If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
dual cpu v single cpu
what are the advantages of a dual cpu system over a single cpu system
all comments appreciated |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dual CPU | Steve Schooler | General | 6 | March 14th 04 10:53 PM |
Dual processor system vs Single processor system | HawkEye_42 | General | 3 | January 27th 04 11:01 AM |
Dual Vs. Single Processor System | Darren Harris | General | 5 | January 10th 04 11:04 PM |
Problems mixing dual and single sided DIMMS ?? | zack | General | 5 | October 23rd 03 06:19 AM |
Mushkin PC3200 1Gb Dual Packs from Fry's | DW | General | 3 | September 24th 03 10:37 AM |