 |
 |
Duals vs. Single
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Sorry if I'm repeating this question.
I have the oppurtunity to get a dual 1.8 G5 at a good price. However I've been waiting for the next revisions of the G5 to come out (hopefully just about 6 weeks to go). My question is if Apple releases a single 2.2 (or similar rating) will the dual 1.8 be faster or slower. I would think the dual would still be faster. Let me know your opinion. I do software development and the faster machine would really help me out.
cheers, scott
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sitting in front of computer
Status:
Offline
|
|
A dual 1.8 would definately be faster than a single 2.2. That is assuming everythign else stays similar.
|
|
I free'd my mind... now it won't come back.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
A dual would be faster assuming the application you are using is multi threaded.
However, this is a moot point about a 2.2ghz single as this machine doesn't exist... unless you know something we don't  
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
One thing thats great with duals is that you get the feeling that multitasking won't effect backround processes because the monitor shows your rarely using both to full capacity so you can leave a process going and play a game and it wont slow it down that much because (at least on my machine) a program rarely uses both processors over 50% together.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
A dual would be faster assuming the application you are using is multi threaded.
However, this is a moot point about a 2.2ghz single as this machine doesn't exist... unless you know something we don't
But usually there is a rule of thumb about the scaling of CPU speeds: a 10 % increase of MHz (or GHz) results in often around 5 % of additional performance.
A second CPU just helps OS X to distribute the load of the OS (QE, services such as network, etc.) onto two CPUs, so (unlike in OS 9) a second CPU will help even if the app doesn't support SMP.
|
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'd take a DP 1.8 over a single anything thats expected out of Apple/IBM at this point.
|
|

|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: norway
Status:
Offline
|
|
Maybe we will se powermacs´s with four processors? But that would mean a lot of heat. And who needs that kind of speed. :-)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally posted by Cadaver:
I'd take a DP 1.8 over a single anything thats expected out of Apple/IBM at this point.
Ditto, any time.
|
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
