How many CPU cores does macOS support?

[orph]

@Pval well for fun Level1Techs did a good video on Qubes OS

which lets you say run osx with gpu pass thro so ^^ have fun

im not shore what apps you want to run but single cpu systems tend to be faster for most operations and have less problems, when making a hack hardware support is more of a problem as well so i think dual cpu's tend to be more complex.

but if you relay want to have fun then ryzen may be a good option >.< on the bleeding edge if you can wait thread riper may be the cheapest high core count single cpu option and there's reports of Ryzen 1700 working sooo...
https://www.reddit.com/r/hackintosh/comments/689xt3/ryzen_hackintosh_success/

report back if it works

PS im relay interest in what kind of app you want to run that need dual cpus that cost around £3,720.00 each (E5-2699a V4)

 

[Pval]

@Pval well for fun Level1Techs did a good video on Qubes OS which lets you say run osx with gpu pass thro so ^^ have fun

Not entirely sure how Qubes OS comes into play here, unless it another example of maxing out your CPUs, but running plenty of 'yes's in terminal will do that just the same

Otherwise we ask more or less the same question.

 

[flat five]

A bit off-topic, but a typical use for lots of threads is a server application. Consider a database server with one thread per active user, or even one thread per connected session, plus internal worker threads -- it's not hard to hit hundreds of threads.

you don't need a server to get hundreds of threads going.
check your usage right now-- you probably have thousands of threads on the system.

 

[AidenShaw]

you don't need a server to get hundreds of threads going.
check your usage right now-- you probably have thousands of threads on the system.

Servers tend to have many more active threads - desktop apps often create threads that are idle waiting for some interaction with the user that may never happen. (GUIs like threads.)

Other than using a bit of memory, idle threads can be ignored. It's active threads that are significant.

And idle or active, the number of software threads is independent of the number of logical processors in the system.

 

[jerwin]

64 threads max.

that's certainly a definitive answer. Do you have any references (links, blogs, books, whatever) which go into more detail?

 

[res0lve]

that's certainly a definitive answer. Do you have any references (links, blogs, books, whatever) which go into more detail?

if you disassemble the kernel (otool) you'll find "_ml_init_max_cpus:" and "cmpq $0x3f, %rcx"
0x3f = decimal 63
32 cores or 64 logical cores/threads

changing it causes KP

there better choices of OS to utilize high core counts

 

[AidenShaw]

there better choices of OS to utilize high core counts

e.g.

 

[Beachguy]

there better choices of OS to utilize high core counts

MS-DOS? CP/M86?

 

[jerwin]

e.g.
View attachment 708580

Did you stick with 8Gigabytes, or did you upgrade it to 16G?

 

[h9826790]

Did you stick with 8Gigabytes, or did you upgrade it to 16G?

You mean terabyte?

 

[AidenShaw]

Did you stick with 8Gigabytes, or did you upgrade it to 16G?

You mean terabyte?

If you look at the "Mem" line in the chart you'll see that it has 1.5 TiB ....

That's only about 10.7 GiB per logical core.