To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
More cores will allow each core to spend more time on a certain task, but they can't work together to do one task faster (I think).
So having a whole lot of ARM chips in your Mac doesn't make it faster at CPU intensive tasks than a Mac with 4 or 8 x86 based cores.
Then again, do they need to be? Are there so many tasks that require a lot of CPU to make it show?
When you move from a normal hard disk to solid state you'll notice what a bottleneck it was.
The CPU spends a lot of time being idle. So my guess would be that a computer with a solid state disk, enough and quicker memory, faster system bus can work very well even if it has ARM CPUs compared to a x86 machine.
Around here I have a PC with Athlon XP 1700+ (1.46 GHz, but actually set to 1.1 GHz for hardware conservation purposes), an 11 year old CPU.
And you know what? It's still quite fine for the typical stuff (browsing, office, IM, basic media consumption), the idle thread takes ~90% of CPU time.
Though the machine has, yes, a bit more RAM than was typical in its heyday - 768 MiB. If it was dual CPU and with an SSD, I guess it would be very comfortable.
Speaking of dual - on my dual Pentium II 266 the largest "consumer" of CPU power is also the idle thread...





Member since:
2005-07-07
While there is no guaranteed improvement, I think it is imporant to keep in mind that multi-core systems can improve performance or throughput even if all they are running is single threaded processes.
Because they are almost certainly running multiple processes and being able to dedicate a core to a certain process leads to optimization options, e.g. never ever having to flush caches, potentially having dedicated memory or I/O lines, etc.
Multithreading improves the utilization of multipe-core CPUs, aber multithreading is only one of two widely deployed parallel-processing strategies (the other obviously being multiple processes)