Why dual processors?

turn2

turn2

Registered
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
turn2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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"!
 
"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.
 
True, the powermac is NOT designed for home users, but who doesnt want that G5!!!???
So turn, if you just want to spend on a new machine, get a PB G4;
If you really want to buy a destop, or a G5, do NOT get the single processor model. I've been hearing that the board quality isnt that good on the single processor models. But i may be wrong!
 
bobw said:
the PowerMac line is not designed for home users

Definitely not true.
Click to expand...

If it's why does all the press releases on the G5 focus on Professional applications and professional users? In the benchmarks that they tout, the computers they are testing against are business line computers. If you look at the solutions page on apple.com for the G5, every application it mentions is a professional application. Compare that to all the press releases on the iMac, and the web page for the iMac, it all focus's on comsumer level applications such as iMovie/iDVD/iTunes/etc. The main page for the G5 doesn't even mention iTunes, iMovie, or iDVD. It mentions Final Cut Pro and Photoshop. The only mention of a consumer level application I could find on the entire G5 section, is graphics benchmarks using Quake III. I'd think Apple would actually mention consumer applications on the G5 site if thats who they are marketing it towards. If they wanted mom and pop to buy one, they'd talking about how fast it is running iMovie, and how fast you can rip a DVD in iTunes on it, but they don't, the talk about streaming music servers, and realtime audio/video editing.

Now, this isn't saying Apple is saying that you shouldn't buy a G5 for home, but 99% of home users have no need for it. Some would argue that Photoshop is a consumer application, I wouldn't though, $600 for a home application is alot of money, Photoshop Elements is a consumer application tho.

Brian
 
99.9% of people don't need an SUV either, or a Lexus. But five years from now who is gonna be sittin' pretty, the Cavalier w/125,000 miles or the RX 300? Sometimes marketing people are just shooting themselves in the foot. As long as the curve keeps turning toward bigger-faster-better hardware, I'm going to try to get as much as I can when I buy. Even if someone says I don't really need it today.
 
The G5 is not marketed toward home users, but it is not built to be unusable for them either. It is powerful enough for business users but easy enough to use that the Jones family could get one without needing 8 volumes of manuals.

But home users are definitely not the target demographic for the G5.
 
I throw this example out all the time, because it's still so impressive to me:

HERE is why dual processors (especially running OS X) is huge...

On each of my fairly modest DP machines (original DP 1 GHZ-1 GIG RAM and a DP 867-768 RAM) I can consistently do the following all at the same time with minimal performance slowdown:

1. Download a large file from the internet
2. Print a large document to an inkjet printer
3. Capture DV quality video, one full hour no lost frames
4. Render After Effects files in the background
5. Surf the web
6. Hop back and forth between who-knows-how-many apps
7. RIP the crap out of MP3s and AACs. As fast as you can read 'em in, they're ripped.
8. Burn a stack of CDs or DVDs


Again, I have to reiterate, all of this is happening AT THE SAME TIME! Granted, OS X alone is a huge part of why this is possible, but that second processor is also huge. You flat out cannot do the above in OS 9, period. Go ahead and try, I dare you. In fact, go ahead and try it Windows consistently. Also, I think even the very best single proc Mac would have a hard time pulling off that list (anyone tried it on a an SP G5?) I do it ALL THE TIME on my DPs.

For day to day, general user minimal requirements, a second processor will go mostly unnoticed, but if you plan on having a bunch of apps open, maybe working in Photoshop while iPhoto is doing something and downloading some files at the same time then it might be worth it to you. If you just launch a word processor and nothing else, don't waste your money. Get a cool looking iMac and enjoy. My experience has shown that for most general apps, the second proc isn't that helpful, but it opens up the computer for hopping around without slowdown. The G5 is a monster at this. The architecture is insane. If you run some CPU monitoring tests, you'll be hard pressed to peak the CPU. G4s peak with far less thrown at it.

On the higher end, Photoshop makes marginal use of the second processor (despite all claims--plus, it's not even multi-threaded, c'mon!), Final Cut and FCE make excellent use of DP for rendering and RT effects, not so much for general interface editing, high end 3D apps use multiple processors, but are typically significantly behind PC rendering speeds, so they're still playing catch up (getting there tho!), After Effects munches on the DP, iTunes freaking flies on a DP, some games (very few I think) will crank on that 2nd proc (Giants and Quake, right? any more?)

In short, I have a DP machine and work and at home and I will NEVER go back to a single proc machine. I also have several single proc Macs that I use daily, so I'm plenty familiar with the benefits of the DP. It's huge very big for anyone who uses their Mac seriously or considers themselves a "Power" user.

-----------

As for PowerMacs being designed for home users or not, I think we're into a semantics argument. Power is relative. Today's crappiest iMac is (maybe) better then the very best "workstation" of ten years ago. What is definitely true about the PowerMac and iMac lines is that they are MARKETED to pro users and home users differently. Just like today's lowliest iBook is way better than a G3 PowerBook of only four years ago. I don't think any of us would say that the current iBook is DESIGNED for a home user so much as it is MARKETED to one due to its current relative power to the AlumBooks/TiBooks/PowerBooks or whatever they're calling them these days.
 
At this point I am not going to make a decision until after next week's MacWorld Expo, just in case there is an announcement that will influence my decision. However, it is almost certain that my buy will be a PowerMac. (But not a DP G5.) Although I concede that the iMac is a spiffy machine, I have a couple of gripes that turn me away from them.

First of all, I don't feel that spending $1800 on a trendy machine that will need to be replaced in 2-3 years is a cost effective decision. The staying power of the latest iMacs may be better but historically I feel iMacs have provided shorter-term satisfaction.

Second, i just don't feel that a guy who works and plays in the dirt should be owning a white computer. That may be fine in the Crystal Cathedral of Cupertino by for my situation it doesn't seem like a good fit. The folks that make these decisions need to get some sun and see where these machine are being used once in a while. I don't want to come across as Pigpen (my wife would be nodding right now) but maybe a graphite iMac wouldn't be a bad option to offer.
 
Pippin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Many games are not dual-processor aware, and that scenario you've painted in UT2003 is just not.... possible. The synchronization issues would just be too great, i.e. getting each frame in the game to sync with the sound. Besides, the biggest gobbler of processing power in UT2003 isn't the sound, but the AI and physics. Trying to split these between 2 processors isn't a trivial task. Heck, they'd be better off spending time optimizing more for Altivec which would benefit most Macs.

So games are not a good reason to go dual processor. Multi-tasking, running loads of heavy apps at the same time is.
 
Viro said:
So games are not a good reason to go dual processor. Multi-tasking, running loads of heavy apps at the same time is.
Click to expand...

I must agree with you in the fact that there are not many games that handel the dual processor capibility. Aftor reserching what you said I have to agree with you now in the fact that i was misinformed.

http://cleaned.beyondunreal.com/UTFaq/UT_FAQ.htm#_Toc536678946

However things like running gaming servers and such from your machine is helped by the dual processors. However i guess that does not come into this discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top