Dual processor speed

Dean Attewell

Registered
Well how well does MacOSX take advantage of the dual processor?

Any feedback?

Dean
 

sverre

Registered
I don't have an MP Mac but OS X supports full symmetric multiprocessing. That means it uses both processors att full capasity in all programs (when needed). It should be pointed out that a program can't run on two processors if it doesn't have at least two threads though. But even in singlethreaded programs there's an advantage as it can - again if needed - use all the power of one processor while everything else uses the other.
 

jj

Registered
At home I have a G4 450 MP with OSXPB and at work I have a single 450 with OSXPB also. The dual runs A LOT faster than the single. Both Macs have 256 MB RAM. At home I can have multiple quick time movies playing at once with out a slow down in playback on either of the movies. Launching apps seem to faster also on the MP along with finder functions. So far I am excited about OSX and look forward to the final release.
 

daviddennis

Registered
I, too, have a dual processor machine, but no single processor machine to compare it to.

In my experience, looking at the CPU monitor, the CPU time indicators seem to run more or less evenly in OSX, indicating that both CPUs are being used about equally. That's what you'd expect to see if the dual CPU support was working.

By the way, how do you like your Apple Cinema Display? Do you think it's worth (gulp!) $ 3,999?

I find myself tempted to save up for it - it seems a shame to have such a nice looking machine as the G4/450MP with a prosaic beige monitor next to it, even if it is a 21" Sony. That's not style, baby. The Apple Cinema Display is undeniably style - but is it worth four times what a normal 21" Sony flat screen monitor runs?

Many thanks for your thoughts.

D
 

JustDave

Registered
Very, very veeeeeery nicely.

Much better than DP4, in fact, which didn't freaking run at all on a dual. Not that I'm bitter. Not that I read "any G4 powermac" in the requirements and let that push me over the edge of getting rid of my single 400 and buying a dual. =P

Well, my own damn fault anyway for getting too antsy. ;)
 

jj

Registered
Hey D

I love my 22" Cinema Display. I was very against the price, but once I saw in at MWNY I just had to have it. It truely is a work of art. The clearity and brightness is the best I've seen saw far in an LCD display. Oh, MacOSX PB looks really good on the Cinema also. I agree about having the nice looking G4 and needing to have the monitor to match. I have no regrets about buying it... thus far. Now if I can only get my company to buy one for me at work.


Originally posted by daviddennis
By the way, how do you like your Apple Cinema Display? Do you think it's worth (gulp!) $ 3,999?

I find myself tempted to save up for it - it seems a shame to have such a nice looking machine as the G4/450MP with a prosaic beige monitor next to it, even if it is a 21" Sony. That's not style, baby. The Apple Cinema Display is undeniably style - but is it worth four times what a normal 21" Sony flat screen monitor runs?

Many thanks for your thoughts.

D
 

BEIGE

Registered
i gave my dual G4 500 machine a run for the money and did a test to see just how good OS X could multitask on a dual:

-unstuffed huge file while running an mp3 player a large sorenson compressed movie in the background on loop and booted up Quake 3.app while downloading 5 files in scouter.app - the movie skipped a frame or two only when i booted Q3A in a window - probably because it's sharing the video card with QT.

Rock solid and bloody fast on a dual.

that's the beta.
 

marmoset

Official Volunteer
Originally posted by Hwoodmac
scouter.app?
Its a free Scour Exchange client for
OS X. Versiontracker is your friend. :)

-d.w.
 

frodo

Registered
On a slightly different note, does anyone know of a way to specify a CPU for a given process to use? Or are we at the whim of the thread manager?

Example: The seti@home Darwin client runs quite well on my Dual 450, but it's not fully multi-threaded so it can't span the CPU's evenly. The CPU monitor shows full load on one CPU the majority of the time, but every now and then it trades off with the other CPU (which pegs the scale). After a few cycles, it's back to the first CPU.

So, suppose I want to either a) keep the client running on a dedicated CPU, or b) run another instance of seti on the second processor to absorb all spare cycles? This is more of an academic exercise than anything else, and I know this is possible on a typical SMP *nix system.

Any takers?

-------------------

G4/450 MP 256 RAM
30 Gigs for OS X, 9.04, Virtual PC, and LinuxPPC
 

Mr. Mysterious

Registered
Yo, I'm saving up for an iMac DV+!!! Finally, someone here who doesn't own a G4 (sigh of relief). I mean, the ultimate Mac you could get would be round about $15,000 (that is, in Australian dollars)!!!!! I don't have anywhere near that much! I'm going on a game show called "Catch Phrase" soon (which is edited on Macs :) ) and I could barely win $3,000!!! How the heck am I supposed to afford a Duel G4?!? Any ideas on a get rich quick scheme?!?
 

adamh

Registered
i didn't see it on version tracker... does anybody know about it?
 

dani++

usin UNIX since '92
You could try to run two instances of seti. Just run them on two different directories. The scheduler should give each processor-hungry app a CPU on its own. Try that and post your results. That machine should eat work units for breakfast!!!
<br>
<br>
dani++

Originally posted by frodo
...

Example: The seti@home Darwin client runs quite well on my Dual 450, but it's not fully multi-threaded so it can't span the CPU's evenly. The CPU monitor shows full load on one CPU the majority of the time, but every now and then it trades off with the other CPU (which pegs the scale). After a few cycles, it's back to the first CPU.

...
 

strobe

Puny Member
Originally posted by Mr. Mysterious
Macs rule. PCs don't. Period.
Shouldn't that be Macs Rule, PCs Drool?

At least that's how I've been hearing it the last 15 years.
 
Top