Dual-CPU useful?

[BUL]

(I searched for a similar topic and didn't find one here, so forgive me if I overlooked it...)

With the general acceptance of WinNT (core) and Linux, and with the relative inexpensiveness of CPUs and other core components, does it make any sense for an "expert IT home user" to get a dual-cpu setup? While I'm not in the market for at least another 6+ months (which gives me time to wait for upcoming advancements like PCIx), I'm kinda curious to find out if, in general, the average app now utilizes CPU 1 (as opposed to just CPU 0), or am I better off spending the $$$ on one really fast CPU?

In general terms, do the following apps support dual-CPUs?
* Microsoft Office XP or 2003 (especially Access)
* WordPerfect Office
* Photoshop (I know it does)
* Internet apps (Mozilla, IE, Flash, etc.)
* MP3/sound editors/encoders (i.e. Sound Forge)
* Video editors/encoders/players (i.e. TMPGEnc, DivX)
* File compression (Winzip, WinRAR)
* Games (kinda general)
* VS.NET
* and so on...

 

[Crashman]

If you're into multitasking it would probably yield a significant performance increase in running 2 very demanding programs simultaniously. I'd say as much as a 50% gain over running one CPU the same speed. And if you're buying near the top anyway, you won't find a single CPU that's 50% faster.

Is it worth the money? Time is money, it really depends on how MUCH work you're doing.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Dev]

I have never used a x86 multi-CPU system, but in general you will get performance boost for applications that can utilize multi-cpus and slower performance for non optimized programs. I doubt Access will be faster, Photoshop will be, Internet apps will not (not sure about Mozilla), Good Encoders will be faster (I think most of Soundforge's pro software will be), games will generally be slower (but I heard ID desingns with dual in mind, don't know if that was fanboyism or true though).

---
My new years resolution is 1280 x 1024

 

[sjonnie]

The main benefit is not that a single application will run faster because there aren't that many apps that support multithreading, but that you can run more applications at once without slowing your system down too much. The future might be different however, if more apps are optimized to support hyperthreading. Whilst this isn't the same are true multi-threading, threads optimized to run on a virtual HPT processor will also work on an real second processor.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/myanandtech.html?member=114979" target="_new">My PCs</A>

 

[jonbach]

That's exactly right -- I revently moved to a dual processor system myself, and my standard use (email, web browsing, word processing) is pretty much exactly the same. What can I do now that I couldn't before? I can encode video while I game...I can load this sucker up with as many tasks as I can manage, and notice NO difference in performance, it just cuts right through it all!

Jon Bach
Puget Custom Computers
<A HREF="http://www.pugetsystems.com" target="_new">http://www.pugetsystems.com</A>

 

[DOOM]

Get <b>dual-DDR</b> instead of dual-CPU.

I have two systems:

A) <b>P4 3.0</b> (w/ HT), <b>1GB dual-</b>channel DDR
B) <b>dual-Xeon 2.4</b> (w/ HT), <b>2GB single-</b>channel DDR

Guess which one is faster?

<b>A</b>

Yes, even though it has half the memory and about 60% of the processing "power", it makes way more effective use of what it has, and at about half the cost.

I don't have benchmarks, but running computation-intensive applications runs way faster from a user's perspective on the dual-DDR system.

____
P4C800-E Dlx, P4 3.0 @ 3.5MHz, 1024 Corsair @ 5550MB/s, 72GB WD 10,000rpm SATA as RAID-0 @ 92MB/s, Antec TruePower 480W, Zalman 7000 AlCu HSF, Arctic Silver III, FSB 233, CPUv 1.6, 3-4-3-7 PAT

 

[jrosenst]

Doom:
I would be interested to know how much different your 3.0 performs if you put a gig of single-channel DDR in it instead of the duel. If you’re running 1 app (most of them anyway), your 3.0 will be faster then a 32 processor computer with 2.4's, let alone a 2 processor one.

Have you swapped memory just to see if it’s deferent?

 

[DOOM]

"I would be interested to know how much different your 3.0 performs if you put a gig of single-channel DDR in it instead of the duel."

I just tried it and there seems to be no difference in my application, so the difference in speed must be something else...


"If you’re running 1 app (most of them anyway), your 3.0 will be faster then a 32 processor computer with 2.4's, let alone a 2 processor one."

Not so. The app I'm referring to is a COM+ application which balances across all 4 virtual CPUs, so I know that the dual-CPU machine really is using both processors, not just one.

____
P4C800-E Dlx, P4 3.0 @ 3.5MHz, 1024 Corsair @ 5550MB/s, 72GB WD 10,000rpm SATA as RAID-0 @ 92MB/s, Antec TruePower 480W, Zalman 7000 AlCu HSF, Arctic Silver III, FSB 233, CPUv 1.6, 3-4-3-7 PAT