New Powermacs: Would you rather have a 2x867MHz or a single 1.2+ GHz?

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Assuming all other things are equal, would you rather have a dual 867 MHz proc or a single 1.2 GHz proc?



I know that the theoretical power of two 867's is better than the theoretical power of a single 1.2 GHz chip, but I'm not the kind of guy who does lots of proc-intensive things at once. Usually, I do just one. I can't remeber the last time I rendered a complicated DV effect AND played Quake 3, for example.....



So, while I applaud greatly the move to faster AND dual chips in the Powermac, I question whether or not dualies will offer much power to users like me.



I have no proof of this, but I'd suspect the cost of two of the slower procs is in the same neighborhood as one of the faster ones.



And I'll admit owning the faster G4 evAr appeals to me. I'm not entirely devoid of spec envy; I just don't base my purchases on it.



Jet, who thinks FH is just full of whiny bitches



ps - this post is predicated on the idea that the Macminute/Thinksecret specs are roughly true. It's over here in CH because I can't stand FH any longer, and am going to actively avoid it as much as possible.



[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Jet Powers ]</p>
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    rampancyrampancy Posts: 363member
    Good question, but I would base my buying decision on other factors as well, like price, and other features (i.e Gfx card, FSB, etc.).



    Ok, so hypothetically speaking, if I could choose between two identical systems that had either a single 1.2 Ghz+ or a DP 867, I'd probably go for the single processor. I'm not a Photoshop jockey, nor am I a hardcore gamer, and I don't do stuff like DV work (though I might in the future). For general computing, a single processor should be just fine.
  • Reply 2 of 23
    rogue27rogue27 Posts: 607member
    I still think they're going to have a seperate bus for each processor so they can use up all of that DDR performance...



    Well, I don't know enough to know if that would really work or not, but it would match with some rumors MOSR was posting a year or two back.



    Anyway, dual processors is always going to be helpful. At the very least, it lets one do OS stuff and one do application stuff, even if you are never doing anything complex...



    but then again, if you're never doing anything complex, then why do you even want a PowerMac?
  • Reply 3 of 23
    Flexibility. Performance. Video card choice. PCI slots. RAM. Giant honking monitors. etc.



    It's not that I don't do anything complex, it's that I never do two complex things at once.



    I'll do some DV, or I'll play a game, or maybe screw around in PS, but never in combination.



    Jet
  • Reply 4 of 23
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    I think I'd go for the single.
  • Reply 5 of 23
    I'd buy 2 Athlons....
  • Reply 6 of 23
    rogue27rogue27 Posts: 607member
    [quote]Originally posted by Jet Powers:

    <strong>Flexibility. Performance. Video card choice. PCI slots. RAM. Giant honking monitors. etc.



    It's not that I don't do anything complex, it's that I never do two complex things at once.



    I'll do some DV, or I'll play a game, or maybe screw around in PS, but never in combination.



    Jet</strong><hr></blockquote>





    I suppose you never use Photoshop and the application that will actually use the pictures at the same time? Oh, nobody ever uses Photoshop *and* After Effects at the same time, or listens to MP3s while using Photoshop or even surfing the web, or chats on ICQ while a video renders...



    Well, OS 9 gave everyone some bad habits. It's time to start multitasking properly! I mean, it's really no fun to watch the status bar slide across the screen when you're doing something complex. People may as well pop in here to bitch about processor speeds while a video renders!



    It's not like Applications and the OS won't use two processors. Heck, even I've written applications that will divide themselves over multiple processors. It's not hard!



    I'd definitely like a dual!
  • Reply 7 of 23
    I would definitely take the dual. I have a dual 450 at work and a 450 Cube at home. The machines have the same bus and about the same amount of RAM. While OS X is acceptable at home, on my work machine it feels fast enough that I don't really think about the speed. The dual setup, for me, really cures the "stickiness" of OS X (tho I notice less difference now with 10.1 than I did in 10.0). And I often let Photoshop process filters and so forth while I do work in other apps. If I were using OS 9 I would feel differently. Then I'd want the fastest processor.
  • Reply 8 of 23
    I would go Dual for one it will keep pace with the single processor machines witch isnt even really the biggest deal about them. Multitasking alone is soo much smoother. If you have like 8000 programs running at once you wont see a performance hit as fast as the single processor machine, I have a DP Box and i`ll never switch back for as long as possible.
  • Reply 9 of 23
    Do 2 procs really make that big of a difference (Other than certain apps.)? I would go for the single proc. in a heartbeat. I remember reading a macaddict article about the dual gig (or maybe it was the 933) and they said they were very similar in performance. Does anyone have benchmarks that show a big diff.? (other than photoshop)
  • Reply 10 of 23
    rogue27rogue27 Posts: 607member
    [quote]Originally posted by JohnHenry:

    <strong>Do 2 procs really make that big of a difference (Other than certain apps.)? I would go for the single proc. in a heartbeat. I remember reading a macaddict article about the dual gig (or maybe it was the 933) and they said they were very similar in performance. Does anyone have benchmarks that show a big diff.? (other than photoshop)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    In that particular example, they performed the same because the bandwidth to the processor was filled up.
  • Reply 11 of 23
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    I'll take the duals. I like the idea of multitasking efficiently
  • Reply 12 of 23
    imudimud Posts: 140member
    I read somewhere that osX will automagically take advantage of duel processor and that apps didn't have to be coded specifically for them like on the PC.



    Oh yea, I'd do the duel 867



    Anyone know when Apple is supposed to make the announcement? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



    [ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: iMud ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 23
    zosozoso Posts: 177member
    I'go with the single proc, and I'd never think twice about it.



    I understand that most regular Mac users are the creative guys, who render complex 3D scenes and apply impossibly complicate Photoshop filters to huge images while at the same time applying marvelous special effects to the latest Star Trek movie.



    I'm a student, I write, do email, surf the web and waste my time here on AI , sometimes I do some graphic stuff and sometimes I also like to play Diablo II a little bit (isn't that single-threaded?). Should I have bought a PC? Probably. But I've been using Macs since I was a kid and I'm proud to be Mac user, and I'd really like to see Apple coming out with a product that finally suits my needs, even if I'm only a mere mortal with no creativity and no right to live who prefers to do "written art" rather than visual art.



    Is this asking too much? Don't think so...



    So, where's that single 3 GHz PPC again?



    ZoSo



    [ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: ZoSo ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 23
    [quote]Originally posted by ZoSo:

    <strong>I'go with the single proc, and I'd never think twice about it.



    I understand that most regular Mac users are the creative guys, who render complex 3D scenes and apply impossibly complicate Photoshop filters to huge images while at the same time applying marvelous special effects to the latest Star Trek movie.



    I'm a student, I write, do email, surf the web and waste my time here on AI , sometimes I do some graphic stuff and sometimes I also like to play Diablo II a little bit (isn't that single-threaded?). Should I have bought a PC? Probably. But I've been using Macs since I was a kid and I'm proud to be Mac user, and I'd really like to see Apple coming out with a product that finally suits my needs, even if I'm only a mere mortal with no creativity and no right to live who prefers to do "written art" rather than visual art.



    Is this asking too much? Don't think so...



    So, where's that single 3 GHz PPC again?



    ZoSo



    [ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: ZoSo ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Should you have bought a PC? No, sounds like your usage would be adequately served by an iBook or iMac. If most of what you're doing is word processing, why would you want to pay extra for a 3Ghz processor? As for Diablo II, i run it on this iBook pretty frequently and never had a problem.



    I have two macs, this iBook (dual USB) and my old G3 350. I only use the G3 350 for my video editing and graphic work, and its goign to get replaced tomorrow I can assure you, and I use the iBook for my school stuff, writing, internet, games, porn, and watching DVDs on the road. If theses are your main use habits too, i'm not sure why you feel the high end macs are lacking in any fashion.



    Oh.. and as for the Thread Question : Dual, but thats just me.
  • Reply 15 of 23
    escherescher Posts: 1,811member
    [quote]Originally posted by iMud:

    <strong>Anyone know when Apple is supposed to make the announcement?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, the <a href="http://store.apple.com"; target="_blank">Apple Store</a> is down right now and says it will be back "within the hour." So hopefully this thread will belong in Current Hardware very soon.



    BTW, Jet. I agree that there are too many whining pussies in FH right now. Wish I could unleash my dog on them, but she looks comatose taking a nap behind my desk right now.



    Escher
  • Reply 16 of 23
    [quote]I read somewhere that osX will automagically take advantage of duel processor and that apps didn't have to be coded specifically for them like on the PC.<hr></blockquote>



    This is true. Although tasks from an app can't be SPLIT between the processors, OS X can assign one app to one processor while performing other tasks with the second. OS 9 could not do this; in 9, unless an app (Photoshop) was multithreaded, there was no real advantage. This is why I think a dual 867 for about $1,700 is such a great deal. That machine should fly. And since Apple is increasingly making the Finder itself multithreaded...



    Actually, the original question is a bit unfair. The rumored 1.2GHz chip would be about 50 percent faster than an 867. Now, if the choice were between a dual 867 and a single 933, or even a single 1GHz, I'd take the dual without question.
  • Reply 17 of 23
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    The dual, hands down.



    Note that even an app that is single threaded will run more efficiently on a dual, because everything else (like the OS) can run on the other processor.



    OS X runs like a dream on DP machines, and I've gotten so spoiled by its multitasking prowess on a single processor machine that I know I'd love the silk smoothness of a duallie. :cool:
  • Reply 18 of 23
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,397member
    The dual 867.



    I like the price of this machine. I got an 8600 and it would be a big step up for me if I got one of these.



    Does anybody know if you get OS 9 with these new machines?
  • Reply 19 of 23
    yes you will definitely get an OS9 CD
  • Reply 20 of 23
    wfzellewfzelle Posts: 137member
    [quote]Originally posted by sc_markt:

    <strong>The dual 867.



    I like the price of this machine. I got an 8600 and it would be a big step up for me if I got one of these.



    Does anybody know if you get OS 9 with these new machines?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Eek, that's even worse than my G3/266. i thought I was pathetic



    BTW, OS 9 is included and I'm 99.9% certain that you can boot from it.



    [edit]Shit, that's the second time someone beat me to it.[/edit]



    [ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: wfzelle ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.