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. 

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.

  • Quad versus dual core

    Will I see an advantage in Photoshop CS5 (32 bit) if I upgrade my existing dual core processor to quad core? (Clock speed slightly lower on the quad core - 2.66GHz as opposed to 3.00GHz on the dual)

    Part of the answer depends on the cache specs.
    A processor must access programs and data in main memory.  The more cores you have, coupled with sufficient cache space, will get more processing done in general.  Many things in Photoshop and Windows in general are multi-threaded, and if all the processors can get data from RAM into the cache, then spend some time (in parallel) working on it, you will have gained.  On the other hand, if each processor is just chunking through RAM then the single bus from the processor (set) to RAM will be a bottleneck and you may actually see the system get less done.
    Very generally speaking, more cores are better, so your computing experience may well seem nicer (smoother) with a 4 core processor.  Oh, and enable Hyperthreading if you can.
    -Noel

  • 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 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 8 core for final cut studio

    Hi,
    I have previously used adobe premiere cs3 for video editing and am now switching to final cut studio.
    My question is: is it worth spending the 600 pounds extra to purchase an 8-core with 2.26 ghz processors as opposed to the 2.66 quad?
    Apologies for the repetition...I know there have been similar questions already, and I have read the previous threads on this topic and also the barefoot reviews.
    So far my understanding is:
    1. It is not worth upgrading to the 2.93 quad as there is hardly any difference in performance
    2. The 2.26 ghz 8-core is faster than the 2.66 quad for rendering, etc but slower for some other applications including photo editing.
    3. Officially, there is no way of upgrading the processor of either once bought, although some "DIY upgrades" have been described.
    But how does this translate into practice? I would like to hear from someone who uses final cut studio on a quad core - are you happy with the performance? And those with an 8-core - was it worth the extra money? I am planning to upgrade to the ATI HD graphics card, but still not sure on which computer model I should choose.
    Thanks for your help

    The hatter wrote:
    you probably have read anything I could say or said already. have you asked in the final cut forum? have you considered the $2400 2008 2.8GHz 8-core?
    http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_pro
    Oh that they were still readily available in the UK - I just missed out on one a couple of weeks ago - as soon as I hit Buy it had gone!
    They've got an 8 core 2008 3.2 GHz for £2500 but I'm not convinced it's worth £1,000 more at this stage.
    AC

  • 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

  • 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.

Maybe you are looking for