🚀 go-pugleaf

George Bell wrote:

> 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.
>>
> 


No, it couldn't possibly be any slower.  Software that was specifically 
designed for multiprocessor systems(i.e. by implementing more threads) 
might run slower than if it had been designed for a single processor in 
mind, because on a single processor the multiple threads would create 
more overhead. But this only means the software can only possible run 
faster with more CPUs. A single thread process wouldn't run any slower 
on a multiprocessor system, it just couldn't take advantage of the 
resources as well as the other.

Try looking (man ps) to see how many processes are running on your 

machine at once and then tell me if it would run slower with more CPUs.


> 
> While I generally agree that dual CPU may be inappropriate, this is an 
> inaccurate statement.  The allocation of CPU resources is a function of 
> the os, not the tasks running(and thus the software).  Since Linux can 
> support SMP - symetric multiprocessor( each processor gets as much 
> "work" as the other ), then twice as much CPU time is available to the 
> system and the performance is twice as great, period.
> 
> 
>> and nowadays, CPU is speeding up very fast. buying dual cpu isn't
>> really goood choice if you run it as a  home user.
>> when you upgrade, u have to fork out twice of the money of a single
>> upgrade. and dual motherboard is very rare and expensive. if you need
>> to change the motherboard to suit fast cpu, u need to fork out more.
>>
> 
>