[klinux]

Is there such a list i.e. list of applications that are optimized for dual processors?

I am a switcher and I like my iBook so much that I want to convert more systems to Apple ones. I want to see if getting a DP system would be worthwhile base on the applications that support it:

Here's my limited knowledge:


Optimized for DP:

OS X
Quake 3
Adobe Photoshop (some filters)
Final Cut Express
Project Builder
BIAS Deck
Lightwave
Cinema 4D


Not optimized (major applications only) but may peform better due to multi-threaded OS on a multi-processor system :
All iApps
Unreal Tournament 2003

[CharlesS]

All apps that are multi-threaded will take advantage of dual processors. That makes for a pretty long list...

One app that uses dual processors in a pretty nice way is Project Builder. If you have two processors, it compiles two source files at a time in different threads while building, causing each processor to be utilized.

[klinux]

That's what I am saying, I don't think that many apps are multi-threaded though e.g. X11, iApps, etc.

But thanks for your input, please keep them coming.

[Eug]

Cinema 4D

Just how MP aware is UT2003? I thought it was only minorly dual optimized.

As for Photoshop, some filters are dual aware and some have barely any speedup from dual.

[Hydra]

Originally posted by Eug:
Cinema 4D

Just how MP aware is UT2003? I thought it was only minorly dual optimized.

As for Photoshop, some filters are dual aware and some have barely any speedup from dual.

UT2003 is not very multiprocessor aware but any OSX game can take advantage of core-audio and effectively offload sound duties to the second cpu. So a dual 1 GHz Mac will show a 10-20% gain in game speed from having the ability to run audio and all other processes on one cpu and the game on the other- over a Single GHz Mac (all other things being equal). Nothing earth shattering but a nice improvement nonetheless.

Quake3 is the gold standard for SMP in an OSX game, it very nearly doubles the performance but this is more the exception than the rule. I posted some benches in one thread for UT2003 and forgot all about the updated sound patch. It helps the performance on single processor systems more (20-30%) than a dual which already has an advantage in sound but I saw about a 10% boost after running the patch on my dual G5/9800.

-Jerry C.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Photoshop seems to use BOTH my processors no matter what I do. And I don't mean filters.

[gregomni]

OmniWeb is pervasively multithreaded.

OmniGraffle is multithreaded for automated layout, and in version 3.1 has multithreaded drawing and display, so Feels Snappy® on duals.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by klinux:
That's what I am saying, I don't think that many apps are multi-threaded though e.g. X11, iApps, etc.

Any app that can perform a task without beachballing for the duration of that task is multithreaded.

<shameless plug>Pacifist, for example, is multi-threaded, as you can see when you extract a file. While it is extracting, you can still select the menus, browse other packages, etc.</shameless plug>

[Uncle Skeleton]

does iDVD count as an iApp? it's insanely multithreaded and uses about 99% of both procs while encoding

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
does iDVD count as an iApp? it's insanely multithreaded and uses about 99% of both procs while encoding

Yes, it's an iApp.

So is iTunes, and it lets you browse around while it plays music.

So is iMovie, and it doesn't beachball when it's applying an effect either.

So it's true, klinux really needs to take back his comment about the iApps.

[Eug]

So is iMovie, and it doesn't beachball when it's applying an effect either.

Dual processors doesn't speed up iMovie rendering performance at all AFAIK. A dual 2.0 is barely faster than a single 1.8.

iTunes does encode faster on a dual system though, as long as you remove the optical drive from the equation, because it can be the bottleneck.

UT2003 is not very multiprocessor aware but any OSX game can take advantage of core-audio and effectively offload sound duties to the second cpu. So a dual 1 GHz Mac will show a 10-20% gain in game speed from having the ability to run audio and all other processes on one cpu and the game on the other- over a Single GHz Mac (all other things being equal).

I'll have to read more about the UT2003 sound. On other games on PCs, shutting the sound off completely only gives maybe a 5% speed boost if you're lucky, with something like a 1 GHz PIII.

Photoshop seems to use BOTH my processors no matter what I do. And I don't mean filters.

Well, Photoshop is partially dual optimized I'm told. I'm just not sure how much (besides the filters). And plus there's always the OS X effect on duals which helps. It's just that it's not as dual optimized as something like Quake III.

Plus, IIRC I thought you're using an older sub 1 GHz dual G4 setup. A single G5 1.8 would blow that system away in basically any app, including well-optimized ones for dual. I think you'd be more than happy with a G5 1.8 Photoshop machine with 2 GB RAM. That said, a dual 2.0 would be even better.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Eug:
Dual processors doesn't speed up iMovie rendering performance at all AFAIK. A dual 2.0 is barely faster than a single 1.8.

It is multi-threaded, though, and the original poster was claiming that it wasn't. Because it is multi-threaded, any rendering you're doing will run on a separate processor from anything else you happen to do in the app while it is working.

I would suspect that dual processors would probably also help while importing, when it simultaneously plays the footage while it imports. I would guess that those two things would probably go on different processors.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by Eug:
Plus, IIRC I thought you're using an older sub 1 GHz dual G4 setup. A single G5 1.8 would blow that system away in basically any app, including well-optimized ones for dual. I think you'd be more than happy with a G5 1.8 Photoshop machine with 2 GB RAM. That said, a dual 2.0 would be even better.

I use the dual at work for print work, the 450 G4 is for web production which it is fine at.

Anywho, I am getting a Dual 2GHz G5. Not because I am looking for dual aware apps, but like I have said before I am almost NEVER doing one thing at once. With the Dual at work once CPU is being eaten by something and the other is left for me to switch between other apps and use that. Much of the time I am playing iTunes, importing photos, coping files, photoshop, quark, transmit, dreamweaver, fireworks and Illustrator all at the same time. This is not an exaggeration, I really need all of them open and switching between them constantly when working.

[klinux]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Any app that can perform a task without beachballing for the duration of that task is multithreaded.

You may want to check your definitions. I can converse with more than one person in AIM doesn't mean it dual processor aware. In virtually everything I have read so far, the iApps are not MP aware.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by klinux:
You may want to check your definitions. I can converse with more than one person in AIM doesn't mean it dual processor aware. In virtually everything I have read so far, the iApps are not MP aware.

Any time some app uses threads, it's going to be using the second processor. It may not be as heavily optimized as you want, but it will be using MP.

[klinux]

If you want to be picky - whatever - note this thread is titled "list of applications that are optimized for dual processors".

[Eug]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
I use the dual at work for print work, the 450 G4 is for web production which it is fine at.

Anywho, I am getting a Dual 2GHz G5. Not because I am looking for dual aware apps, but like I have said before I am almost NEVER doing one thing at once. With the Dual at work once CPU is being eaten by something and the other is left for me to switch between other apps and use that. Much of the time I am playing iTunes, importing photos, coping files, photoshop, quark, transmit, dreamweaver, fireworks and Illustrator all at the same time. This is not an exaggeration, I really need all of them open and switching between them constantly when working.

Yeah, a dual 2.0 will be nice.

I wonder what the reviews by guys like you will be for the 1.8 though. I suspect a single 1.8 with 2 GB RAM would perform just fine. (Well it would at least with iTunes, Photoshop and Dreamweaver, etc. Dunno about Quark but I would hope so.)

By the way, you don't mind Quark for OS X? I've heard lots of complaints about it.

[Eug]

This guy doesn't seem to have problems doing a bazillion things at once on his G5 1.8 (2 GB RAM):

Earlier today I was:

1. Copying several thousand files from an external HD to an internal HD.

2. Burning several thousand files onto a DVD

3. Uploading a several gig file to a server over a network.

4. Downloading some work graphics from an ftp server at 150K/sec.

5. Adding thousands of songs in itunes.

and

6. Watching a DVD without noticeably dropping frames...

all at the same time... all without any feeling of lag or dragginess.

This, I think, is where the G5 shines...not just the ability to multitask, but the ability to *really* multitask doing serious disk/processsor intensive tasks at once. Of course I do have a fairly decent system (2 gigs memory, firewire 800 external, and so on), but my G4 system was also maxed out and it could never handle all this stuff at once... Not even close. This is very valuable to me because I am constantly dealing with a sea of data that I have to sort through.

[kennedy]

Some of the posts are missing the real point.

Yes, all apps should have multi-threaded GUIs and should thus take advantage of the second processor with no extra effort. Let's assume all but really lousy apps do that. Boring stuff.

The real question is what apps take advantage of dual processors in their processing... in their computations... in their real work.

Consider properly-written program X with fully multi-threaded GUI. No matter what its doing in the background, the GUI remains snappy. However, no matter how many processors you have in your machine, the background processing takes about the same time (maybe 10-20% quicker due to the GUI activity not stealing cycles). That is not uncommon. Why?

Because its really easy to code a multi-threaded GUI. Its not so easy to code multi-threaded manipulation of your underlying data structures. So, its not uncommon that behind the multi-threaded GUI is a single-threaded data processing engine. The GUI just queues up a series of commands for that single-threaded engine to process.

The next step up is not too hard... put a multi-threaded command processor behind the multi-threaded GUI. It requires you make sure any precedences between the commands are respected, but other than that its pretty easy. So, each command queued by the GUI is run in its own thread. That way, two commands will run much faster on a dual processor than on a single processor (each command will get its own processor, without the app needing to be dual processor aware).

However, if each command is still a single thread (as is typical), then long-running commands will still take just as long, dual processor or not.

The next step up is the multi-threading of individual commands, for any command that might be long-running.

I'd be interested in good answers to the query originally posted...

Which applications have optimized their long-running commands/functions to take advantage of dual processors, beyond simply the offloading of the GUI in separate threads?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Eug:

By the way, you don't mind Quark for OS X? I've heard lots of complaints about it.

We tried the demo and it offers nothing but OSX compatibility for $1200. It also no longer lets you open an image through the publisher (something we probably do every minute) and it does not let you save as Quark 4 files which we have to do before taking it to the printers. Also, it doesn't work with suitcase which we also need. To top it off you can only install it on ONE computer.

Needless to say we are sticking with Quark 5 in classic as it runs remarkably well. When inDesign 3 comes out we will be moving to that.

[klinux]

Hmm, since I rarely do more than one thing at a time, I think the savings from buying a one-processor machine more be more offset the speed loss (buy another fast PC?).

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
We tried the demo and it offers nothing but OSX compatibility for $1200.

So it is pretty much like PS 7.

The first carbonization from the lazy ass mamas (Adobe, Quark, M$ etc.) don't utilize the abilities of OS X to any extent.

That is unfortunate

[clarkgoble]

Originally posted by kennedy:
Some of the posts are missing the real point.

Yes, all apps should have multi-threaded GUIs and should thus take advantage of the second processor with no extra effort. Let's assume all but really lousy apps do that. Boring stuff.

Actually in Jaguar it is very difficult to multithread your GUI. Most of the window routines don't allow them to be easily multithreaded. More of these (along with QT) are improved in Panther although I've not seen a list of re-entrant safe and thread safe APIs. (There is one for Jaguar on Apple's web site)

This means that by and large you have your entire GUI in one thread and then ideally the actual "machine" of your program in an other thread. However it is very easy to run into problems, as Apple's Finder shows.

[Developer]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
All apps that are multi-threaded will take advantage of dual processors. That makes for a pretty long list...

I believe this to be true for all preemptively threaded applications on OS X. Cooperatively threaded applications will not take advantage of dual processors however (obviously), and that's a large portion of Carbon ports.

Any app that can perform a task without beachballing for the duration of that task is multithreaded.

That's not true. There are other techniques. You can use timers for example to process lengthy tasks - together with events all in one thread.

[Immortal K-Mart Employee]

Originally posted by voodoo:
So it is pretty much like PS 7.

The first carbonization from the lazy ass mamas (Adobe, Quark, M$ etc.) don't utilize the abilities of OS X to any extent.

That is unfortunate

Sorta, photoshop 7 did add the healing brush which is great but most of all it didn't take away many often used features and have nasty copy protection.