🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

I'll grant that if you are not running X and work only on one
virtual console at a time, one cpu will be just as fast as two.

>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.

The same is true of faster cpu's.  But there is probably a point
where buying faster cpu's is less cost effective than buying a
dual cpu motherboard.  That point is roughly where the speed of
a dual board is about 1.5 times the fastest single cpu
available.  Hence right now it is more cost effective to buy a
dual cpu system running 1.8-2.5GHz than to, for example,
purchase a 4Ghz single cpu system!  (Assuming of course that the
cpu load is generally not just one process.)

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson         <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                 floyd@barrow.com