Single quad core model- same motherboard as duals?

Does this model use the same system board as the models with two quad core processors, or does it have on slot for processors instead of two? Considering this model with an eye towards upgrading in the future.
Thanks for any insights,

AFAIK it does. But you won't get the second heatsink and sensor that is needed for both. Best bet is to get the lowest speed dualie and upgrade from there I think...

Similar Messages

Can a logic user benefit more from having a Quad core as apposed to a dual

My friend is thinking about updating to a Quad core from a dual core 3.0 ghz. He uses logic as his main sequnecer and was wondering if it would be a big performance step up to do it

Hardly. It shows that in general performance a Mac gets about 1.4 times faster with every doubling of the number of processors. So a dualcore is 1.4 times faster than a single, a quad is twice as fast as a single and an octo (dual quad) is twice as fast as a dual and 2.8 times faster than a single core - given that CPU- and bus speeds are the same... get it? It's a quadratic scale (it seems)
The fastest Mac today (I believe) is is the Mac Pro 3.2, with two quadcore Intel Xeon 5400 'Harpertown" processors. Geekbench clocks it at 8499. My machine (G4 dual 1.25, the 'minimum machine' for LP8) scores 1044... but I manage...
You can find all this information in Mactracker (freeware):
http://www.mactracker.ca/
regards, Erik.

Some feedback needed on the 15'' 2.0Ghz i7 quad-core model

I am a developer (mostly on mobile (Android, iOS)) and I am considering
buying one of the 15'' macbook pro models but I face a problem on choosing which one. Taking into consideration that it's a little hard for me to pay the 2.2Ghz i7 model at the time I'd really appreciate your opinion on the the "2.0Ghz i7 quad-256mb gpu" model. Will I have any delays/issues running the SDK and several emulators (iphone-ipad) that may be using hardware acceleration? Also, will I have any delays during playback of hi-res videos, video editing, or image editing software (photoshop, illustrator)?
I certainly don't need it for gaming but I really want to know what's the expected performance on the applications mentioned using the 2.0GHz-AMD Radeon HD 6490M- 256MB GDDR5 model.
I'd really appreciate any advice!

I am a developer (mostly on mobile (Android, iOS)) and I am considering
buying one of the 15'' macbook pro models but I face a problem on choosing which one. Taking into consideration that it's a little hard for me to pay the 2.2Ghz i7 model at the time I'd really appreciate your opinion on the the "2.0Ghz i7 quad-256mb gpu" model. Will I have any delays/issues running the SDK and several emulators (iphone-ipad) that may be using hardware acceleration? Also, will I have any delays during playback of hi-res videos, video editing, or image editing software (photoshop, illustrator)?
I certainly don't need it for gaming but I really want to know what's the expected performance on the applications mentioned using the 2.0GHz-AMD Radeon HD 6490M- 256MB GDDR5 model.
I'd really appreciate any advice!

Mac mini quad core 2.3 i7 v dual core 2.5 i5

I'm looking to upgrade my 2010 Mac Mini and was holding out for the current upgrades but all the press about them not being as good as the previous 2012 versions have got me wondering.
My requirements are simple
1) Cost - I want more bang for my buck but balanced against my usage (point 2)
2) Usage - Primarily as an HTPC using Plex but I also use it to edit photo's (iPhoto) & movies (iMovie) and host my music through iTunes.
3) Connectivity - Firewire would be good as my current storage setup is based around a Drobo (firewire/usb2 only) - this is not essential as I will be looking to migrate my data over to a Thunderbird / USB 3 drive.
My current setup ***** a bit when it comes to editing photo's and movies - probably more to do with how my libraries are located than actual performance of my existing mac mini, otherwise it is pretty decent as a HTPC.
It doesn't make sense to me to upgrade to an 'old' 2012 machine, but from what I've seen the 2012 i7 seems better value / performance for my needs than the mid range 2014 2.5 i5, minus a memory upgrade to 8GB.
Thoughts?

The 2012 has a faster processor, equally fast Ram and slower everything else (graphics etc). The 2012 will be unsupported before the 2014 is.
Your choice.

Dual i7 (8-core) RT system motherboard suggestions?

Greetings LV Community,
I need to duplicate a Dual Xeon (8 core) RT-PC system that we built a few years back. The motherboard we used has become obsolete, so I'm looking for a replacement motherboard that can handle two i7 quad-core processors.
I'm aware of the app notes on the NI website that list compatible chipsets and individual system components that can be used for a custom RT PC system (--this is how we built the last system). However, I also remember a few "gotchas" along the way before we got everything working as intended.
I was wondering if anyone has recently built an 8 (or more) core RT PC, and if they have any recommendations (or cautions!) with regard to the current options for motherboards and/or component selection?
Thanks,
-- Dave
www.movimed.com - Custom Imaging Solutions

Thanks for the info about the i7s. Perhaps this is why all my web searches for dual i7 motherboard options kept coming back with pages and pages of single socket motherboards...
(As you probably can tell, custom RT builds aren't my first integration choice. However, it doesn't appear that NI offers an 8-core PXI controller... yet.)
The previous system was originally a single quad-core Xeon system -- later upgraded to a dual processor configuration to enhance throughput. The Tyan motherboard sported a complete set of NI-friendly chipsets, but it is now obsolete.
I was hoping to get some feedback from folks who have recently built an 8-core system -- Xeon would be fine too.
Thanks again,
-- Dave
www.movimed.com - Custom Imaging Solutions

Mac mini (Late 2012): Dual- or Quad-Core?

I'm upgrading from a MacBook (2006) and - as a frequent iPad user - am thinking of just getting a Mac mini. I'm not sure though as wether to get the i5 dual-core or i7 quad-core version.
What I'll be using it for (none of these on a professional level, prosumer at most ;)):
Photo editing (iPhoto, thinking of switching to Aperture)
Web development (Coda, Espresso, local test server)
Designing (Sketch 2)
Full-HD video editing
Web, office, social media, ...
Can I expect a signifcant performance boost at these tasks from the quad-core model or will the differences be barely noticable (also considering most of these applications will be running simultaneously)?
I'll be maxing out RAM from a third party vendor in both cases, HDD capacity is not important and I'm not going to upgrade to SSD or Fusion Drive.
What do you think? Any thoughts appreciated!

Thanks for your insights! My inital goal was being cost-efficient; Fusion Drive is only an option on the quad-core model thus making it 1080 Euros were I live. That's almost an entire new Mac mini which I could buy in 2-3 years. I don't mind CPU intensive tasks taking longer (e.g. rendering final movie) as long as the actual "creative process" runs smoothly (e.g. cutting the movie).
As you both said finding out how/if apps take advantage of multiple cores is not that easy. I guess I'll have a closer look at all the benchmark tests and reviews that will be showing up in the coming weeks.
I think Fusion Drive on a dual-core might boost performance more than just going quad-core, unfortunately this is not an option for the lower end model. Also I want to wait a little to see if Fusion Drive is proprietary Apple hardware or just implemented software-wise (which would mean I could fix a broken drive myself after warranty has expired).
By the way, any guesses on Black Friday sale options (as far as I could find out the Mac mini wasn't included last year)?

Clarification about quad core unitsl

I'm looking at various quad core units. Can anyone tell me the difference between a single quad core unit or two dual cores? Is one more powerful?

There won't be much difference usually... except for computations taking advantage of SSE4, present in latest generation cpus (penryn...), and for the performance/watt, for which the newer mac pros are really superior...
IMHO, if you have the opportunity to buy either one for about the same price, buy the new generation one (single quad core @ 2.8 ghz) but if can save a couple hundreds, or more, on the previous generation dual dual core @ 3.0 ghz, then maybe take the older one...
phjo

Windows – but Which? (What to install on Mac Pro Quad Core?)

First, apologies in advance if this seems like repetition of a recent topic, but I read through the recent "Vista vs XP" thread and it didn't quite answer my questions.
Basically, I'm planning on buying a Mac Pro "Quad Core" 2.8 and installing Boot Camp and a Windows OS startup. This puts me into the notoriously tricky area of picking the right version of Windows for my needs, something I haven't really had to deal with in regards to OS X.
Basically, I'm not looking for something with too many bells and whistles or to much bloatware built into the OS. Also, I'll probably be using some older software/shareware, so backwards compatibility is an issue. On the other hand, I'd like something that works with the Quad Core architecture at its greatest efficiency.
This means I'm wondering about a couple of features that I may or may not need, and it would be of great help if you folks could point me in the right direction regarding these:
x64 – Since the Xeon processors in the Mac Pro are 64-bit processors, am I better off with "x64"-compatible versions of Windows (either Windows Vista or x64 versions of XP)? Will this cause problems starting up older programs that may not have been written for x64?
*Dual Processor Support* – the Quad Core, of course, is a dual processor – will I get better performance from a version of Windows that list "Dual Processor Support" among its features (basically, the "pro", "business", or "ultimate" versions of XP and Vista)?
If I need those features, I'm probably looking at getting either the x64 version of Windows XP Pro or the Business or Ultimate versions of Vista. However, I'm leaning against Vista based on backwards-compatibility and bloatware issues. That leaves XP Pro x64, but I might go for a more basic version of XP if I find out the x64 or DPS features aren't actually something I need. (The other "extras" in XP Pro don't sound like anything I need.)
Also, I'm likely to install Parallel Desktop at some point and don't want a version of Windows that would have compatibility problems there, either.
Anyway, any answers you folks can provide for me in this regard would be very helpful.
Thanks in advance,
Peter

Truth is, I am disappointed in VMware Fusions slow walk toward full support for 64-bit and SP1 but 2.0 beta is getting there. Never used Parallels but best to check their own support forums. They also updated the 1.x version recently.
http://communities.vmware.com/community/beta/fusion
http://forums.parallels.com/
You don't need anything first, except I would start with a new hard drive for Vista, don't even do anything with it and pull OS X drive, boot Vista DVD and go from there, just as you would normally. Much easier. After it is installed is when you need Apple BootCamp from your Leopard OEM DVD, install, and then Apple Software Update will take care of 2.1. And install your graphic drivers yourself.
The problem(s) come with trying to use BootCamp Assist and setting up partitioning, and it only makes it harder - not easier - on Mac Pro (you aren't and don't want to use your OS X boot drive).
Windows on Mac forum @ MacRumors
http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=86
And their Mac Pro area http://forums.macrumors.com which has a lot of Vista talk from Mac Pro owners.
The only real issues are which graphics card to get today or in next weeks, what drives you are going with and other upgrades like memory (8 x 1GB is actually a good base ideal figure so all DIMM slots are taken up).
Barefeats has a number of benchmark articles:
Radeon 3870: http://www.hardmac.com/news/2008-06-16/#8451
Vista graphics: http://www.barefeats.com/harper11.html
Memory: http://www.barefeats.com/harper12.html
Drives: http://www.barefeats.com/harper9.html
WD 300GB Raptor: http://www.barefeats.com/hard103.html
- this is the drive to die for, but not natively supported
I buy most of the upgrades I need over the last ten years from OWC http://www.MacSales.com that specializes in Mac.
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Western%20Digital/WD6400AAKS/
- until the WD "Black" series (I guess Blackbird name or SR71 are already taken) along with 3rd generation of their RE series drives. WD has been popular, reliable, with Mac Pro for last two years. Can't say the same of every vendor. Samsung F1 is also a real winner.
If you buy only one book to understand and get the most out of OS X: "Mac OS X: The Missing Manual" (Pogue has a Missing Manual Series on most everything, and this is the most popular recommended for Mac OS).
http://books.slashdot.org/books/08/02/27/1551206.shtml
I needed 3-4 for Vista before I found "Administrator's Pocket Consultant" and O'Reilly's "Vista Annoyances" are both excellent along with MS Press's "Inside Out."

Can NOT install Standard ONE on a 2 quad-core processor machine (licensing)

This is from Oracle's licensing (July 2009):
===================================
“When licensing Oracle programs with Standard Edition One or Standard Edition in the product name, a processor is counted equivalent to a socket. However, in the case of multi-chip modules, each chip in the multi-chip module is counted as one occupied socket.”
This is also from Oracle's licensing (July 2009):
=====================================
“Oracle Database Standard Edition can only be licensed on servers that have a maximum capacity of 4 sockets. Oracle Standard Edition One may only be licensed on servers that have a maximum capacity of 2 sockets.”
Now, this is what it seems to be:
===========================
1 quad-core AMD/Intel Xeon chip counts as 4x0.5=2 sockets (reached the maximum capacity limit in the licensing terms) by simply using 1 (single) quad-core CPU box.
and that's it - you can NOT install Standard Edition ONE on a 2 quad-core CPU Linux box :(((((
For a AMD/Intel multi-core Linux boxes
===============================
it can be a single quad-core CPU box (4x0.5=2 sockets -- but, paying twice the processor license - because it is now 2 sockets) or
it can be a 2 dual-core CPU (2X2x0.5=2 sockets -- but, paying twice the processor license) or
it can be a single dual-core CPU box (2x0.5=1 -- paying only a single processor license)
I think it is time for Oracle to revisit the licensing terms for Standard ONE edition and change it to simple socket count (don't count the cores). It is getting more expensive to use Oracle Standard ONE.

zaferaktan wrote:
Everybody should also know - and OPN folks confirmed this morning - that an Oracle Sales person does not have the "legal" authority to overwrite what is written in OLSA. Sales can not rewrite the OLSA. However, Sales can request changes or addendums to the specific contract, which are reviewed by Oracle Legal and approved by Sales senior management (right up to Charles and Larry if needed).
That said, very few Oracle employees are allowed to discuss any aspect of licensing terms. The official first point of contact is Sales, and they may only be the carrier pigeon of missives from the authority.
When someone buys Oracle, OLSA is the only legally binding document. Everybody should keep the copy of the OLSA which is in effect at the time of their purchase, given that OLSA can be modified at a later date from the actual purchase.That happens to be true of any license or sales agreement, from Oracle or not. Also note that if you purchase support, renewals may affect the original OLSA.
And it's one of the reasons old timers in these forums (such as Dan and myself) will prefix nearly any license discussion in the forums with "check with sales" and suffix it with "and anything you hear on the internet is probably useless in a court of law when you get audited".
and after all that - thanks for digging into the details and posting them.
(With the warning to any others using the information that the facts need to be reconfirmed for each individual case and date. A judge usually frowns on a defense of "It happened to a friend of a friend of mine" or "I read it on the internet")
Edited by: Hans Forbrich on Sep 8, 2009 9:43 PM
By the way - what you write is a change of policy. At one time, a box that could support 4 CPU but only had 2 CPU installed would not qualify for SE1. Good news indeed.

Older Quad Core users - solidarity needed

I know this is old news, but just to add weight to our plight as older quad core machines only working as duals, do take a small time out and call (not email or fill in the illustrious feedback form) tech support and ask them to log as a case the fact that your machine is not being fully supported by the software. This apparently will add impact to our plights, and should get us a little closer to Apple supporting it's own machines with appropriately coded software. It does seem a little more of a passive approach than perhaps some of us actually feel, but who knows. The guys at the part of Apple I spoke to today are on our side, but I guess have their hands tied.
I haven't nearly got to the limit of my quad core's performance yet, but that just isn't the point, is it? And please, no supercilious whining from dual cores or Woodcresters.

In UK, 0870 876 0753 and then select the options to get through (eventually) to professional application support. That is what I did and spoke to a really helpful guy. I did, about a week ago, speak to a guy in the states (it was very late over here and the uk guys were asleep - why don't music recording support lines operate more realistic hours!!) and had I been a US user I could have done the same thing there.
They do seem to make it hard to do, but please guys, persevere.

Quad core upgrade.

Is it possible to upgrade a single quad core MacPro to a eight core? It is a 2.8Ghz single quad core mac pro.
Thanks,
Scott

Scott Yes but is not worth the trouble. Sell the single and buy a Dual. I have a single and if you do not
do video it is speedy enough (Macworld benchmarks).
lechtmmgg

System overloads and quad core Pro with only 1 gig of RAM - Snow Leopard

That RAM total would suggest that I go out and buy some (expensive) RAM.
But I see from
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=10238432&#10238432
that people are getting memory spikes with LP8 and a lot more than 1 gig. One poster suggests that LP8 has a bug that should've been fixed but wasn't.
8 gigs are so expensive ($2k) that I could get an entire iMac for less - and rumor has it that there may be quad-core models on the way soon.
Which of the following would you do"
1. Amp up to 4GB on this box for $1200 or so?
2. Get just 1GB more to make it 2GB - cheaper?
3. Upgrade to LP9 just to get a bug fix?
A new pro ($3200+, 8 core, 6 gigs is not an option. I'm even gagging at the RAM prices.
I use LP primarily for electronic music, not rock mixes, so I use ES2, Sculpture, ESX. EFM and potentially a lot of track automation.

Hello neighbor (I live in Arlington, MA).
macpro-user wrote:
Which of the following would you do"
1. Amp up to 4GB on this box for $1200 or so?
2. Get just 1GB more to make it 2GB - cheaper?
3. Upgrade to LP9 just to get a bug fix?
Definitely not number 3--LP9 is working pretty well for me, but a lot of users find it to be rather buggy. I'm not saying don't get 9, I'm just saying don't do it with the idea in mind that it will fix all your problems. I buy my RAM from Other World Computing. I'm not sure exactly which model Mac Pro you're running, but you can see here that the most you'll pay for 8GB is about $275. But jumping up to 4GB would significantly improve your situation, so I would recommend starting there--you can always add more later if you need to.

Apple Pro Res on Quad Core G5

Hi,
Does anyone know if it's possible to capture Pro Res & Pro Res HQ on the quad core version of the G5 Mac using a Kona 3 card. I've heard that the quad core model is of a high enough spec to be able to do this although apple suggests that only an Intel Mac can handle Pro Res.
Thanks,
Keith.

Hi, Pro res 422 Is already there in FCP 6 though the HDV to Pro Res capture preset does not appear until 6.0.2. I use this regularly on a PPC G5. Go here for full details.
http://www.kenstone.net/fcphomepage/capture_hdv_prores_fwbalis.html
This should answer your question if I understand you correctly

Macsafe 85w still not enough when running Heavy program on Macbook pro 2011 Quad Core

Is there any official announcement from apple on how macsafe 85w works & design flow or diagram..??
We know the magsafe 85w is not enough to run macbook pro quad core i7 and their family.. But there must be some reason why apple only allow maximum 85w only.. rite
I run this multiple test on my Macbook Pro early 2011, 17" 2.2 Quad core i7, 8G ram, to proving that the 85W is not enough.
-Im running this test on both OSX & win 7
-the battery capacity is 20% when i running this test
-the power adapter "macsafe" is plugin when i run this test
1) macsafe 85w turn to green to stop charging when rendering HD movie in Final Cut pro 7 in OSX ( but then it will turn to orange to charged again after you cancel the render)
2) macsafe 85w turn to green to stop charging when playing high graphic game such "Razor F1 2010" in Win 7 ( but then it will turn to orange to charged again after you quit the game)
3) macsafe 85w turn to green to stop charging when editing AVCHD on Sony vegas Pro 10 in Win 7 (it will turn to orange to charged again after you quit the program)
4) when the baterry reach 100%. then I run all of 3 heavy program above.. the baterry will drain slowly until 93% then it turn to orange to charging again.
(this will happen only when you run heavy program) 85w macsafe itself also not enough to run these program.. still need little battery support..
As i know this will happen to all macbook pro since before Quad core model. You must run heavy program, then you can determin this systoms..
Lastly, I really hope that all of this symtoms are the "macsafe work design", & not the macsafe fault... & really hope this symtoms will not damage the battery because regullaly charge on & off.
Maybe This is why new macbook pro design,, you cannot take out the battery... It still need the battery support also, while plugin..
Thanks &
Sorry broken english..

"Maybe This is why new macbook pro design,, you cannot take out the battery... It still need the battery support also, while plugin.."
Yes — but only when you're working the machine very hard. Most of the time, 85W is ample.
"But,, we need the official announce by apple regarding this issue"
No you don't. That's how it works. What good would an announcement from Apple do you?

BTW, what happened to all the quad core phones that were supposed to come out last summer?

Reps at Best Buy and sever articles cited they should have been released last summer????

they were released in europe
in the use the quad core was replaced with a dual core because we dont want to pay for the quad

Single quad core model- same motherboard as duals?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for