Are duals much faster than singles?

rustedborg

I am getting ready to buy another PowerMac G4 for Photoshop and iMovie and some additional graphic design related work.



Money IS an issue, but so is performance. I can't afford a G5 PowerMac right now, but I can afford a G4. My question is:



Will a dual 1.25GHz G4 PowerMac be considerably faster in Photoshop and iMovie than a single-processor 1.25GHz G4 PowerMac?



I'm willing to pay the extra cash if the difference is SERIOUS, but there are expensive software packages I'd like to buy if I don't really need a dual processor computer.

clayton magnet

OMG yes.



You certainly won't regret going dual, but you may regret not doing it.



For those apps, as well as overall system responsiveness, you really can't beat dual processors.

thuh freak

i'm inclined to say "yes". With a dual processor machine, two operations can fly at the same time (well, technically, two "threads" of operation). I don't know how well threaded Pshop or iMovie are, but having them both open simultaneously and working with them would yield noticeable difference on a dual v. single proc machine. I would imagine, in my blissful ignorance, that a heavy-hitting program like photoshop takes heavy advantage of threads, so on its own it should be noticeably faster on a dual. Even if it isn't, multitasking will be faster on a dual.

brussell

You'll find that a lot of people will say "you have to get a dual no matter what." I don't think it's quite that simple. Duals will really shine under these conditions:



1. You are running a processor-intensive app that is designed to take advantage of multiple processors.

2. You have two processor-intensive apps crunching at the same time, even if they're not optimized for duals.



So, if you run a processor-taxing app a lot, and it really does well with duals, then you should definitely get a dual. They can be close to twice as fast as a single processor on those apps. But it only makes sense if it's really processor-intensive, and you run it a lot. Otherwise, a few seconds a week or something is not worth the money, IMO.



Or, if you run multiple apps at the same time a lot, and they tend to be processor-taxing apps, you should definitely get a dual. But they both should be processor-taxing and you should do it a lot for it to be worth it. For example, it's probably not worth the extra expense to be a little bit faster working in TextEdit while iTunes is playing some music. Together, those two tasks don't tax even a single processor enough to really show that big of a difference for the money it would cost to get a dual, IMO.



I'd look at my usage, and see if I'm in at least one of these two situations regularly enough to make it worth it.

rustedborg

Quote:

Originally posted by BRussell

You'll find that a lot of people will say "you have to get a dual no matter what." I don't think it's quite that simple. Duals will really shine under these conditions:



1. You are running a processor-intensive app that is designed to take advantage of multiple processors.

2. You have two processor-intensive apps crunching at the same time, even if they're not optimized for duals.



So, if you run a processor-taxing app a lot, and it really does well with duals, then you should definitely get a dual. They can be close to twice as fast as a single processor on those apps. But it only makes sense if it's really processor-intensive, and you run it a lot. Otherwise, a few seconds a week or something is not worth the money, IMO.



Or, if you run multiple apps at the same time a lot, and they tend to be processor-taxing apps, you should definitely get a dual. But they both should be processor-taxing and you should do it a lot for it to be worth it. For example, it's probably not worth the extra expense to be a little bit faster working in TextEdit while iTunes is playing some music. Together, those two tasks don't tax even a single processor enough to really show that big of a difference for the money it would cost to get a dual, IMO.



I'd look at my usage, and see if I'm in at least one of these two situations regularly enough to make it worth it.

Well, my single processor G3 machine is S-L-O-W. I'm not sure if it's because it's a G3, a single processor, or both. All I know is I do a TON of Photoshop work, I like to play MP3s while working, and I often use iMovie to create movie files.



I want the fastest machine I can afford, but I'd also like to have a little money left over to upgrade to the newest versions of my software. If the Dual G4 is going to be much faster than the single, I think I'll get the single and take a little while longer to get the newest software. That said, if the dual won't be that much faster, I will get a single and invest in software.



My main concern is with Photoshop. I'm spending most of my day with that app.

powerdoc

If your prime concern is photoshop, take the dual. Anyway all part of photoshop are not MP aware, but the part who are MP aware, will bring you a boost of 80 %.

curiousuburb

if you can wait until MWSF, new G5s may bump the low end down to G4 prices



and for heavy PS work, a G5 will beat a dual G4 at certain tasks

placebo

I'll agree with Powerdoc on that. The other 20% gets lost in bus and other system inefficiencies.

thuh freak

Quote:

Originally posted by Placebo

I'll agree with Powerdoc on that. The other 20% gets lost in bus and other system inefficiencies.

iirc, its not 20% lost, its a great deal less, like 5% or less perhaps. I think moto/ibm are a lot better at handling the duality of machinery, especially compared to intel/amd. atleast, i think from the hdwr perspective its something like 5%. at the OS or kernel level, there's probably a bit more overhead, but i still doubt it amounts to 20%.