Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon XP 1800 versus 2 1.2 GHz MPs

  • CPUs
  • Macromedia
  • Windows XP
Last response: in CPUs
October 10, 2001 1:38:33 AM

Anyone seen some benchmarks comparing the two setups? It'd be roughly $300 for two 1.2 GHz Chips, and about $230 for one XP 1800. If I were going to use a machine for Adobe, Macromedia, and other 3d modelling programs would the MP setup be worth the money with the Athlon XP now available?

More about : athlon 1800 versus ghz mps

October 10, 2001 1:44:28 AM

I'd suggest the XP. Cheaper, less hassle, and ALL programs will use it's full potential.

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!
October 10, 2001 2:02:55 AM

i think it would depend on how seriously you're going to be using the programs. for someone who uses them non-profesionaly (not to say you're not good with them...just not for a business), the XP would be the better chip. when you're not using apps that support smp you're just wasting that other cpu. but if you'll be using those progs a lot, the dual sys is probably worth the money.

besides, niether is going to be very slow anyway.

no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end, when we all disintegrate, it'll all happen again.
Related resources
October 10, 2001 2:31:21 AM

Actually, a dualie gives 30-40% increase. Now we calculate that 1.533GHz is nearly 30% faster, and also with better clock for clock performance, the XPis teh BEST choice.

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!
October 10, 2001 7:44:38 AM

On SMP maybe in overall XP all the way

Wisdom dont come with time
Meilleur chance la prochaine fois
a b à CPUs
October 10, 2001 8:44:30 AM

xp better clock for clock performance than mp???