Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Nov 2012 23:40 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 541242
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Rest assured that apple has been running arm internally
by zima on Thu 8th Nov 2012 21:12
in reply to "RE[8]: Rest assured that apple has been running arm internally"
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...
RE[10]: Rest assured that apple has been running arm internally
by MOS6510 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 16:56
in reply to "RE[9]: Rest assured that apple has been running arm internally"





Member since:
2011-05-12
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.