Why dual processors?

turn2 · #1 December 29th, 2003, 07:33 PM

I am tickled to death that my B & W G3 has served me so well for nearly 5 years. Now it's finally time to buckle down and acquire some more horsepower. I hope that my next purchase takes me as far as the last.

My question is this: "When do dual processors really begin to pay off?" The apps I'll use most are the iLife apps, MS Office, Photoshop (Elements?) and Safari.

Also, will dual processors be more of a benefit 2 or 3 years from now or are they just a gimmick to span the time until the G5's really take off?

The cash is burnin' a hole in my pocket so let's hear it folks.

HateEternal · #2 December 29th, 2003, 07:46 PM

Multiprocessing has been around for a while, as far as I know you benifit when you are... multitasking. You would benifit the most if you were running a bunch of heavy apps at the same time. Its kind of like the old saying 2 brains are better than one, if you need to get 2 seperate tasks done at the same time its faster with 2 people.

/me waits to hear how wrong he is.

RacerX · #3 December 29th, 2003, 07:49 PM

It depends on what you are looking to get out of both processors. Some apps can use both, some can't, but Mac OS X can divide up the processor time between a number of apps.

Lets say you are using Premier, Adobe's crippled software for video editing. It can only see and use one processor. It could be using a 100% of one processor leaving the other untouched for running the Finder, playing games or music, browsing the internet, etc.

To a degree, apps not grabbing both processors for doing work helps those of us who multitask (have 5 or more apps open at once).

The "gimmick" of it depends on the person. You decide if it is important or not. Back with Mac OS 9, it was mostly a gimmick as the OS couldn't see both processors and the only apps to use both were ones that were written to work with them. Mac OS X is design to make use of both even if the apps don't. Mac OS X decides which app runs on which processor if the app is only able to use one. That management of resources is the pay off.

**mdnky** · #4 December 30th, 2003, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turn2

When do dual processors really begin to pay off?" The apps I'll use most are the iLife apps, MS Office, Photoshop (Elements?) and Safari.

Save your money, stick with a single. You'll be surprised enough with that speed increase over what you got now.

The reason I say this (correct me if I'm wrong) is it sounds like all you do with your computer is general stuff. Surf the net, e-mail, general typing, and maybe a small bit of playing with photos. Nothing that would take *much* advantage of that second processor, or at least not in any manner to justify the cost.

turn2 · #5 December 30th, 2003, 07:16 AM

Actually that is true except that I intend to get a miniDV very soon. I use Quicktime Pro on occasion and have tried to use iMovie. That experience was the straw that broke the camel's back for getting a new machine. If even a good single processor w/ lots of RAM & a large HD can handle DV & iMovie with ease, that's good info.

Thanks, all the responses have been clear and informative. It sounds to me like usage patterns have just as much to do with my needs as the apps I might run.

**btoneill** · #6 December 30th, 2003, 11:38 AM

iMovie only uses one CPU at a time, and any Mac sold today can run iMovie perfectly.

You hit the nail on the head with the usage patterns having as much to do with what you need as the apps you run. One thing to remember, that many people forget, the PowerMac line is not designed for home users, it's designed for business use, and is full of the features most business users want. It's price also reflects it being for business use. The iMac was designed to do what 99% of home users want to do, among those uses, iMovice is a big one.

Brian

Pippin · #7 December 30th, 2003, 12:04 PM

Well saying that, i got the first Single 1.8ghz G5 and then the dual came out 3 days later, i taken it back to the shop and replaced it with the dual. I must say that i notice a slight diffrence when using a lot of programs at once. But apart from that its not that much of a blow at all, we really are talking miliseconds here.

If you play games i would go for the dual, take UT2003 for example, the second processor handles the sound and lets the other one get on down with the rest of the work.

All that said, you use some simple lite programs so you would maby be better going for the single, unless you feel that it will be worth it in time. Its your choice, its your money. But not that much "Bang for the Buck"!

turn2 · #8 December 30th, 2003, 12:43 PM

"One thing to remember, that many people forget, the PowerMac line is not designed for home users, it's designed for business use, and is full of the features most business users want. It's price also reflects it being for business use. The iMac was designed to do what 99% of home users want to do, among those uses, iMovie is a big one."

_________________

I'm glad I got the PowerMac when I did. I never would have been able to maintain my level of satisfaction this long with those early iMacs.

And when you can get a refurb G5 for less than a 17" or 20" 1.25 iMac, why fool around? I can find another monitor that will keep the old G3 in use.