But seriously, I think if all Apple has in the pipe line are faster G4s, they need to go DP or the hype won't be justifiable. What kind of performance do you think a dual 1.13 or 1.26 Apollo with 266 MHz bus and DDR RAM would get?
True, but if the processors don't even EXIST at said "speed" dual 1/2s is by far better than a single 1/2. Wouldn't you agree?
And if done correctly (as in OS X and many commercial apps), dual processors can get darn close to the performance of one at twice the speed. Oh, and when using MP for some tasks that don't perform at twice the speed of a single processor, sometimes the bottleneck is not the MP, but rather some other component (video card, hard drive, RAM bus... etc.). So when testing strictly processor power, two is nearly twice one.
Won't OSX stick one single-threaded (I'm sure that term is incorrect, but you know what I mean) app onto the first processor, and stick the second single-threaded app onto the second processor?
I know the dual processors won't help when running an app not written for dual processors in OSX, but if you're running several of these simultaneously, it will help.
Hell, just give us duals G5s across the board, topping out at 2.2 GHz and we won't even have to discuss this... </dream>
<strong>Won't OSX stick one single-threaded (I'm sure that term is incorrect, but you know what I mean) app onto the first processor, and stick the second single-threaded app onto the second processor?
I know the dual processors won't help when running an app not written for dual processors in OSX, but if you're running several of these simultaneously, it will help.
Hell, just give us duals G5s across the board, topping out at 2.2 GHz and we won't even have to discuss this... </dream>
<strong>Kepp in mind that if apps are not written to be multi-threaded, it doesn't matter if the OS or the machine is capable of it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not if you are doing two things at once.
Does anyone know if you can set processor preferences to apps in OS X? Like have P-shop 'prefer' processor 2, while you use processor 1 to do something else?
<strong>A little reminder for those worshipping at the alter of the dual.
A dual machine with CPUs at half the "speed" will be slower than a single CPU machine at full "speed".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right, but the reason to use duals is NOT because 1200 + 1200 = >2400
We're limited by the chips that Moto has a vailable, and the only way to approach that kind of performance is to add up a couple of 1.2ghz chips. Sure, they don't add up to more than 2.4 ghz worth of speed, but using a single 2.4ghz isn't an option yet as far as anyone knows. So even if 1.2ghz x2 only equals the equivalent of a single 1.8-2.0 ghz CPU, that's still the most powerful machine you're going to be able to get.
Does anyone know if you can set processor preferences to apps in OS X? Like have P-shop 'prefer' processor 2, while you use processor 1 to do something else?
SdC</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, you're right, but since everyone is talking speed, what i was referring to was speed in an individual app.
Right, but the reason to use duals is NOT because 1200 + 1200 = >2400
We're limited by the chips that Moto has a vailable, and the only way to approach that kind of performance is to add up a couple of 1.2ghz chips.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at AppleInsider Future Hardware! We can have all the 2.2 GHz G5's that we want! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> (man I wish there was an adequate emoticon to display how I feel when the AI FH morons 'predict or 'demand' what's coming down the pipe next).
What I see from this is that the duals are great if:
1. you're using two processor-intensive apps at once (even if neither are threaded)
or
2. you're using processor-intensive, threaded apps, like Cinema 4D
Given the extra cost Apple charges for the dual ($700 comparing 867 to dual 800, and equalizing for the larger hard drive, more RAM, and different graphics card), it doesn't appear worth it for most users.
Of course, if you know you'll be using threaded apps, then great. But most users will spend the vast, vast majority of their time in one non-threaded app at a time.
What I still haven't seen any evidence of is this idea that single-thread apps will perform better because X will divide up the work between app-specific calls and system calls, and that will speed up everything you do.
As far as I'm concerned my dual 800 operates at the speed of a single 800 the vast majority of the time. If someone can prove that wrong, great - I'll be that much happier. But "trust me, it's faster" doesn't do it.
It's true that people who don't need serious horsepower AND utilize OSX (or at least MP aware apps like Photoshop) shouldn't buy MP machines. Buying a dual 800 over a single 867, if all you're going to do is web surf and use MS Office, is not worth the extra money. You'd be better off to buy the 867 and spend your savings on a really fast hard drive or two, and a ton of RAM.
Basically any software that runs as well on a 400 or an 800 (office, IE, AppleWorks, etc.) basically will not be helped by a dual machine. BUT, those apps also wouldn't really be helped by a 1600 MHZ machine either.
Basically, any apps that are significantly improved by a 1600 MHZ chip over an 800 or 400 would also be improved by dual chips.
If you don't need dual chips, you don't need a 2.4 GHZ G5 either.
<strong>Basically, any apps that are significantly improved by a 1600 MHZ chip over an 800 or 400 would also be improved by dual chips.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not sure I agree with that. I'd say yes, but only if the app itself is threaded to take advantage of duals.
Unless what you're saying is that if it's a high-end app, it will probably be written to take advantage of duals. I'd agree with that.
Question tho- If I use Photoshop daily and will use X probably fulltime when I get a new machine- do I need dualies that bad? I mean I might one day look into 3D or video, but it's not what I do, so it would be more hobby like.
Also, if X didn't exist and we all still used 9, would new hardware still be as appealing? I for one am seriously concidering new hardware mainly because of X (well, and I want a new toy) Is X making faster hardware more appealing because it's a 3 legged dog on most current machines?
Comments
<strong>
that's nice but you're wrong</strong><hr></blockquote>
applenut, I never get tired of reading your posts, man.
Why type 30 words when 5 will do the trick just as well.
<strong>
applenut, I never get tired of reading your posts, man.
Why type 30 words when 5 will do the trick just as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah murbot, but no one does the one line posts like I do
<strong>
applenut, I never get tired of reading your posts, man.
Why type 30 words when 5 will do the trick just as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
thanks, could use the compliments, its a rough crowd around here
<strong>Well, we'll just say that your one liners just have a different feel than applenut's.
Yeah, that's true.
But seriously, I think if all Apple has in the pipe line are faster G4s, they need to go DP or the hype won't be justifiable. What kind of performance do you think a dual 1.13 or 1.26 Apollo with 266 MHz bus and DDR RAM would get?
I don't know. Im banking on the G5.
A dual machine with CPUs at half the "speed" will be slower than a single CPU machine at full "speed".
And if done correctly (as in OS X and many commercial apps), dual processors can get darn close to the performance of one at twice the speed. Oh, and when using MP for some tasks that don't perform at twice the speed of a single processor, sometimes the bottleneck is not the MP, but rather some other component (video card, hard drive, RAM bus... etc.). So when testing strictly processor power, two is nearly twice one.
-Ender
I know the dual processors won't help when running an app not written for dual processors in OSX, but if you're running several of these simultaneously, it will help.
Hell, just give us duals G5s across the board, topping out at 2.2 GHz and we won't even have to discuss this... </dream>
[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
<strong>Won't OSX stick one single-threaded (I'm sure that term is incorrect, but you know what I mean) app onto the first processor, and stick the second single-threaded app onto the second processor?
I know the dual processors won't help when running an app not written for dual processors in OSX, but if you're running several of these simultaneously, it will help.
Hell, just give us duals G5s across the board, topping out at 2.2 GHz and we won't even have to discuss this... </dream>
[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea. But right now I'm using IE. Appleworks in the background is doing nada.
I know I know. You all play Q3 while blasting MP3s and watching a DVD and rendering in Maya and running Photoshop batch jobs all at the same time.
<strong>Kepp in mind that if apps are not written to be multi-threaded, it doesn't matter if the OS or the machine is capable of it.
Not if you are doing two things at once.
Does anyone know if you can set processor preferences to apps in OS X? Like have P-shop 'prefer' processor 2, while you use processor 1 to do something else?
SdC
<strong>A little reminder for those worshipping at the alter of the dual.
A dual machine with CPUs at half the "speed" will be slower than a single CPU machine at full "speed".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right, but the reason to use duals is NOT because 1200 + 1200 = >2400
We're limited by the chips that Moto has a vailable, and the only way to approach that kind of performance is to add up a couple of 1.2ghz chips. Sure, they don't add up to more than 2.4 ghz worth of speed, but using a single 2.4ghz isn't an option yet as far as anyone knows. So even if 1.2ghz x2 only equals the equivalent of a single 1.8-2.0 ghz CPU, that's still the most powerful machine you're going to be able to get.
<strong>
Not if you are doing two things at once.
Does anyone know if you can set processor preferences to apps in OS X? Like have P-shop 'prefer' processor 2, while you use processor 1 to do something else?
SdC</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, you're right, but since everyone is talking speed, what i was referring to was speed in an individual app.
<strong>
Right, but the reason to use duals is NOT because 1200 + 1200 = >2400
We're limited by the chips that Moto has a vailable, and the only way to approach that kind of performance is to add up a couple of 1.2ghz chips.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at AppleInsider Future Hardware! We can have all the 2.2 GHz G5's that we want!
sdC
What I see from this is that the duals are great if:
1. you're using two processor-intensive apps at once (even if neither are threaded)
or
2. you're using processor-intensive, threaded apps, like Cinema 4D
Given the extra cost Apple charges for the dual ($700 comparing 867 to dual 800, and equalizing for the larger hard drive, more RAM, and different graphics card), it doesn't appear worth it for most users.
Of course, if you know you'll be using threaded apps, then great. But most users will spend the vast, vast majority of their time in one non-threaded app at a time.
What I still haven't seen any evidence of is this idea that single-thread apps will perform better because X will divide up the work between app-specific calls and system calls, and that will speed up everything you do.
As far as I'm concerned my dual 800 operates at the speed of a single 800 the vast majority of the time. If someone can prove that wrong, great - I'll be that much happier. But "trust me, it's faster" doesn't do it.
Basically, any apps that are significantly improved by a 1600 MHZ chip over an 800 or 400 would also be improved by dual chips.
If you don't need dual chips, you don't need a 2.4 GHZ G5 either.
<strong>Basically, any apps that are significantly improved by a 1600 MHZ chip over an 800 or 400 would also be improved by dual chips.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not sure I agree with that. I'd say yes, but only if the app itself is threaded to take advantage of duals.
Unless what you're saying is that if it's a high-end app, it will probably be written to take advantage of duals. I'd agree with that.
Question tho- If I use Photoshop daily and will use X probably fulltime when I get a new machine- do I need dualies that bad? I mean I might one day look into 3D or video, but it's not what I do, so it would be more hobby like.
Also, if X didn't exist and we all still used 9, would new hardware still be as appealing? I for one am seriously concidering new hardware mainly because of X (well, and I want a new toy) Is X making faster hardware more appealing because it's a 3 legged dog on most current machines?