On Nov 9, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Scott Birdwell wrote:
Hey, G-Listers!
I have a hypothetical question for the collective genius out there.
Let's say you have a dual processor 1 ghz G4 computer, what speed of
a single processor in a comparable computer would it take to exceed
the dual processor performance? I'm guessing that it has something
to do with which programs your running. . .? Thanking you for your
input in advance.
It has everything to do with what programs you are running, and how
many and what they are doing.
If you only run one program at a time, a dual will only be slightly
faster than an equivalent single if the app is not optimized for
multiple processors. It would be slightly faster because it allows the
system and OS X stuff to take place on the second processor while the
app runs on the first.
If the app is multiprocessor aware, the tests I remember equate a a
dual at about 1.7x a single. ie: most photoshop processes are MP aware,
so a dual 1GHz will run about the same a a single 1.7GHz.
If you run multiple apps that are not processor intensive at the same
time (you have Mail, Word, Excel, calculator and your accounting
program all open) there will be a small speed boost in your day to day
work, bit you would probably be better off with a faster single
processor and extra ram.
If you run multiple processor intensive apps at the same time, a dual
will really shine. If you have photoshop running a script on a large
batch of files and you have iMovie encoding a DVD, each program will
get its own processor, with a little bit of system overhead. So with
the same dual 1Ghz above, each app would run as if it had its own
approx 900 MHz processor.
FWIW, at work I frequently have 8-10 apps open at a time, but they are
all waiting for me to do something, so a single processor is fine. I'll
have mail, mozilla, word, excel, writenow, calculator, safari, a
financial calculator and graphiconverter all open, but they are not
doing anything, just waiting for my input, so a dual would not help.
At home, it is another story. While I will have the same number of apps
open, some will be actively doing something, so a dual would be a good
choice for that situation. I'll have mail open, be encoding MP3s in
iTunes, downloading stuff from newsgroups with Thoth, actively browsing
with Firefox and Mozilla, the Videolan client, an im program, blackjack
in classic, graphiconverter and textedit all open.
I went so far as to buy an unknown condition dual 1GHz (it hasn't
worked yet, but I have not given up hope) to replace the single 933
that I put into a DA. At work, it would have been sheer folly to do
that, but it made sense for me at home because of everything that I am
asking my mac to do concurrently.
BTW, do not bother seeing what xBench says, it is not multiprocessor
aware and will only test one processor. Where you would see a
difference with xBench is if you had another app running in the
background, say encoding a DVD with iMovie when you ran it. That will
show where a dual processor really shines.
HTH,
Len
--
G-List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and...
Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives |
-- We have Apple Refurbished Monitors in stock! | & CDRWs on Sale! |
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
G-List list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml>
--> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to: <mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/g-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
iPod Accessories for Less
at 1-800-iPOD.COM
Fast Delivery, Low Price, Good Deal
www.1800ipod.com
