while running applications on Leopard, shelling out the extra three or four hundred dollars would be worth it. Seeing as I will be using this computer for years, even though most applications do not use 8 cores now, they will then.
I believe that the 4 core model of the Mac Pro does not allow for an additional xeon quad core, so if I did buy the single quad core model, I would not be able to add another quad core, thus limiting me. Also, even if there were, it would void my warranty.
Also, I have heard of the 8800 GT causing some problems in the Mac Pro, typically in the first generation ones, however, I had seen cases of people noting problems in the January edition. I want to do a lot of gaming in this rig, and the 8800 is the de facto card of choice for most gamers, at a reasonable price. However, will it give me problems? I have heard of some people having 0 problems at all with this card. Will it give me those occasional blue and green lines through my monitor? Has Apple fully developed the drivers for this card? Will I have problems with it?
Thanks for any help and I await your responses.

Fromethius,
you cannot assing CPUs to the VM in Parallels. In VMware you can select 1 or 2 virtual CPU for the guest OS, though that doesn't neccessarily translate 1:1 with your physical CPUs.
As for games, neither VM nor Parallels with run most later games well; remember, shader support is only experimental right now, so your results will vary.
I play games on Mac natively, but it depends on which ones you are after.
The is no problem with the 8800 card. The issues talked about - which is valid - is it's subpar CORE performance. That hopefully will be addressed in a driver, but won't affect you.
As for the system - get all you can afford. Don't wait for 'upgrades' - you'll never buy s system otherwise as something new is always on the way.
I work with a lot of video so I have an 8 core 3.2 with 16GB or RAM - and would never want less. Does that mean you need that? Or someone else doesn't even need more? Not at all - you just need to see what you really mean to do. 4 cores and the 8800 should be just fine for you. IF you can afford the 8 core, in case you will do a lot of work at the same time, great. Otherwise, rather not skimp on memory. Anything under 4GB, IMHO, ain't good enough.
Cheers,
dan

New Mac Pro, Quad-Core or 8-Core?

I need to decide whether to purchase a Quad-core or 8-core new Mac Pro. Using the computer for commercial and fine art work, in Photoshop CS4, Lightroom 2.0, and InDesign CS4. (No video.) Is there any advantage in the 8-core?

Photoshop probably won't benefit much from twice the cores - but they will help when running multiple apps simultaneously. I have a first generation Mac Pro 2.66 and am (still) perfectly happy with the performance.
About the only app in your list that would probably benefit is Lightroom (or ACR), when processing RAW files. My four cores are fairly pegged when processing files from a 1Ds MK II.

How concerned should I be on a new Intel Core i7 Extreme 990X CPU's erroneous sensor reading?

My concern being when the CPU is running at idle the 990x's core #5 temperature is less than the ambient room temperature, i.e. 20 degrees celsius while the ambient temperature is at 25 dgrees. Also, the adjacent core #4 is at 36 degrees, which is higher than any of the other four cores.
Has anyone here with a 990x experienced something similar, or heard of something like this? Could this be a serious flaw and should I contact Intel?
FYI, this replaces an i7 950 CPU due to it running in the mid to high 90 degrees celsius when transcoding in Encore CS 5.1.
The i7 990x transcodes a 7 minute test clip in less than 9 minutes and not one of the cores goes above 72 degrees celsius (the i7 950 took almost double that time).
Hoping to hear from you.
Cheers,
Michael

Gentlemen thank you for responding.
FYI NewEgg did replace the CPU and the new one has been in this computer for the past two days. The new CPU is of an entirely different batch, but unfortunately still demonstrates a lower than believable temperature for one core. This is better than the first one which had an excessively low temperature for one core and the adjacent one was much higher.
To illustrate the problem with the new CPU I ran it at 100% stress for more than 12 minutes and captured the attached images.
As you can see the CPU is overclocked by 28% (i.e. to 4.4 GHz) and the temperatures never exceeded 71 degrees celsius for one core averaging at 68 degrees celsius for all of them.
Further, the idle temperatures were captured only a few minutes after the stress test. Assuming the core numbering being from 1 through 6, core number 2 is the one that shows readings of 19 to 20 degrees when completely idle, while the ambient room temperature is 25 degrees celsius.
Considering one pays $1K for this, what happened to quality control, Intel???
Also, I have run Intel's test at the specified core speed and it shows a temperature headroom of 60 degrees celcuis, i.e. allowing for core operating temperatures at over 90 degrees celsius...
Looking forward to your comments.
Cheers,
Michael

Quad core and Four core cpu's

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for