On Sep 9, 2:44 pm, Jonas Ulrich jonasulrich3...@gmail.com wrote:
for the price of a faster dual processor upgrade card, you could buy a way
way way faster dual g5.
-Jonas
true, and the advantages are not just in the CPU clockspeeds. when i
compare the QS/1GDP to a G5/2GDP, the difference is
just one small point, to a certain extent, you're comparing apples and
oranges, because IIRC, the QS/733 was one of the CPUs apple put out
with no backside cache. that makes a big difference. again, IIRC,
the DA/733s were much faster than the QS/733s for that very reason.
On Sep 8, 5:17 pm,
-- Original message --
Subject: Re: Which is a faster option?
Date:Donnerstag, 10. September 2009N
From:ah...clem boneheads...@gmail.com
To: G-Group g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
just one small point, to a certain extent, you're comparing apples and
oranges, because
-- Original message --
Subject: Re: Which is a faster option?
Date:Donnerstag, 10. September 2009N
From:ah...clem boneheads...@gmail.com
To: G-Group g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
On Sep 9, 2:34 pm, Len Gerstel lgers...@gmail.com wrote:
1) The apps are not dual
-- Original message --
Subject: Re: Which is a faster option?
Date:Donnerstag, 10. September 2009N
From:Mac User #330250 macuser330...@gmx.net
To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
Like coding a video, the decoding of it is also mostly CPU work at first,
the decoded
On Sep 10, 2009, at 1:51 AM, ah...clem wrote:
On Sep 9, 2:34 pm, Len Gerstel lgers...@gmail.com wrote:
1) The apps are not dual processor aware. Most apps are. Even VLC
player is and will split the load across the 2 processors of a dual.
2) You are not doing anything with these systems
She lives in the same town. She doesn't use photoshop but does do
video renering/conversion. But she has one of those Miglia USB video
H264 dongles that is suppossed to take most of the pressure off the
CPU's for that job. Other than that it's just internet. email and
youtube. So I'm not sure she
On Sep 9, 2009, at 6:59 AM, falst...@46 wrote:
She lives in the same town. She doesn't use photoshop but does do
video renering/conversion. But she has one of those Miglia USB video
H264 dongles that is suppossed to take most of the pressure off the
CPU's for that job. Other than that it's
Bruce Johnson wrote:
Len and Andreas clearly have more recent experience than I on this
subject; I'd go with their recommendations and stick to the Dual 1 Gig.
i can only add my personal experience. i do not use the apps you
mention. i do use apps (gaussian and spartan) that do very CPU
On Sep 9, 2009, at 1:20 PM, ah...clem wrote:
Bruce Johnson wrote:
Len and Andreas clearly have more recent experience than I on this
subject; I'd go with their recommendations and stick to the Dual 1
Gig.
i can only add my personal experience. i do not use the apps you
mention. i do
--- On Wed, 9/9/09, ah...clem boneheads...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruce Johnson wrote:
Len and Andreas clearly have more recent experience
than I on this
subject; I'd go with their recommendations and stick
to the Dual 1 Gig.
i can only add my personal experience. i do not use
the apps you
On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:20 AM, ah...clem wrote:
i never have other apps open when the computations are in
progress. i compared a QS/933 to a QS/1GDP and found that on
computations that required several hours to complete, the 933MHz was
(within 0.5%) exactly 93.3% as fast as the dual 1 gig.
for the price of a faster dual processor upgrade card, you could buy a way
way way faster dual g5.
-Jonas
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Bruce Johnson john...@pharmacy.arizona.edu
wrote:
On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:20 AM, ah...clem wrote:
i never have other apps open when the computations are
I already have the card. So it's not a cost issue at this time. As
mentioned above, this question has been raised and discussed on the
net before. Most discussions tend to spiral into personal preference
discussions. I was looking for a more definative answer in actual
benefits or lack thereof to
John Niven wrote:
I find this thread rather surprising. If you research the web, this used to
be a popular Mac question: should I buy the dual or the single? The answer
used to be that you would see no difference unless you were using one of the
few multiple processor aware apps (i.e.
I would actually like to take issue that the Mac OS did not support
multi processors. I seem to remember several machines that were multi
processor from the 603e era, including one with 4 processors, if
memory serves, made by one of the clone manufacturers and I believe
the 8600 and 9600 were
A few days ago. there was an offer of a 1.8GHz card for a G4 as I have in use
at this present moment,
It went up to over € 250 (300 $US) - a G5 could be purchased for that (nearly).
for the price of a faster dual processor upgrade card, you could buy a way
way way faster dual g5.
-Jonas
On Sep 9, 2009, at 2:04 PM, falst...@46 wrote:
I would actually like to take issue that the Mac OS did not support
multi processors. I seem to remember several machines that were multi
processor from the 603e era, including one with 4 processors, if
memory serves, made by one of the clone
:
From: falst...@46 paulall...@cox.net
Subject: Re: Which is a faster option?
To: G-Group g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 4:04 PM
I would actually like to take issue that the Mac OS did not
support
multi processors. I seem to remember several machines that
were
On Sep 9, 2009, at 2:33 PM, John Niven wrote:
That was my point. Apple DID make multiprocesser Macs BEFORE they
had an OS that would use them, which is why this single/dual
question was previously subjective. It depended on what apps you
were going to use.
OSX changed that.
Sorry for the typo enyway'
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml
At 11:30 AM -0700 9/9/2009, John Niven wrote:
I find this thread rather surprising. If you research the web, this
used to be a popular Mac question: should I buy the dual or the
single?
[snip]
and it maxed out BOTH cpu bars. So I rather fancy that I'd prefer a
slower dual than a faster single.
On Sep 9, 2:34 pm, Len Gerstel lgers...@gmail.com wrote:
1) The apps are not dual processor aware. Most apps are. Even VLC
player is and will split the load across the 2 processors of a dual.
2) You are not doing anything with these systems while the apps are
running. Since they do not
My sister has a dual 1ghz Quicksilver and would like to upgrade the
processor. I have a Sonnet 1.4ghz card that will fit but am wondering
if it would really be any faster (if not slower) than the current dual
processor she has. Any thoughts?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
On Sep 8, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Falstaff46 wrote:
My sister has a dual 1ghz Quicksilver and would like to upgrade the
processor. I have a Sonnet 1.4ghz card that will fit but am wondering
if it would really be any faster (if not slower) than the current dual
processor she has. Any thoughts?
On Sep 8, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
On Sep 8, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Falstaff46 wrote:
My sister has a dual 1ghz Quicksilver and would like to upgrade the
processor. I have a Sonnet 1.4ghz card that will fit but am wondering
if it would really be any faster (if not slower) than
-- Original message --
Subject: Re: Which is a faster option?
Date:Dienstag, 8. September 2009N
From:Bruce Johnson john...@pharmacy.arizona.edu
To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
On Sep 8, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Falstaff46 wrote:
My sister has a dual 1ghz Quicksilver
On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Falstaff46 wrote:
My sister has a dual 1ghz Quicksilver and would like to upgrade the
processor. I have a Sonnet 1.4ghz card that will fit but am wondering
if it would really be any faster (if not slower) than the current dual
processor she has. Any thoughts?
28 matches
Mail list logo
