[tpicco]

Are dual processors all that much better all around? A friend of mine wants to outfit an art department for a magazine he's been publishing and is thinking of buying a used DP G5 if he can find one, because someone told him they were the bomb...

I have only ever used single processor Macs... Are they worth it? What situations do they work best in?

Thanking you all in advance...



(edited to fix atrocious grammar...)

[lenox]

Yes, dual processors are worth the hype. This might have not been true in the days of OS 9 and prior, when only a few choice apps would use both processors, but nowadays we have os x....and quite a few apps that like to use both processors.

My first dual processor mac was a dual 867mhz G4 mdd...I could never go back to a single cpu machine again!

[gururafiki]

Originally posted by lenox:
Yes, dual processors are worth the hype. This might have not been true in the days of OS 9 and prior, when only a few choice apps would use both processors, but nowadays we have os x....and quite a few apps that like to use both processors.

My first dual processor mac was a dual 867mhz G4 mdd...I could never go back to a single cpu machine again!

When you read about people's computers being Snappy�, then it is most likely because they have a dual processor machine.

[MORT A POTTY]

yes, they are the ****... that's why I'm getting a dual processor upgrade for my aging Quicksilver (single CPU, doh!)

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by tpicco:
Are dual processors all that much better all around? A friend of mine wants to outfit an art department for a magazine he's been publishing and is thinking of buying a used DP G5 if he can find one, because someone told him they were the bomb...

I have only ever used single processor Macs... Are they worth it? What situations do they work best in?

Thanking you all in advance...



(edited to fix atrocious grammar...)

Double the CPU is a lot more than just hype... it's faster, a lot faster!

[macaddict0001]

They are more than worth the hype.

[TimmyDee51]

I agree with everyone else. I will never buy a desktop with one processor again.

[driven]

I've used Single Processor Macs & Windows machines as well as Dual Processor Macs & Windows Machines.

On a Mac .... YES: It's worth the hype. Amazingly fast.

On a Windows machine: No ... not worth the cost increase. Only about a 20% improvement in speed ... on a good day.

[OreoCookie]

Yes. Having two CPUs has increasingly more benefits (on Windows, soon, too), simply because all major CPU manufacturers have dual core CPUs in their roadmaps, hence more and more effort will be put in threading software, so you benefit even more from a second CPU.

[greenmeanie]

come on if your not running a server where there is a high load of traffic there is no reason to own a DP.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by greenmeanie:
come on if your not running a server where there is a high load of traffic there is no reason to own a DP.

I'm not sure you understand the technological details of these things ...

Especially for people who encode videos (that includes even iDVD) benefit from a second CPU. Also, even if you have a server that has a high load, you don't necessarily need a second CPU (e. g. if your server is connected to a `slow' SDSL line). Even slow CPUs are plenty to saturate a 100 MBit line.

And besides, the development of new CPUs goes down that road anyway. If (for a little more) you get a computer which is considerably faster (i. e. it has a longer life span), then why not?

[Groovy]

Originally posted by greenmeanie:
come on if your not running a server where there is a high load of traffic there is no reason to own a DP.

haha you must be trolling because you are so wrong.

encoding video and audio much faster.
games much faster
3D work much faster
OS much faster (example main app gets 100% of 1 CPU while OS does quartz, GUI
and what not on the other CPU)
and yes by golly even photoshop is much faster
etc...

even non dual CPU aware apps are faster because all OS tasks and e-mail
checking and other stuff can be on one CPU while your non aware app gets
100% of the other CPU.

I have even seen greater than 2x speed up on apps. Most people
their first thought is IMPOSSIBLE and they would be wrong. We have some
single CPU boxes where the the main app was using 80% and everything else
was using 20% of the CPU. We moved to Dual boxes and the main app
was now getting 100% of 1 CPU and 80% of the other CPU and the rest
was getting the same 20%. the main app now received

80% + 100% and thus more than doubled its performance.

if you happen to be running 2 apps that need a lot of CPU then Dual
CPU is a must. Example: encoding video while also encoding audio
at the same time. A very common event where i work.

I would never buy a single CPU box. You get so much more with just a little
more money being spent. Tiger makes Dual CPUs even more efficient.

[d.fine]

Originally posted by gururafiki:
When you read about people's computers being Snappy�, then it is most likely because they have a dual processor machine.

I love my Dual 2.0 G5. At work there's a single 2.0 PC that I 'have' to use (thank god I get to take my pb) and it suck! I hate that machine, if I dare to open Illustrator and Photoshop at the same time, I'll be spinning my fingers for 15 minutes just to save a 50mb file. At home on G5 that takes about 10 seconds with a lot more apps open! DP rules.

[barang]

Roughly what percentage increase in speed is there for DP machines? Obviously you can't add two 2.0 ghz CPU's and get 4.0 ghz, due to
other factors. But would two 2.0's be about the same speed as a single 3.0 would be?

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally posted by barang:
Roughly what percentage increase in speed is there for DP machines? Obviously you can't add two 2.0 ghz CPU's and get 4.0 ghz, due to
other factors. But would two 2.0's be about the same speed as a single 3.0 would be?

definitely... and that's with a G4! (provided you can OC one to those speeds)

the G5s I hear have better SMP support, so I'd expect about a 70 percent increase.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by barang:
Roughly what percentage increase in speed is there for DP machines? Obviously you can't add two 2.0 ghz CPU's and get 4.0 ghz, due to
other factors. But would two 2.0's be about the same speed as a single 3.0 would be?

It's totally dependent on what you're doing. Obviously the best you can get is a 100% improvement, but in the real world that rarely if ever happens. Worst case is probably around 5%, with various little background tasks being offloaded to the second CPU. For stuff like 3D rendering, or various video tasks, you'll get almost the full speed improvement. For general usage, you'll get some speed improvement, and also a responsiveness improvement because it'll be able to do two things at once instead of switching things rapidly to give the illusion of doing more than one thing at once.

[power142]

The dual processor model is worth it if the machine will do lots of heavy lifting ie running processor intensive applications frequently or for extended periods of time. It helps keep the machine usable while it is performing the calculations it needs to do.

Whether it is worth it economically is another question..... everything comes at a price, and it depends on whether you can justify the extra cost for a value-added item. Many people are very happy with their single processor machines - remember, these account for most Macs sold whether they are eMacs, iMacs, iBooks or Powerbooks. Dual processor models are the cream of the crop, and carry the price tag to prove it

[macaddict0001]

Originally posted by barang:
Roughly what percentage increase in speed is there for DP machines? Obviously you can't add two 2.0 ghz CPU's and get 4.0 ghz, due to
other factors. But would two 2.0's be about the same speed as a single 3.0 would be?

They would be more than that, usually there is a 75 to 90 percent speed up. so more than single 3. Personally I would take a dual 1.8 over a single 2.5 if it were to exist.

[greenmeanie]

if you look at the computer specs the DP's have a better bus speed which makes it "snappy" give that bus speed to the single and it will be snappy also

use a SCSI drive in a single cpu mac and it will feel "snappy"

and like i said is the dual prosessor worth the 3 sec advantage (guessing at this) its your wallet.

i think most people can do just fine with a single processor if they would give you the DP's bus speeds.

[iREZ]

Didn't they in the first single 1.6 G5 and 1.8G5 models (granted the 1.6 had less seing how its 200MHz slower)?

[Tarcat]

I have an old G4 533 dual. Its still plenty quick for everyday use. Great machine.

[Chinasaur]

BeOS supported dual's from the start. Linux supports duals.

Try it. You won't believe how responsive and powerful your system feels with two processors or more.

A lot depends on how optimized the OS is for multi-threading (BeOS and OS X).

Just do it.. you'll be fine.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by greenmeanie:
come on if your not running a server where there is a high load of traffic there is no reason to own a DP.

First off, what the heck is a Rectory school? I know what a Seminary school is, and what a Rectory is, but a Rectory school??

And finally... you're wrong. Dual CPU is useful for Photoshop, FCP3/4, and Maya among other real apps. Then there are all of the 3D games.. etc..

[Mafia]

Originally posted by greenmeanie:
if you look at the computer specs the DP's have a better bus speed which makes it "snappy" give that bus speed to the single and it will be snappy also

use a SCSI drive in a single cpu mac and it will feel "snappy"

and like i said is the dual prosessor worth the 3 sec advantage (guessing at this) its your wallet.

i think most people can do just fine with a single processor if they would give you the DP's bus speeds.

heh the dp does a lot more then makes your computer feel Snappy�. it has its advantages with applications, running multiple applications, general operating system use, and pretty much anything that is processor intensive.

[gururafiki]

AFAIK it is Snappy�, not "snappy."

[Turnpike]

I'm going to have to agree with those that said that once you get a dual, you can't stand to go back to single. Not on my primary machine, at least... I can accept singles still for laptops, or when I'm home using my parent's computer, et cetera... but I got a dual 1.8 and it is AMAZING. Nothing brings this baby down... I'll have both CPUs pegged, then open another app with no noticeable lag whatsoever. Pure beauty.


Oh, and don't forget... RAM, RAM, RAM, RAM, RAM... you can never have too much. Heck, I'm not sure if you can ever have enough. I've got a gig, and it is the only thing that ever really slows my computer down... swapping to the hard drive on occasion (that and things that tax my "average" video card... Halo, I'm looking at you).

[Kenneth]

I joined the hype in Feb/03 by purchasing the DP 1.25 (FW800). I have never owned a PowerMac before. It was a great sweet machine. Recently, I use FFMpegX a lot. This app has an option to select dual CPU for encoding video. Overall speaking, I am really impress.

[Mafia]

Originally posted by Kenneth:
I joined the hype in Feb/03 by purchasing the DP 1.25 (FW800). I have never owned a PowerMac before. It was a great sweet machine. Recently, I use FFMpegX a lot. This app has an option to select dual CPU for encoding video. Overall speaking, I am really impress.

bah where is that option in ffmpegx! i can't find it. either way i've been using mencoder osx, i actually like it a lot better. plus you can encode to h264.

[Kenneth]

Originally posted by Mafia:
bah where is that option in ffmpegx! i can't find it. either way i've been using mencoder osx, i actually like it a lot better. plus you can encode to h264.

Not all of the options offer the user to select "Normal/Backgound/Dual CPU" threading. I was talking "mpeg2enc" -> Options -> Thread.

[driven]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Yes. Having two CPUs has increasingly more benefits (on Windows, soon, too), simply because all major CPU manufacturers have dual core CPUs in their roadmaps, hence more and more effort will be put in threading software, so you benefit even more from a second CPU.

OSX seems to be far better optimized for DPs than Windows does. Even Windows Server (in it's various instantations) doesn't make the gains that it really should on a DP machine.

OS/2 was better back in it's day. Linux benefits, though not nearly as well as OSX. Not sure why ... but that does seem to be the case.

With the advent of dual-core processors (such as the P4 w/ Hyperthreading) and the various forthcoming AMD offerings I would expect this situation to improve.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by MORT A POTTY:
definitely... and that's with a G4! (provided you can OC one to those speeds)

the G5s I hear have better SMP support, so I'd expect about a 70 percent increase.

The difference is the G4 had both CPUs sitting on a single slow bus that would have been insufficient to keep ONE processor sufficiently fed.

The G5 fixes this problem (mostly)

My G5 has made me glaringly aware, more so than ever, that the Hard Drive is the biggest performance bottleneck (since it is really the ONLY thing I have to wait on with this machine).

[Randman]

While Dualies are better, performance-wise, don't forget ram. More ram will help any processor, single or double. It still amazes me how many people have tricked-out machines then handicap it by running the absolute minimum of ram.
For a design house, dualies would be good but a single with maxed ram would still be a snappy (lower-case snap) computer, especially since PhotoShop can only use 2GB of ram (bring on PS 10 when it's that limit is expected to change).

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally posted by jcadam:
The difference is the G4 had both CPUs sitting on a single slow bus that would have been insufficient to keep ONE processor sufficiently fed.

The G5 fixes this problem (mostly)

My G5 has made me glaringly aware, more so than ever, that the Hard Drive is the biggest performance bottleneck (since it is really the ONLY thing I have to wait on with this machine).

this is very true... but you still will notice a huge improvement wiht a dual processor machine even if they are G4s. G5s though... dual 2.5Ghz with each having their own 1.25Ghz FSB... THAT IS INSANE!!!

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by jcadam:
The difference is the G4 had both CPUs sitting on a single slow bus that would have been insufficient to keep ONE processor sufficiently fed.

The G5 fixes this problem (mostly)

My G5 has made me glaringly aware, more so than ever, that the Hard Drive is the biggest performance bottleneck (since it is really the ONLY thing I have to wait on with this machine).

Thus, my choice to have two... The Raptor for the heavy lifting of boot/OS and the Maxtor for data.. It's a kind of multi-threading of sorts where you can be running an app off of one drive, and getting the data for that app from another, and therefore you can come close to saturating the 150mbs SATA bus, which is the bottle neck on this machine.

The only annoyance is that Apple refuses to let me store my iPhoto library on the Maxtor which slows down my Photoshop launch by more than 50% when opening up a RAW image.

Apple needs to fix the iphoto library location if they want iphoto to be taken more seriously.

[michaelb]

I agree with UnixMac: For ultimate performance:

1. Get a dual (G5 of course)
2. Get >2GB RAM
3. Get a Raptor to use as the boot drive.

[jcadam]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
Thus, my choice to have two... The Raptor for the heavy lifting of boot/OS and the Maxtor for data.. It's a kind of multi-threading of sorts where you can be running an app off of one drive, and getting the data for that app from another, and therefore you can come close to saturating the 150mbs SATA bus, which is the bottle neck on this machine.

The only annoyance is that Apple refuses to let me store my iPhoto library on the Maxtor which slows down my Photoshop launch by more than 50% when opening up a RAW image.

Apple needs to fix the iphoto library location if they want iphoto to be taken more seriously.

The 'iPhoto Library' folder under my $home/pictures directory is an alias that points to a folder on my 2nd hard drive.

[JB72]

Originally posted by greenmeanie:
come on if your not running a server where there is a high load of traffic there is no reason to own a DP.

Rendering in FCP, it makes huge difference.

[JB72]

Originally posted by driven:
OSX seems to be far better optimized for DPs than Windows does. Even Windows Server (in it's various instantations) doesn't make the gains that it really should on a DP machine.

OS/2 was better back in it's day. Linux benefits, though not nearly as well as OSX. Not sure why ... but that does seem to be the case.

With the advent of dual-core processors (such as the P4 w/ Hyperthreading) and the various forthcoming AMD offerings I would expect this situation to improve.

OS X is pretty darn good with dual CPUS, but from what I understand, BeOS (with it's pervasive multithreading) was the king of multi-CPU usage.

[Goldfinger]

Originally posted by jcadam:
The 'iPhoto Library' folder under my $home/pictures directory is an alias that points to a folder on my 2nd hard drive.

Do you use an alias or a symlink ?

[Tyre MacAdmin]

SMP is a great advantage as long as it's well written for. There is some overhead in a dual cpu system that has to be accepted and your system will use a little bit more ram for system processes... but other than that it basically doubles the cpu's processing power. Not only is it like having 4Ghz cpu if you have a dual 2ghz, you've also now have twice the amount of special instruction set units such as altivec which speeds up things even more. This accounted for you've got a sytem that's just as fast as a 4ghz cpu, given the application is written correctly to take advantage of both smp and altivec. Most overhead is nominal in this type of situation. Since OS X has been highly optimised for dual cpu's, along with most of the apps from FCP down to even iTunes, you've got a system that is much more powerful than a regular single cpu system running OS X. Optimization is *everything*... the more a program is looked at and optimised the better it gets and this is multiplied when it's smp aware.

For example on the x86 side of things, I've got 2 rigs that do mpeg-2 encoding with an app called Tmpgenc. This app is smp aware... one rig is a dual athlon 2000 MP+, and the other is a 3ghz P4. even though the P4 has a wider fsb, extra instruction sets, and a tad more sytem ram, a 2hour mpeg-2 clip re-encode takes 1/3 the time easy on the dual athlon.(both systems running XP Pro) So you can see that if you are doing something that is cpu intenisve such as video editing it makes sense to buy a dual cpu workstation since it will duoble the speed at which your system will work.

[xe0]

yes

[waffffffle]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
The only annoyance is that Apple refuses to let me store my iPhoto library on the Maxtor which slows down my Photoshop launch by more than 50% when opening up a RAW image.

Apple needs to fix the iphoto library location if they want iphoto to be taken more seriously.

This is easy to do. There is an iPhoto Library Manager program that makes the process even simpler.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by waffffffle:
This is easy to do. There is an iPhoto Library Manager program that makes the process even simpler.

IF this works, you are a Saint! An absolute Saint!

[addiecool]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
The only annoyance is that Apple refuses to let me store my iPhoto library on the Maxtor which slows down my Photoshop launch by more than 50% when opening up a RAW image.

Apple needs to fix the iphoto library location if they want iphoto to be taken more seriously.

Its is pretty easy with iPhoto 4.

1. Quit iPhoto
2. Move the iPhoto folder from your home directory on the raptor to the maxtor
3. Launch iPhoto.
4. It will ask you to either find the library or create a new one.
5. Select "Find Library" and select the iPhoto Directory on the maxtor.
6. Thats it. From now on you have your library wherever required.
7.

[KeilwerthSX90R]

For web browsing, email, occasional iPhoto, Office apps, etc. will there be a big enough speed boost to warrant getting a DP G5 over the iMac G5? Expandability isn't an issue for me?

Thanks

[addiecool]

Originally posted by KeilwerthSX90R:
For web browsing, email, occasional iPhoto, Office apps, etc. will there be a big enough speed boost to warrant getting a DP G5 over the iMac G5? Expandability isn't an issue for me?

Thanks

The Imac G5 will suffice for the kind of work you are looking for. If expandability isn't an issue then you can go for it. You can save $$$ buying a iMac G5 and get lotsa RAM.

[P]

Originally posted by KeilwerthSX90R:
For web browsing, email, occasional iPhoto, Office apps, etc. will there be a big enough speed boost to warrant getting a DP G5 over the iMac G5? Expandability isn't an issue for me?

Thanks

No. In fact, for those apps you'd be fine with a Mac mini, slightly upgraded in the memory department, or a used machine.