4 CPUs on Macintels?

Of course some of you have seen this already.
But someone posted a screenshot of this.
Whether real or not, or done with osx86, it looks interesting.

Moved to mac help.

Wait, does the Xeon have HT? I'm not sure. And that must have a Xeon to be true.

Although I think it is quite likely that this would be possible, I'm a bit skeptical that this person has really done it because of the low quality pictures. If you want to prove something, take some high quality pics and that at the very least will help prove your success. A low quality image generally gets the assumption of being forgery. A high quality screen shot is easy with a mac (Apple+Shift+3).

-TAK

There's a lot of these pics floating about out there. I saw one that was supposedly from a PC hacked to allow the Mac OS on it back before even the rumours of the Intel chips in Macs. The one that I saw said that the Mac had 16 Intel CPU's running at 4.5GHz each...

It was the same thing as this. Bad quality photo to disguise the average quality photoshop work. There's a whole lot of these around, so don't take to much notice.

On the bright side, with the dual-core CPU's that Intel are producing, and could be porting to Mac's, if there's 2 physical CPU's on the motherboards, the comptuer shouuld theroretically see them as 4 CPU's. Of course, we'll all have to wait and see what Apple actually brings out when the whole deal starts shipping. Personally I'd love to see a quad-CPU Mac, but the reality is that there's not much chance of it happening. Still, strange things have happened at Apple before...

Yes, but this sees 4 CPUs, and 8 logical cores. Meaning it would have to be two hyperthreaded, dual core processors.

no, hyperthreaded OR dual-core. You don't get both...

What you forget is that with the advent of Mactel comes
1.Decreased performance to start
2.DRM (not that it will take long to crack)
3.A reduction in the use of PPC, a wonderful chip sadly destined to die out in years, at least on the desktop.

And what I'm saying is, that it's not possible, because the only CPU that has Hyperthreading AND dual core is not multiprocessor capable. And the DRM is officially being called TCPM. It actually has already been cracked, by sacraficing SSE3 capability, loosing rosetta.

Yeah but thats only the one so far. Apple is releasing it under a more comprehensive protection scheme on the final thing. It will likely require SSE3 for everything given that it's only meant to run on apple's hardware and there are no compatibility issue to worry about.

Yes, and if they do that and keep the current TCPM, it will make for a very hard crack, which is a good thing. Because, if it's needed to run anything, it makes it all useless.

It is your fundamental right not to hand away control of your computer to a company. Forget `its only to stop people pirating it to non-apple machines`, it isnt. Its the start of domination of your computer. With one command, apple can tell your computer not to boot, If they have control over that level, who is really in control over your computer? Who controls the files on it? Certainly aint you. Who decides when to revoke licences to do certain things with your compy? Not you.

You're being treat like a criminal and they may just whip your freedom out of your hands. Don't accept it.

I think it's possible with some work. If this is indeed a real screenshot, the current market limits would not apply. Intel might have made a new processor with other capabilities for Macintels. Who knows?

This could not be more wrong. I am very involved with the OSx86 hacking projects and I can tell you that the SSE3 is not lost rather there are patches that allow it to run on SSE2 because the majority of SSE3 calls (which are few) can be replaced by their SSE2 cousins and those that can't are emulated (some what). If someone has an SSE3 capable processor, they dont need to apply the patch and will retain full SSE3 funtionality. Also, rosetta works perfectly. Some people have problems after applying the SSE2 patches but that is to be expected but other than that, rosetta works flawlessly. Maxxus has even released a patch allowing 10.4.1 to execute 10.4.2 apps (that have different header information). So overall, those are two unfounded statements.