dual cpu v single cpu

"chris" <someone.RemoveThis@here.com> wrote:

 > what are the advantages of a dual cpu system over a single cpu system
 >
 > all comments appreciated

The advantage is more CPU's

HTH<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: dual cpu v single cpu 

chris wrote:

 > what are the advantages of a dual cpu system over a single cpu system
 >
 > all comments appreciated
 >
 >
<brag>
I just got me a P3 dual cpu server board. mmmmmmmmmm......
</brag>

Dual CPUs help with multitasking/threaded programs, most notably
photo/video-editing and the like. The OS must be made to run the dual
cpus tho. In other words XP Pro, Linux, Unix, NT4, Win 2000, 2003
Server etc. It would make little difference to a normal home user.

--
-Luke-
If cars had advanced at the same rate as Micr0$oft technology, they'd be
flying by now.
But who wants a car that crashes 8 times a day?
Registered Linux User #345134<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: dual cpu v single cpu 

AND your operating system has to support multiple processors, too (not just
the application software). MS Windows following the NT development lineage
supports multiple processors while MS Windows following the home use lineage
doesn't. (I.E., Win98 no, Win NT yes, WinME no, Win2000 yes, etc.)

"Mitchua" <mitchuaNOSPAM.TakeThisOut@hush.com> wrote in message
news:WRVkc.49474$k%.1221673@news20.bellglobal.com...
 > chris wrote:
 >
  > > what are the advantages of a dual cpu system over a single cpu system
  > >
  > > all comments appreciated
 >
 > You'll only really notice a big difference if you're using applications
that
 > can use both CPUs at once for 1 task. e.g. compilers, Photoshop,
Premiere.
 > Dual CPUs shouldn't help Internet Explorer run faster or games run better.
 >
 > Is this for a home machine?
 >
 > --Mitchua<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: dual cpu v single cpu 

"beav AT wn DoT com DoT au" <"beav AT wn DoT com DoT au"> wrote in message news:<4095c6de DeleteThis @quokka.wn.com.au>...
 > chris wrote:
 >
  > > what are the advantages of a dual cpu system over a single cpu system
  > >
  > > all comments appreciated
  > >
  > >
 > <brag>
 > I just got me a P3 dual cpu server board. mmmmmmmmmm......
 > </brag>
 >
 > Dual CPUs help with multitasking/threaded programs, most notably
 > photo/video-editing and the like. The OS must be made to run the dual
 > cpus tho. In other words XP Pro, Linux, Unix, NT4, Win 2000, 2003
 > Server etc. It would make little difference to a normal home user.

I stand by my statement in a recent thread:

Dual processor systems are for use in high-intensity, multithreaded
applications that are specifically programmed to utilize multiple
processors. An example would be many of the high end video editing
suites, CAD/CAM programs, etc. etc. that use huge number crunching.
Also, servers profit from multiple processors - they can handle more
traffic with more processors (and the right server software).

For an individual user, dualies are a waste unless you've got a
specific application you know uses multiple processors. Most
consumer-level programs can't access a second processor; no games that
I know of, no entry-level video or photo software can. A dualie
running Word and Windows Explorer is like driving a Porche to the
corner store - it's fun, but it's really unnecessary.

I've heard that if you're running a lot of different programs
simultaneously you get a bit of a performance increase, but it seems
like a lot of money for minimal returns. The actual gain in
performance is in the 15-33% range, last time I heard
(tomshardware.com, I think, 2001?). The consensus was that it made a
lot more sense to spend the extra dough on a faster SINGLE processor -
you'd get a lot more bang per buck.

A multiprocessor-aware OS is a prerequisite - Win2K and XP are
dual-processor aware, but the older ones are not. Apparently, the OS
just won't use the second processor - it'll just sit there and consume
power. I believe that Linux and BEOS are also multiprocessor aware,
but don't take my word for it.

Maybe in the future, as Intel's "hyperthreading" P4's (kind of a dual
processor processor) get more common, there'll be an increase in
programming for dual processors... but probably not soon, IMHO.

And no, the second processor is not a failsafe - if you want that,
you'll have to get into some seriously expensive equipment..... Both
processors are used at the same time in a dual system [in answer to a
question regarding using one processor as a failsafe if the other was
damaged].

ECM<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: dual cpu v single cpu 

thedeepabyss.DeleteThis@whoever.com (ECM) wrote in message news:<93903fca.0405031940.7cb9efaf.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>...

 > Dual processor systems are for use in high-intensity, multithreaded
 > applications that are specifically programmed to utilize multiple
 > processors. An example would be many of the high end video editing
 > suites...

Not just the high-end ones! TMPGEnc, a US$50 MPEG1/2 encoder, also
supports dual processors and hyperthreading P4s:

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.pegasys-inc.com/en/product/tp_operation.html" target="_blank">http://www.pegasys-inc.com/en/product/tp_operation.html</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: dual cpu v single cpu 

"ECM" <thedeepabyss.RemoveThis@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:93903fca.0405031940.7cb9efaf@posting.google.com...

<other info snipped>

 > I've heard that if you're running a lot of different programs
 > simultaneously you get a bit of a performance increase, but it seems
 > like a lot of money for minimal returns. The actual gain in
 > performance is in the 15-33% range, last time I heard
 > (tomshardware.com, I think, 2001?). The consensus was that it made a
 > lot more sense to spend the extra dough on a faster SINGLE processor -
 > you'd get a lot more bang per buck.

I do run a CPU intensive CAD application which only uses one CPU. The
difference having a second CPU or a hyperthreading CPU makes, is the
difference between being able to use my PC for other tasks when the CAD
application is running, and not being able to use it for anything else.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: dual cpu v single cpu 

"Graeme" <graeme_dontreplyhere RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c77dh6$fvsb$1@ID-154333.news.uni-berlin.de>...
 > "ECM" <thedeepabyss RemoveThis @whoever.com> wrote in message
 > news:93903fca.0405031940.7cb9efaf@posting.google.com...
 >
 > <other info snipped>
 >
  > > I've heard that if you're running a lot of different programs
  > > simultaneously you get a bit of a performance increase, but it seems
  > > like a lot of money for minimal returns. The actual gain in
  > > performance is in the 15-33% range, last time I heard
  > > (tomshardware.com, I think, 2001?). The consensus was that it made a
  > > lot more sense to spend the extra dough on a faster SINGLE processor -
  > > you'd get a lot more bang per buck.
 >
 > I do run a CPU intensive CAD application which only uses one CPU. The
 > difference having a second CPU or a hyperthreading CPU makes, is the
 > difference between being able to use my PC for other tasks when the CAD
 > application is running, and not being able to use it for anything else.


If you are running graphic intensive programs such as AutoCAD, ProE,
Helix,Visio. Then Dual Processors is the way to go. Its sort of like
comparing pickup trucks when running unleaded gas engines or Diesel.
Diesel is designed to carry the big loads, and unleaded gas is for
convenience and speed. So look at the towing capacity of a dual
processor system. In each case I'd stay clear of XP and Run either
Linux, Win2k professional or and SQL server with EQUORUM for your big
graphic management.

Ed<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: dual cpu v single cpu 

ECM wrote:
 > "beav AT wn DoT com DoT au" <"beav AT wn DoT com DoT au"> wrote in message news:<4095c6de.DeleteThis@quokka.wn.com.au>...
  >>
  >><brag>
  >>I just got me a P3 dual cpu server board. mmmmmmmmmm......
  >></brag>
  >>
  >>Dual CPUs help with multitasking/threaded programs, most notably
  >>photo/video-editing and the like. The OS must be made to run the dual
  >>cpus tho. In other words XP Pro, Linux, Unix, NT4, Win 2000, 2003
  >>Server etc. It would make little difference to a normal home user.
 >
 >
 > I stand by my statement in a recent thread:
 >
 > Dual processor systems are for use in high-intensity, multithreaded
 > applications that are specifically programmed to utilize multiple
 > processors. An example would be many of the high end video editing
 > suites, CAD/CAM programs, etc. etc. that use huge number crunching.
 > Also, servers profit from multiple processors - they can handle more
 > traffic with more processors (and the right server software).
 >
 > For an individual user, dualies are a waste unless you've got a
 > specific application you know uses multiple processors. Most
 > consumer-level programs can't access a second processor; no games that
 > I know of, no entry-level video or photo software can. A dualie
 > running Word and Windows Explorer is like driving a Porche to the
 > corner store - it's fun, but it's really unnecessary.
 >
 > I've heard that if you're running a lot of different programs
 > simultaneously you get a bit of a performance increase, but it seems
 > like a lot of money for minimal returns. The actual gain in
 > performance is in the 15-33% range, last time I heard
 > (tomshardware.com, I think, 2001?). The consensus was that it made a
 > lot more sense to spend the extra dough on a faster SINGLE processor -
 > you'd get a lot more bang per buck.
 >
 > A multiprocessor-aware OS is a prerequisite - Win2K and XP are
 > dual-processor aware, but the older ones are not. Apparently, the OS
 > just won't use the second processor - it'll just sit there and consume
 > power. I believe that Linux and BEOS are also multiprocessor aware,
 > but don't take my word for it.
 >
 > Maybe in the future, as Intel's "hyperthreading" P4's (kind of a dual
 > processor processor) get more common, there'll be an increase in
 > programming for dual processors... but probably not soon, IMHO.
 >
 > And no, the second processor is not a failsafe - if you want that,
 > you'll have to get into some seriously expensive equipment..... Both
 > processors are used at the same time in a dual system [in answer to a
 > question regarding using one processor as a failsafe if the other was
 > damaged].
 >
 > ECM

As you seem to mostly be agreeing with me, I'll assume that you meant to
reply to the original post...

--
-Luke-
If cars had advanced at the same rate as Micr0$oft technology, they'd be
flying by now.
But who wants a car that crashes 8 times a day?
Registered Linux User #345134<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: dual cpu v single cpu 

"beav AT wn DoT com DoT au" <"beav AT wn DoT com DoT au"> wrote in message news:<40972673$1@quokka.wn.com.au>...
 > ECM wrote:
  > > "beav AT wn DoT com DoT au" <"beav AT wn DoT com DoT au"> wrote in message news:<4095c6de.RemoveThis@quokka.wn.com.au>...
   > >>
   > >><brag>
   > >>I just got me a P3 dual cpu server board. mmmmmmmmmm......
   > >></brag>
   > >>
   > >>Dual CPUs help with multitasking/threaded programs, most notably
   > >>photo/video-editing and the like. The OS must be made to run the dual
   > >>cpus tho. In other words XP Pro, Linux, Unix, NT4, Win 2000, 2003
   > >>Server etc. It would make little difference to a normal home user.
  > >
  > >
  > > I stand by my statement in a recent thread:
  > >
  > > Dual processor systems are for use in high-intensity, multithreaded
  > > applications that are specifically programmed to utilize multiple
  > > processors. An example would be many of the high end video editing
  > > suites, CAD/CAM programs, etc. etc. that use huge number crunching.
  > > Also, servers profit from multiple processors - they can handle more
  > > traffic with more processors (and the right server software).
  > >
  > > For an individual user, dualies are a waste unless you've got a
  > > specific application you know uses multiple processors. Most
  > > consumer-level programs can't access a second processor; no games that
  > > I know of, no entry-level video or photo software can. A dualie
  > > running Word and Windows Explorer is like driving a Porche to the
  > > corner store - it's fun, but it's really unnecessary.
  > >
  > > I've heard that if you're running a lot of different programs
  > > simultaneously you get a bit of a performance increase, but it seems
  > > like a lot of money for minimal returns. The actual gain in
  > > performance is in the 15-33% range, last time I heard
  > > (tomshardware.com, I think, 2001?). The consensus was that it made a
  > > lot more sense to spend the extra dough on a faster SINGLE processor -
  > > you'd get a lot more bang per buck.
  > >
  > > A multiprocessor-aware OS is a prerequisite - Win2K and XP are
  > > dual-processor aware, but the older ones are not. Apparently, the OS
  > > just won't use the second processor - it'll just sit there and consume
  > > power. I believe that Linux and BEOS are also multiprocessor aware,
  > > but don't take my word for it.
  > >
  > > Maybe in the future, as Intel's "hyperthreading" P4's (kind of a dual
  > > processor processor) get more common, there'll be an increase in
  > > programming for dual processors... but probably not soon, IMHO.
  > >
  > > And no, the second processor is not a failsafe - if you want that,
  > > you'll have to get into some seriously expensive equipment..... Both
  > > processors are used at the same time in a dual system [in answer to a
  > > question regarding using one processor as a failsafe if the other was
  > > damaged].
  > >
  > > ECM
 >
 > As you seem to mostly be agreeing with me, I'll assume that you meant to
 > reply to the original post...

Yep, sorry.... it was late, my brain was addled....
ECM<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: dual cpu v single cpu 

You can run your CAD application at low priority and run your other applications at normal priority at the same time with one processor.

Graeme wrote:
 >
 > "ECM" <thedeepabyss.RemoveThis@whoever.com> wrote in message
 > news:93903fca.0405031940.7cb9efaf@posting.google.com...
 >
 > <other info snipped>
 >
  > > I've heard that if you're running a lot of different programs
  > > simultaneously you get a bit of a performance increase, but it seems
  > > like a lot of money for minimal returns. The actual gain in
  > > performance is in the 15-33% range, last time I heard
  > > (tomshardware.com, I think, 2001?). The consensus was that it made a
  > > lot more sense to spend the extra dough on a faster SINGLE processor -
  > > you'd get a lot more bang per buck.
 >
 > I do run a CPU intensive CAD application which only uses one CPU. The
 > difference having a second CPU or a hyperthreading CPU makes, is the
 > difference between being able to use my PC for other tasks when the CAD
 > application is running, and not being able to use it for anything else.

--
Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: dual cpu v single cpu 

You can indeed. But how much priority would you give the main application
compared with anything else needed to be run?
Hyperthreading (and dual CPU) seems easier. Maybe because I just don't know
all the ways of running my PC.

And, not that it happens much, I can run Q3arena at the same time as my CAD
app.

"Mike Walsh" <mikew137.TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4097D40F.795D1819@sbcglobal.net...
 >
 > You can run your CAD application at low priority and run your other
applications at normal priority at the same time with one processor.
 >
 > Graeme wrote:
  > >
  > > "ECM" <thedeepabyss.TakeThisOut@whoever.com> wrote in message
  > > news:93903fca.0405031940.7cb9efaf@posting.google.com...
  > >
  > > <other info snipped>
  > >
   > > > I've heard that if you're running a lot of different programs
   > > > simultaneously you get a bit of a performance increase, but it seems
   > > > like a lot of money for minimal returns. The actual gain in
   > > > performance is in the 15-33% range, last time I heard
   > > > (tomshardware.com, I think, 2001?). The consensus was that it made a
   > > > lot more sense to spend the extra dough on a faster SINGLE processor -
   > > > you'd get a lot more bang per buck.
  > >
  > > I do run a CPU intensive CAD application which only uses one CPU. The
  > > difference having a second CPU or a hyperthreading CPU makes, is the
  > > difference between being able to use my PC for other tasks when the CAD
  > > application is running, and not being able to use it for anything else.
 >
 > --
 > Mike Walsh
 > West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: dual cpu v single cpu 

On 3 May 2004 20:40:03 -0700, thedeepabyss.DeleteThis@whoever.com (ECM) wrote:

 > A multiprocessor-aware OS is a prerequisite - Win2K and XP
 > are dual-processor aware, but the older ones are not.

The old NT4 are for dual-processors.
Windows 2000.
XP Professional (not home version).<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: dual cpu v single cpu