 |
 |
G5 single vs. G5 dual
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
I dont need alot of power but wonder if it wouldn't be smart to get the slowest dual G5 to play it safe. I would probably ad an ATI 9800pro to either one as the stock 5200/9600s are 4 pipe models and slow, and the really fast cards are $450+++.
Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well, I'd say if you can afford the dual, I'd go for it. If budget is a concern, then the single (or the G5 iMac) makes more sense. With the dual processor, when one is busy the other is available to handle other requests. I've been happy with my dual 2.0.
Mike
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Maflynn
Well, I'd say if you can afford the dual, I'd go for it. If budget is a concern, then the single (or the G5 iMac) makes more sense. With the dual processor, when one is busy the other is available to handle other requests. I've been happy with my dual 2.0.
Mike
will the dual version always act as a dual machine to speed thing up, or does it require certain software designed for dual?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Multitasking is the name of the game. Many types of software don't benefit from the second CPU by itself, but there are always many apps running at the same time (in the background, e. g. for printing, the user interface).
Check out how many people still use their dual 450s or so ... and you'll see why it's a wise decision. If you go single, go for the iMac.
|
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by gangster
will the dual version always act as a dual machine to speed thing up, or does it require certain software designed for dual?
Dual processors will alway speed up multitasking, application load times, etc, but for single-process applications and benchmarks (notably games), unless the program is optimized for multithreading, dual processors have limited impact.
As for single vs dual, with the recent revamp to the product lineup, I'd say the 2.0GHz dual over the 1.8GHz single is a no-brainer. Prior to the new models, the difference between a 1.8 single and a 1.8 dual was $500 and the second processor. $500 being a little steep for just a second processor, the single 1.8 made sense. With the new product lineup that $500 gets you not only a second processor, but also a 200MHz speed bump, twice the memory, twice the hard drive space, much better video, and a dual-layer DVD burner. Now the single 1.8 makes very little sense unless you're very short on cash.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
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
