[bossep]

Which upgrade will be best speedwise in general a Sonnet 1.4GHz single cpu with L3-cache or a Sonnet double 1.8GHz without L3-cache? I know that X:et adores double cpu.

[Lateralus]

Are you seriously asking this question?

[bossep]

No I am not joking. When I bought my Sonnet Encore 1.2GHz upgrade I was told that the L3-cache support (and lack of originally in my Mac) that the card would give me would make the 1.2GHz better compared to the 1.7GHz. The new 2x cpu-card from Sonnet don't support L3-cache which was the case with the previous 2 x 1.3GHz.

Of course 2 x 1.8 ought to be better than a single one.

[firefly]

The dual 1.8 might have more L2 cache though (512k as opposed to 256k on the 1.4)? Worth checking.

[bossep]

Originally Posted by firefly

The dual 1.8 might have more L2 cache though (512k as opposed to 256k on the 1.4)? Worth checking.

I am pretty sure it is 512k?

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Are you seriously asking this question?

Maybe they made a typo, but I will answer the question as it is written. Dual CPUs at a higher speed is FAR faster than having just one CPU with L3 cache.

[bossep]

Originally Posted by Tuoder

Maybe they made a typo, but I will answer the question as it is written. Dual CPUs at a higher speed is FAR faster than having just one CPU with L3 cache.

Thank you! That was what I was looking for.

[mountainash]

I was looking at this same problem recently. For overall performance a single 1.4 is better (much better) than a single 1.8. The level 3 makes a /huge/ difference. Especially considering that the system bus is less than a 10th the speed of the CPU.

I believe that the sonnet 1.4 now uses a 7457 with 512k cache like the 7447 1.8ghz

Xlr8yourmac did a review of Powerlogix CPU upgrades. The results are broadly significant.

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4CARDS/p...457/index.html

As you can see a dual 7457 1.2GHz with 2Mb level 3 per CPU beats a single 1.8GHz, and is not far behind a dual 1.8Ghz.

For dual CPUs the situation is more complex. It depends on the software you run. Games tend to benefit less than complex apps with multithreads/processes like Logic/Final Cut/Photoshop.

Overall, I'd say that a dual 1.8GHz is going to give you only slightly better performance than a single 1.4GHz 2Mb Level 3 in real world tasks. I'd say between 10 and 20% faster.

If you can find it, I would recommend a dual 1.4GHz.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by ShazamItsDavish2

I was looking at this same problem recently. For overall performance a single 1.4 is better (much better) than a single 1.8. The level 3 makes a /huge/ difference. Especially considering that the system bus is less than a 10th the speed of the CPU.

I believe that the sonnet 1.4 now uses a 7457 with 512k cache like the 7447 1.8ghz

Xlr8yourmac did a review of Powerlogix CPU upgrades. The results are broadly significant.

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G4CARDS/p...457/index.html

As you can see a dual 7457 1.2GHz with 2Mb level 3 per CPU beats a single 1.8GHz, and is not far behind a dual 1.8Ghz.

For dual CPUs the situation is more complex. It depends on the software you run. Games tend to benefit less than complex apps with multithreads/processes like Logic/Final Cut/Photoshop.

Overall, I'd say that a dual 1.8GHz is going to give you only slightly better performance than a single 1.4GHz 2Mb Level 3 in real world tasks. I'd say between 10 and 20% faster.

If you can find it, I would recommend a dual 1.4GHz.

Whether or not individual applications support multithreading is not the end of the story. OSX is capable of scheduling different applications for different cores, vastly improving multitasking. few people never use more than one application at a time.

[Stratus Wrong]

FCP doesn't use both CPUs very well, which sucks.