Dual Processors compared to Single

I remember reading somewhere on this forum that a single processor G4 will produce
approximately 60% of the processing power of a dual processor G4 of the same speed.
Is this correct?
I am currently running a G4 DA (with processor upgrade) AT 1.46 GHz. I am considering
buying a dual 1.42 GHz G4. So, if my rather shaky math is correct, I can expect the dual
1.42 to operate as if it were (very roughly) a 2 GHz single.
Is this a reasonable estimate? I am trying to decide whether the dual 1.42 will be a good
next step on my climb up the Apple tree. My current G4 setup has performed flawlessly
for over a year now but is beginning to show signs of its age when it comes to processing
HD video and converting video formats.
In my figuring, I didn't take into account the increase in bus speed from 1.33 MHz to 1.66
MHz from the single DA to the dual 1.42. So I would expect that my estimate of 2 GHz
is on the conservative side.
Would appreciate the advice of anyone more knowledgeable about these things than I am.

Thanks all for your replies.
So the general consensus seems to be that I will not gain much by upgrading to
a dual 1.42 from a single running at 1.46 even considering the slight increase
in bus speed - 1.33 to 1.67 MHz - and the improved multi-tasking ability.
I was hoping to find a cheaper solution than upgrading to a G5, especially since
with a G5 I'll lose the ability to boot to OS9 or even use OS9 apps in Classic mode.
One of my most-used apps is the old Photoshop 3, which I've stuck with because
the use of its tools has become second nature to me. I also flip into OS9's QT 6
Pro which has a few features lacking in later versions.
Could one of you steer me to a site that shows comparative speed tests on say,
Photoshop processing between various G4 models? I've come across such tests,
but can't remember where. That would help me make a decision between the
dual G4 and the more expensive G5.
I'd much appreciate your input on this.

Similar Messages

  • What applications are benefitted from Dual Processors

    In considering G4 CPU upgrades, specifically what types of applications are most helped by dual processors vs. a single processor? Specifically with my Digital Audio, I run OS 10.4 (seldom do I do anything in classic), and do internet surfing, digital photo editing, and work in MS Office a lot. Would upgrading to a dual processor CPU be of much benefit and be worth up to 2X the cost of a single CPU?
    Thanks, Steve

    In all honesty you'd probably be better off getting the fastest single-processor upgrade you can(1.6-2GHz would be optimal).
    In benchmark tests, my dual-processor Mystic is close to exactly as powerful with the dual 450MHz CPUs as it is with a single 1GHz 7455 upgrade; but the faster card is brilliant during single-tasking like watching complex Flash animations & playing games, whereas the dual machine simply maxes out one slow processor with these operations and leaves me with the other to slowly do a lot of other things at the same time.
    A dual 1.8 card would be brilliant, but I don't think the cost would make sense unless you quite often do complex rendering & such while surfing the Web or playing games.

  • Can I add a processor to my single 1.8 Ghz, making it a dual?

    Can I add a processor to my single 1.8 Ghz, making it a dual? If so, where can I find installation instructions to do that? Thanks.

    I've heard from various places that the G5 boards (excluding the 1.8GHz G5, 600MHz FSB) share a common design. However, the SP ones lack a physical socket for the second processor even though the board traces are there. That opens up possibilities if you're adventurous.
    I recommend selling your current G5 and using the money towards a dual or quad G5 if you're not too attached to it. It's the simplest solution and would result in a faster system overall.

  • Migrating from single processor to dual processor Callmanager

    Hi Networkers,
    had anyone install a Callmanager 4.1 dual processor version of CM4.1-K9-X345D= before in a single CPU in a dual processor capable server before.
    Can it work in the first place?
    Had anyone successfully migrate it to a dual-processor later on?

    I dont think there is any difference in Callmanager software for a dual processor versus single processor server. For 7845 (dual processor) the hardware detection disks may be different from the one for single processor (7825, 7835)
    Migrating from one to another is as easy as taking a BARS backup from one server, build the other server to the same version and restore it. (Make sure server name and ip are the same for both servers)
    Please remember to rate posts!

  • How-To: Comparing DMVPN Single & Dual Tier Architectures - IPSec VPN & mGRE Termination

    Greetings to everyone,
    I'd like to share a recent article we published that covers the differences between Single and Dual Tier DMVPN deployments. The article aims to help engineers understand the differences at the IPSec VPN level and its termination on the HUB router.
    Those interested can following the link below to read up on this hot topic:
    Firewall.cx - Comparing DMVPN Single & Dual Tier Architectures - IPSec VPN & mGRE Termination
    Topics Covered (Diagram included for every scenario):
    - Single Tier Headend, How IPSec Tunnel mode terminate on Hub
    - Single Tier Headend, How mGRE Tunnels terminate on Hub
    - Dual Tier Headend, How IPSec Tunnel mode terminate on Frontend Router
    - Dual Tier Headend, How mGRE Tunnels terminate on Hub
    - Links to similar articles that will surely interest
    Feedback is always welcome.
    Thanks,
    Chris.

    You might be running a bug, try to check the Cisco Bug Toolkit for a bug (Or Cisco TAC).
    Also try to capture the debug as the why the VPN is failing. Since EIGRP packets flow continuously the tunnel should not go down.
    Regards
    Farrukh

  • Can a Power Mac G5 2.7 dual processor be run as a single processor?

    This is in relation to my last question that I may have mis-worded,
    Can I run a dual core, dual processor, as a dual core, single processor, and if so, how do I do this?
    This is the info on;
    About this Mac:
    Power Mac           G5
    Machine Model     7,3
    CPU type             Power Mac G5 - 3.1
    Number of CPU's  2
    CPU Speed          2.7
    Any Help,
    Thank you.

    Yes. (but yours is a dual processor, single core each processor)
    It may be run as a single processor by disabling one processor.
    While booted normally, in Utilities, open Terminal and enter the following:
    $ sudo nvram boot-args="cpus=1"
    To re-enable the 2nd cpu
    $ sudo nvram boot-args=""

  • Single or Dual Processors for Tuxedo and/or weblogic 8.1?

    We run Tools 8.44 and 8.20 and double checking to see if either Weblogic (8.1) or Tuxedo (8.1) would utilize a dual processor environment? We run these on Windows 2003 Server.
    Appreciate inisght.

    Yep its all in the cache, and the L3 makes all the difference.
    I remember when I was shopping for my upgrade, Gigadesign had two different models of CPU's, the (brand new at the time) single and dual 7447's which went up to a dual 1.8 and the older pre-Freescale models (cant remember the model number maybe it was indeed the 7455B??) that maxed out with a dual 1.4..
    I remember reading benchmarks (and quite a bit at XLR8yourmac.com) about the older dual 1.4's being on about the same level as the dual 1.6 and 1.7 7447 cpus.. This was all down to the 1.4 having L3 cache on each cpu. The 7447 had double the L2 like the 7448 but no L3.. I didnt really care much since they were relatively the same benchmark, but I went with the dual 1.7 7447 anyways just because the numbers were higher..
    And funny enough, the CPU never ran stable at 1.7, my Mac would crash and kernel panic left and right. I couldnt get any response back from their tech support (I think it was one guy that ran the whole thing) about adjusting the voltage on it, so it spent its entire lifetime in my G4 as a dual 1.67. Not too big of a difference but I couldve saved some money just flat out buying a 1.6 instead of the 1.7, and wouldve saved even more had I just listened and bought the dual 1.4 with L3...
    John with a G4 - no problem at all hehe! Dont get me wrong I loved my G4 and it served me well for just about 10 years before it 'died' on me.. But after getting the late-2005 dual core G5 man oh man I wish I wouldve done it waaaaaaaaaay sooner!

  • Replace powermac mdd single 1ghz processor with dual processor

    I want to know if i can if put a dual 1.25 or 1.42 ghz processor in my single processor machine. will it work because what i understand is that i have the slower bus speed of 133 and the dual processor machines have 167. will that matter?

    Aftermarket processor upgrades would have to be specific to the Mirrored Drive Doors model. The CPUs for earlier models will not work. So you would have to follow the recommendations of each manufacturer. Maybe someone who has added one can chime in with a recommendation. Otherwise, try:
    http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/g4reviews.html

  • Can FW800 133 MHz board from single 1 GHz machine take a dual processor?

    I've read in more than one place that the logic board from the 1 GHz FW800 machine can't be used with ANY dual processor. Can anybody tell me with a reasonable degree of certainty whether this is true or not?
    Please don't bother answering based on general principles. I already believe -- tell me if I'm wrong -- that every other MDD FW400 or FW800 board CAN take a dual processor and, except for this question, EVERY processor will work EITHER with EVERY 133 MHz board OR with EVERY 167 MHz board.

    From my experience the processor card should be compatible, but don't hang me if I'm wrong.
    This page showes how to set different multipliers = bus ratios.
    So, according to the default multipliers for the MDDs, you get:
    6.5x 133 MHz bus = 864.5 MHz CPU (867 MHz)
    6.0x 166 MHz bus = 996 MHz CPU (1.0 GHz)
    7.5x 166 MHz bus = 1,245 MHz CPU (1.25 GHz)
    Thus, if you put a Dual 1.0 GHz onto a 133 MHz board, you'd get not 1.0 GHz but 800 MHz instead (798 MHz to be exact). The same goes for the 1.25 GHz where you'd get 1.0 GHz (997.5 MHz), and for the 1.42 GHz where it'd be 1,1 GHz (1130 MHz, multiplier 8.5x).
    6.0x 133 MHz bus = 798.0 MHz CPU (1.0 GHz → 800 MHz)
    7.5x 133 MHz bus = 997.5 MHz CPU (1.25 GHz → 1.0 GHz)
    8.5x 133 MHz bus = 1,130 MHz CPU (1.42 GHz → 1.1 GHz)
    So, if you alter the bus speed of the board (see here, link is from the xlr8yourmac page linked above) you will be able to use the Dual processors for the 166 MHz bus on your 133 MHz board, then overclocked to 166 MHz, at their designed speeds. If you don't what to change the boards system bus speed the processors will just be underclocked, thus run slower – with all the advantages like less power consumption and less heat emission together with a prolonged lifetime.
    To fit the 133 MHz system bus you would have to change the multipliers on the processor daughter card to run at the processors native speeds.
    Just one example:
    1,000 MHz / 133 MHz = 7.5x
    So, if you'd want to run a Dual 1.0 GHz processor on a 133 MHz system board you'd have to alter the multiplier from 6.0x (for the original 166 MHz system bus) to 7.5x (for your 133 MHz system bus) – the resistors to change the multiplier reside on the processor daughter board.
    That said, keep in mind that this procedure is *NOT tested or confimed*, but it seems logical, doesn't it?
    I had a OWC Mercury Extreme 1.4 GHz processor upgrade placed in a Gigabit Ethernet replaced into a Quicksilver (2001 version). As you can see here, it had set the multiplier to 14x to have it run at 1.4 GHz on the Gigabith Ethernet (100 MHz system bus) and I had to set the jumpers to a multiplier of 10.5x for the Quicksilver (133 MHz system bus).
    Thus, if I had put the OWC Mercury Extreme running at 1.4 GHz in the 133 MHz bus Quicksilver unmodified back into the 100 MHz bus Gigabit Ethernet, it would run at 1050 MHz (roughly 1.0 GHz).
    That's it. There wouldn't be more to it than that, but the latter source (for changing the motherboards system bus speed) states that Apple put in some protection on the processor daughter card to prevent increase in system bus speed if no dual processor is present. Since this doesn't apply to you as you stick to your 133 MHz system bus it shouldn't bother you.
    *But don't blame me* if it should turn out to be completely wrong!
    Cheers,
    Andreas.

  • What's the deal with dual processors???

    The whole dual processor thing has been bugging me for some time now. If I have a dual 500mhz processor, is it the same as a 1.0ghz processor, worse than one, better than one?! Are there other factors at play? In my limited scope, if you had a dual 500, 533, whatever, it would be the same as a single 1.0ghz - and yet these dual processors are priced much cheaper. I really am at a loss as to how computers do their processing, and how to compare single processor G4's and dual processor G4's when making a purchase.
    Insight would be greatly appreciated!

    And you shouldn't forget, the future is multiprocessors. There is a limit to miniturization, and the solution seems to be multiplication. So operating systems and applications are increasingly going to be multiprocessor-aware. Maybe a perfect example is the upcoming MacOS release, Snowleopard. Apparently, there will be almost no cosmetic changes. The changes will essentially be 'under-the-hood'. And you can bet, that some of those changes will be increased efficiency with respect to multiple processors.
    So what's the deal with airplane peanu...err, dual processors?
    The advantage, theoretically is, having more workers to do the work. Your 1ghz processor is like a worker who can lift 100kg, and your 500mhz are like workers who can lift 50kg each.
    So where's the advantage? If you have a farm with 40 kg hay bales in the field that you need to pick up, your better off with two workers than one right? Or 8 workers in the case of a 8-core MacPro. So an multiprocessor-aware operating system, doles out the work much more efficiently, spreading the tasks around, or spreading a single task around in pieces (if the app is so written).
    You've heard of render farms? The multiple computers used to render the frames of animated movies? Its the same principle. Having computer 1 render the first 1000 frames and computer 2 the next, the project gets done within a lifetime. If they had had only one computer, ToyStory would still not be finished.
    Its the future. Just wait till the end of this year for example. Nehalem chips will be sporting even more processors.
    Try these;
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1619399&tstart=0
    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070605-intel-updates-compilers-for-multic ore-era.html
    Nehalem; http://techreport.com/discussions.x/12130

  • Dual Processor Multi Core Parrell Processing Question

    Hey Guys
    I'm looking for a little clarification on an issue with parrell
    processing in LabView. If I have a Dual Processor machine with two 4 core CPU's
    will be able to access all 8 cores in the LabView environment. I'm presuming it
    can use any cores the operating system can see?   
    Thanks for the help,
    Tom
    Solved!
    Go to Solution.

    Norbert B wrote:
    it is the job of the OS that applications can use all cores if necessarry. So for the application itself, it should make no difference if the system (in hardware) is MultiCPU, MultiCore or even simply HyperThread.....
    Norbert 
    Its true, but I would like to add my 5 cents here.
    Lets say, if you have single loop like
    while (true){
    //do something
    then OS will get no chance to run it in multiple threads. So, you will get max 12,5% CPU load at 8 cores PC or 50% max on dual core PC.
    I have dual core PC right now, and lets check it:
    So, as we can see - 50% CPU load reached (one core loaded more, but its another story).
    Well, if we will use two while loops, then we will get 100 % load:
    Of course, if you will need to load all 8 cores, then you should have 8 parallel loops.
    Compare BD above with the following:
    We have two Array minmax functions, and they independend, but we have 50% only.
    Well, you can get also 100% CPU utulization withing single while loop. In th example below you have two SubVI, which called in the same loop:
    We have here 100 %. Important, that these VIs should be reenterant!
    See what happened if they not reeenterant:
    Now a little bit about Vision. Behing of most of the Vision SubVIs are DLL calls. Some Vision functions already optimized for multicore execution. For example, convolution:
    On the BD above we have single loop with one SubVI, but both cores are used (because convolute itself already optimized for multi core).
    Remember, that not all Vision functions optimized yet. For, example, LowPass still single-threaded (compare this BD with BD above):
    Sure, we can utilize multi cores - just perform parallel execution (you have to split image to two parts, then join together and so on):
    Remember, that SubVIs should be reeentrant, and all DLL calls should be thred safe (not in UI thread). Also good idea to turn off debugging in such experiments for eliminate additional CPU load.
    Another point about 8 cores. As far as I know, LabVIEW (and LabVIEW-based application) will support only 4 cores within one execution system by default (at least prior to LabVIEW 2009). If you need to utulize all 8 cores, then you should add some lines into LabVIEW.ini. Refer to the following thread where you can found more details:
    Interpolate 1d slow on 8 core machine
    Hope all written above was correct. 
    Thank for reading and best regards,
    Andrey.
    Message Edited by Andrey Dmitriev on 11-27-2009 02:50 PM

  • Installing a dual processor

    Is it possible to drop in a dual 1.25ghz chip into a G4 "born" with a single core? I have a G4 single 1.25ghz MDD and see dual 1.25ghz chips on ebay all the time. Are the mobo's different?

    Hi there and Welcome to Forums!
    In answer to your question, I first need to know what MDD or MDD FW800 you have. There are two versions of the MDD, first is a 133mhz bus model and the 2nd, a 167mhz bus model. Since you have a single 1.25ghz MDD model logicboard, the answer is that you can install any dual processor you would like. What I mean is a dual 1.25 or a dual 1.42 + any of the sonnet processor upgrades of dual 1.6 and dual 1.8. For all purposes, I would go with the dual 1.25 since there really isn't much difference in speed and performance compared to the dual 1.42.
    Also, you should consider replacing the heatsink with the copper one from a dual 1.42 MDD. These can be had on ebay or on www.mac-pro.com
    The only mobo's that are different are the FW800 ones which are similar to the standard FW400 MDD's except for a FW800 connector, bluetooth, and airport extreme. The original and 2003 models of the FW400 based MDDs have the ability to boot into OS 9.2.2 natively while the FW800 can't. The FW400 models have no bluetooth, and only work with the original airport only. But, you can get a Belkin F5D7001 PCI wireless card which will allow your mac to access the internet at airport extreme speeds.

  • CHUD on a dual processor MDD running Leopard (10.5.8)

    I finally got around to installing CHUD today and am wondering if some of you folks who have used it for a while might have some easy answers to a few questions.
    I first tried version 3.5.2. It installed, but I couldn't adjust any of the settings. I then read on japamac's site that some MDD's could use 4.4.4. I installed that version and it does work (In fact, I'm posting this with one processor tied behind my back). However, there does not seem to be an option for nap mode.
    Also, after I toggle between single an dual processor mode a few times, performance in dual mode seems to take a big hit. A restart solves the problem, but I'm wondering if this is normal.
    Is there any way to get nap mode to work in a dual cpu MDD running 10.5.8?
    Is there any way to get it to stay in single CPU mode when it wakes from sleep?
    I read through the discussions at xlr8yourmac before posting this. It appears that some people have been able to get nap mode to work under Leopard, but they are not always careful to mention exactly which version of Leopard and CHUD they are using.

    Hi-
    When installing CHUD, it is also necessary to run CHUD remover to deinstall previous installations.
    If not deinstalled, odd stuff happens.
    3.5.2 is the one for dual processors.
    Other versions have mixed dual processor support.
    This is one of the claims that 4.4.4 works, but I have lingering doubts
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5974655&#5974655
    I may need to edit my blog page.....
    It takes a script for automatic Nap enabling in a dual processor machine with 3.5.2.
    See this thread:
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=9030378&#9030378

  • Dual processor not showing up in Activity Monitor

    I have a dual processor G5 PowerPC at work and when I look at the CPU Activity Monitor it shows me the activity on both processors. My Mac Pro at home is also a dual processor but when I look at the activity monitor it only shows one processor thread. Is this normal or is there something wrong with my Mac Pro? Anyone else notice this as well?

    Hi KSStudio. A few questions to clarify.
    1. Is this a dual or single cpu machine?
    2. How many cores per machine?
    Check it out...
    Assuming you have a dual cpu (8 core) 2009 mac pro, when you use activity monitor choose > Window > CPU Usage. You should see a floating window with 16 panes. (8 panes if you have a single processor/4 core model) Under normal loads using 10.5 you should see some activity in all 16 panes. Under normal loads using 10.6 you should see activity in odd numbered panes. You will see activity in even numbered panes when the load is high. This is normal and due to Snow Leopard's improved utilization of processor technology.
    Hope this helps.
    --Jesse

  • "Inconsistent cursor cache. Out of range cursor" error on dual processor multi thread

    I have a C++ with Pro*C++ COM object running on a Win2000 OS on
    a dual processor Middleware. The program is being called by a
    service in a multi threaded way. An oracle error like ORA-2103
    and SQL-02103 will be generated after running the program. We've
    tried putting mutex on every SQL statement in Pro*C and it works
    but the systems became very very slow. We concluded that the
    error might be cause by a collision of threads accessing the
    same Table or different tables having foreign constraints. This
    is so because the error keeps coming from a statement accessing
    Table A and following errors comes from a Table B having a
    foreign key on Table A.
    Our only solution now is to put Mutex on Statements accessing
    same tables or tables with foreign constraints but this will
    make our system run very very slow. I dont know if the problem
    is in our Oracle Database because we already upgraded our system
    from 8.1.6 to 8.1.7. The wierd thing on this is that the system
    is running smoothly without oracle errors on a SINGLE PROCESSOR
    Middleware. Hope you can give me any insights on this problem.

    I have a C++ with Pro*C++ COM object running on a Win2000 OS on
    a dual processor Middleware. The program is being called by a
    service in a multi threaded way. An oracle error like ORA-2103
    and SQL-02103 will be generated after running the program. We've
    tried putting mutex on every SQL statement in Pro*C and it works
    but the systems became very very slow. We concluded that the
    error might be cause by a collision of threads accessing the
    same Table or different tables having foreign constraints. This
    is so because the error keeps coming from a statement accessing
    Table A and following errors comes from a Table B having a
    foreign key on Table A.
    Our only solution now is to put Mutex on Statements accessing
    same tables or tables with foreign constraints but this will
    make our system run very very slow. I dont know if the problem
    is in our Oracle Database because we already upgraded our system
    from 8.1.6 to 8.1.7. The wierd thing on this is that the system
    is running smoothly without oracle errors on a SINGLE PROCESSOR
    Middleware. Hope you can give me any insights on this problem.

Maybe you are looking for