🚀 go-pugleaf

In comp.os.linux.hardware Floyd Davidson <floyd@ptialaska.net> wrote:
> warren22432@yahoo.com (warr) wrote:
>>"Scud" <arahmati(NOSPAM)@ihug.com.au> wrote in message news:<av5qtf$tcf$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
>>> hmm well when i researched the dual vs. single CPU option there wasnt must
>>> to gain from dual CPU for what i wanted to do so single seemed the way to go
>>> unless you plan on using software writtne to utilise the dual advantage...
>>
>>this is true. and if the software is only written for single CPU, your
>>dual CPU system may be even slower than Single CPU system.
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> A single cpu system might be faster *if* there is only one
> process running most of the time.  On the other hand, if there
> are 2 or more processes running a dual cpu system is going to be
> faster.  On my box the X server is always running, plus whatever
> else I'm doing.  Hence there is *never* a time when a single cpu
> would be as fast as a dual cpu system for my typical usage.

Obviously, you don't do much harddisk trashing.  For CPU consideration
only, dual can run 2 processes, so it's more responsive, both in theory
and in practice.  If you are doing lots of IDE I/O, then your computer
will crawl no matter what.  So, it makes more sense to go with
single-CPU and spend some money on SCSI.

Also, dual-motherboard is hard to come by and is expensive.  The usual
argument that you only have to have one RAM, one case/power supply, one
video/network card, etc is valid.  So, the OP has to do his own math...

-- 
William Park, Open Geometry Consulting, <opengeometry@yahoo.ca>
Linux solution for data management and processing.