>I can't give you exact details, I only have to go on what he tells me. He >typically works with multi-hundred MB graphic files that open and save much >more quickly, as well as conversion work, such as saving one of these files >to a different file format or a pdf, takes less time. He's shown me >examples of work he does in Photoshop and Quark that he claims is much >faster than it was before.
This is either magical thinking or his previous computer was very badly configured or both. Every time you add a core the speed of processing can increase by no more than the speed of the added core. So a dual core can't be more than 200% faster than a single core. Claiming more than that can only be magical thinking. In reality the overhead of managing two cores produces a gain of only 150%. Adding more cores adds speed, but with diminishing returns. Rule of thumb is that a quad core, if all 4 core are really working, is 188% (100+50+25+13) faster than a single core. Some even argue that a properly-tuned dual core can outperform a quad core for standard office applications. So buying more can actually get you less. There are also potential I/O bottlenecks that will slow you down no matter how many cores you have. For more info read "Does Quad Core Matter?" at www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2178787,00.asp P.S. Frequently working "with multi-hundred MB graphic files" makes no sense. Anyone who does that does not understand the technology or software. A 24" x 36" 300dpi CMYK uncompressed TIFF would be 300MB. That is not a size frequently encountered. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
