dual cpu v single cpu

chris wrote:

what are the advantages of a dual cpu system over a single cpu system

all comments appreciated

You'll only really notice a big difference if you're using applications that
can use both CPUs at once for 1 task. e.g. compilers, Photoshop, Premiere.
Dual CPUs shouldn't help Internet Explorer run faster or games run better.

Is this for a home machine?

--Mitchua

what are the advantages of a dual cpu system over a single cpu system

all comments appreciated

chris wrote:

what are the advantages of a dual cpu system over a single cpu system

all comments appreciated


brag
I just got me a P3 dual cpu server board. mmmmmmmmmm......
/brag

Dual CPUs help with multitasking/threaded programs, most notably
photo/video-editing and the like. The OS must be made to run the dual
cpus tho. In other words XP Pro, Linux, Unix, NT4, Win 2000, 2003
Server etc. It would make little difference to a normal home user.

--
-Luke-
If cars had advanced at the same rate as Micr0$oft technology, they'd be
flying by now.
But who wants a car that crashes 8 times a day?
Registered Linux User #345134

AND your operating system has to support multiple processors, too (not just
the application software). MS Windows following the NT development lineage
supports multiple processors while MS Windows following the home use lineage
doesn't. (I.E., Win98 no, Win NT yes, WinME no, Win2000 yes, etc.)

"Mitchua" wrote in message
. ..
chris wrote:

what are the advantages of a dual cpu system over a single cpu system

all comments appreciated

You'll only really notice a big difference if you're using applications
that
can use both CPUs at once for 1 task. e.g. compilers, Photoshop,
Premiere.
Dual CPUs shouldn't help Internet Explorer run faster or games run better.

Is this for a home machine?

--Mitchua

"beav AT wn DoT com DoT au" "beav AT wn DoT com DoT au" wrote in message ...
chris wrote:

what are the advantages of a dual cpu system over a single cpu system

all comments appreciated


brag
I just got me a P3 dual cpu server board. mmmmmmmmmm......
/brag

Dual CPUs help with multitasking/threaded programs, most notably
photo/video-editing and the like. The OS must be made to run the dual
cpus tho. In other words XP Pro, Linux, Unix, NT4, Win 2000, 2003
Server etc. It would make little difference to a normal home user.

I stand by my statement in a recent thread:

Dual processor systems are for use in high-intensity, multithreaded
applications that are specifically programmed to utilize multiple
processors. An example would be many of the high end video editing
suites, CAD/CAM programs, etc. etc. that use huge number crunching.
Also, servers profit from multiple processors - they can handle more
traffic with more processors (and the right server software).

For an individual user, dualies are a waste unless you've got a
specific application you know uses multiple processors. Most
consumer-level programs can't access a second processor; no games that
I know of, no entry-level video or photo software can. A dualie
running Word and Windows Explorer is like driving a Porche to the
corner store - it's fun, but it's really unnecessary.

I've heard that if you're running a lot of different programs
simultaneously you get a bit of a performance increase, but it seems
like a lot of money for minimal returns. The actual gain in
performance is in the 15-33% range, last time I heard
(tomshardware.com, I think, 2001?). The consensus was that it made a
lot more sense to spend the extra dough on a faster SINGLE processor -
you'd get a lot more bang per buck.

A multiprocessor-aware OS is a prerequisite - Win2K and XP are
dual-processor aware, but the older ones are not. Apparently, the OS
just won't use the second processor - it'll just sit there and consume
power. I believe that Linux and BEOS are also multiprocessor aware,
but don't take my word for it.

Maybe in the future, as Intel's "hyperthreading" P4's (kind of a dual
processor processor) get more common, there'll be an increase in
programming for dual processors... but probably not soon, IMHO.

And no, the second processor is not a failsafe - if you want that,
you'll have to get into some seriously expensive equipment..... Both
processors are used at the same time in a dual system [in answer to a
question regarding using one processor as a failsafe if the other was
damaged].

ECM

ECM wrote:
"beav AT wn DoT com DoT au" "beav AT wn DoT com DoT au" wrote in message ...

brag
I just got me a P3 dual cpu server board. mmmmmmmmmm......
/brag

Dual CPUs help with multitasking/threaded programs, most notably
photo/video-editing and the like. The OS must be made to run the dual
cpus tho. In other words XP Pro, Linux, Unix, NT4, Win 2000, 2003
Server etc. It would make little difference to a normal home user.


I stand by my statement in a recent thread:

Dual processor systems are for use in high-intensity, multithreaded
applications that are specifically programmed to utilize multiple
processors. An example would be many of the high end video editing
suites, CAD/CAM programs, etc. etc. that use huge number crunching.
Also, servers profit from multiple processors - they can handle more
traffic with more processors (and the right server software).

For an individual user, dualies are a waste unless you've got a
specific application you know uses multiple processors. Most
consumer-level programs can't access a second processor; no games that
I know of, no entry-level video or photo software can. A dualie
running Word and Windows Explorer is like driving a Porche to the
corner store - it's fun, but it's really unnecessary.

I've heard that if you're running a lot of different programs
simultaneously you get a bit of a performance increase, but it seems
like a lot of money for minimal returns. The actual gain in
performance is in the 15-33% range, last time I heard
(tomshardware.com, I think, 2001?). The consensus was that it made a
lot more sense to spend the extra dough on a faster SINGLE processor -
you'd get a lot more bang per buck.

A multiprocessor-aware OS is a prerequisite - Win2K and XP are
dual-processor aware, but the older ones are not. Apparently, the OS
just won't use the second processor - it'll just sit there and consume
power. I believe that Linux and BEOS are also multiprocessor aware,
but don't take my word for it.

Maybe in the future, as Intel's "hyperthreading" P4's (kind of a dual
processor processor) get more common, there'll be an increase in
programming for dual processors... but probably not soon, IMHO.

And no, the second processor is not a failsafe - if you want that,
you'll have to get into some seriously expensive equipment..... Both
processors are used at the same time in a dual system [in answer to a
question regarding using one processor as a failsafe if the other was
damaged].

ECM

As you seem to mostly be agreeing with me, I'll assume that you meant to
reply to the original post...

--
-Luke-
If cars had advanced at the same rate as Micr0$oft technology, they'd be
flying by now.
But who wants a car that crashes 8 times a day?
Registered Linux User #345134

"ECM" wrote in message
om...

other info snipped

I've heard that if you're running a lot of different programs
simultaneously you get a bit of a performance increase, but it seems
like a lot of money for minimal returns. The actual gain in
performance is in the 15-33% range, last time I heard
(tomshardware.com, I think, 2001?). The consensus was that it made a
lot more sense to spend the extra dough on a faster SINGLE processor -
you'd get a lot more bang per buck.

I do run a CPU intensive CAD application which only uses one CPU. The
difference having a second CPU or a hyperthreading CPU makes, is the
difference between being able to use my PC for other tasks when the CAD
application is running, and not being able to use it for anything else.

"Graeme" wrote in message ...
"ECM" wrote in message
om...

other info snipped

I've heard that if you're running a lot of different programs
simultaneously you get a bit of a performance increase, but it seems
like a lot of money for minimal returns. The actual gain in
performance is in the 15-33% range, last time I heard
(tomshardware.com, I think, 2001?). The consensus was that it made a
lot more sense to spend the extra dough on a faster SINGLE processor -
you'd get a lot more bang per buck.

I do run a CPU intensive CAD application which only uses one CPU. The
difference having a second CPU or a hyperthreading CPU makes, is the
difference between being able to use my PC for other tasks when the CAD
application is running, and not being able to use it for anything else.


If you are running graphic intensive programs such as AutoCAD, ProE,
Helix,Visio. Then Dual Processors is the way to go. Its sort of like
comparing pickup trucks when running unleaded gas engines or Diesel.
Diesel is designed to carry the big loads, and unleaded gas is for
convenience and speed. So look at the towing capacity of a dual
processor system. In each case I'd stay clear of XP and Run either
Linux, Win2k professional or and SQL server with EQUORUM for your big
graphic management.

Ed

(ECM) wrote in message . com...

Dual processor systems are for use in high-intensity, multithreaded
applications that are specifically programmed to utilize multiple
processors. An example would be many of the high end video editing
suites...

Not just the high-end ones! TMPGEnc, a US$50 MPEG1/2 encoder, also
supports dual processors and hyperthreading P4s:

http://www.pegasys-inc.com/en/product/tp_operation.html

"beav AT wn DoT com DoT au" "beav AT wn DoT com DoT au" wrote in message ...
ECM wrote:
"beav AT wn DoT com DoT au" "beav AT wn DoT com DoT au" wrote in message ...

brag
I just got me a P3 dual cpu server board. mmmmmmmmmm......
/brag

Dual CPUs help with multitasking/threaded programs, most notably
photo/video-editing and the like. The OS must be made to run the dual
cpus tho. In other words XP Pro, Linux, Unix, NT4, Win 2000, 2003
Server etc. It would make little difference to a normal home user.


I stand by my statement in a recent thread:

Dual processor systems are for use in high-intensity, multithreaded
applications that are specifically programmed to utilize multiple
processors. An example would be many of the high end video editing
suites, CAD/CAM programs, etc. etc. that use huge number crunching.
Also, servers profit from multiple processors - they can handle more
traffic with more processors (and the right server software).

For an individual user, dualies are a waste unless you've got a
specific application you know uses multiple processors. Most
consumer-level programs can't access a second processor; no games that
I know of, no entry-level video or photo software can. A dualie
running Word and Windows Explorer is like driving a Porche to the
corner store - it's fun, but it's really unnecessary.

I've heard that if you're running a lot of different programs
simultaneously you get a bit of a performance increase, but it seems
like a lot of money for minimal returns. The actual gain in
performance is in the 15-33% range, last time I heard
(tomshardware.com, I think, 2001?). The consensus was that it made a
lot more sense to spend the extra dough on a faster SINGLE processor -
you'd get a lot more bang per buck.

A multiprocessor-aware OS is a prerequisite - Win2K and XP are
dual-processor aware, but the older ones are not. Apparently, the OS
just won't use the second processor - it'll just sit there and consume
power. I believe that Linux and BEOS are also multiprocessor aware,
but don't take my word for it.

Maybe in the future, as Intel's "hyperthreading" P4's (kind of a dual
processor processor) get more common, there'll be an increase in
programming for dual processors... but probably not soon, IMHO.

And no, the second processor is not a failsafe - if you want that,
you'll have to get into some seriously expensive equipment..... Both
processors are used at the same time in a dual system [in answer to a
question regarding using one processor as a failsafe if the other was
damaged].

ECM

As you seem to mostly be agreeing with me, I'll assume that you meant to
reply to the original post...

Yep, sorry.... it was late, my brain was addled....
ECM