If all you want is a faster mass storage subsystem, use RAID.
From what
I've seen of the benchmarks at tomshardware.com, programs that don't use
nor cannot use dual processors don't benefit much (and, like you said,
it's probably the OS that got sped up so the apps tag along on the coat
tails of the OS speedup).
Lots of money for little benefit. Remember
to not just look at the numbers but the percentage of difference in
performance versus the percentage of difference you pay.
In comp.sys.intel David Schwartz said:inherits a server that was obsoleted and uses it a desktop machine. I have a
dual P3-1Ghz and dual P3-750 machine that I inherited in just this way.
They're more usable desktops than a single CPU P4-3Ghz.
rec.arts.anime.misc*Vanguard* said:The Pentium 4 Extreme is *NOT* Intel's next Intel Pentium 5 (dubbed
Prescott). It's a repackaged processor they already had! They wanted
to fold the Xeon family under the much better known Pentium 4 brand
name. You haven't gotten used to Microsoft's hype yet? Athlon finally
comes out with their 65-bit processor and steals the news, so Microsoft
takes an existing 64-bit processor that they've had for awhile and slaps
on a new name to give it some press to dampen Athlon's thunder. They
wanted something to announce for the Christmas crowd.
based on benchmarks appropriate to the use of the system. There are
benchmarks of real applications that show clearly, only a minor
performance increase (or decrease) in most uses. These are not
isolated synthetic benchamarks, but reproducible (and reproduced) many
many times. If you have benchmarks to the contrary that are confirmed
by a 3rd party then supply them, we're always hungry for more data.
In comp.sys.intel *Vanguard* said:If all you want is a faster mass storage subsystem, use RAID. From what
I've seen of the benchmarks at tomshardware.com, programs that don't use
nor cannot use dual processors don't benefit much (and, like you said,
it's probably the OS that got sped up so the apps tag along on the coat
tails of the OS speedup).
Lots of money for little benefit. Remember to not just look at the
numbers but the percentage of difference in performance versus the
percentage of difference you pay.
I'm still playing Thief Gold and Thief 2. I like stealth.
In comp.sys.intel David Schwartz said:No, I want a smoother mass storage subsystem.
Humans don't just do one thing at a time. It's called "Windows", not
"Window".
Ghazan said:As for the P4 vs P3, I really dont know. Theres the P4 Xeon, and then
theres the good but hot Athlon.
In comp.sys.intel Ghazan Haider said:I was considering Xeon vs P4 for a webserver a while ago. The only
thing that really differentiates a Xeon with a P3 is the cache. I
found P3s with 512kb cache, and thought they should be sufficient for
my web and application server. Havent done any benchmarks, but going
Xeon shouldnt give you a very big difference. Remember the Xeon came
out with the P3, and was for the people who would pay a lot more for a
little more power.
As for the P4 vs P3, I really dont know. Theres the P4 Xeon, and then
theres the good but hot Athlon.
Above 400fsb I think the bottleneck is the disk and CPU, and other PCI
cards in the system. I wouldnt recommend going all the way to 800fsb
while getting weaker CPU performance.
Ghazan said:I had also been browsing some Ultra160 SCSI cards and their disks,
along with their response times, cache, throughput etc. Turns out they
equivalent to the cheaper and much larger SATA150 disks. I looked into
some 15K rpm Ultra320 disks but could never justify the cost. If you
plan to go Ultra160, might as well head for SATA and some 7200 disk
with 8mb cache and low response time.
Above 400fsb I think the bottleneck is the disk and CPU, and other PCI
cards in the system. I wouldnt recommend going all the way to 800fsb
while getting weaker CPU performance.
blah, blah, blah. Complete bullshit.
Eric Gisin said:Moron.
One does not benchmark applications, one evaluates working systems.
My system has half-a-dozen user applications, a dozen system services. I
multitask, and so does my computer.
This is not some intellectual game, it is about real-world observations.
Moron. One does not benchmark applications, one evaluates working systems.
My system has half-a-dozen user applications, a dozen system services. I
multitask, and so does my computer.
This is not some intellectual game, it is about real-world observations.
Moron. One does not benchmark applications, one evaluates working systems.
My system has half-a-dozen user applications, a dozen system services. I
multitask, and so does my computer.
This is not some intellectual game, it is about real-world observations.
"Real-world observations" are only as good as the data that supports
them. Your word is not enough to overcome a staggering number of
benchmarks of real applications, often running in these "half-a-dozen
user applications, a dozen system services" environments that you're
trying to differentiate. All those services and apps in the
background "usually" don't need a lot of CPU time, they'd run on a
Pentium 200 and certainly on a single CPU that's significantly faster
than either one of two in a dual CPU system.
Systems are multi-tasking but almost always, only one user. That user
is occupied with a single application at a time, and that
application's completion time, being faster with the single CPU (as
proven with benchmarks) allows that user to move on to the next task,
sooner, even with those other tasks and services in the background.
The other tasks and services can be considered a constant when they're
quite easily left running while doing benchmarks.
It is not a fluid-like sequence of execution that gets the job done
faster, it's actual performance at each and every application, when
needed, one at a time then switching tasks faster than the user can
even perceive it. If all you want is a smooth experience regardless
of the actual performance, I suggest you take some valium. On the
other hand, if you want peak performance for the actual jobs you're
running, no subjective opinion can have more weight than actual
benchmarks of that application, in the same environment in which it's
to be running.
No amount of name-calling or other troll-like behavior is going to
make your argument seem valid without some verifiable examples.
You've done anything BUT provide a convincing argument.
You are talking about throughput when the problem is latency. For
checking emails, word processing, and the tasks normal people do all day,
latency is the problem. Dual CPU machines, even with comparatively slower
CPUs, beat the pants of single CPU machines when it comes to latency. (For
PCs running Windows.)
This is a fact that's immediately apparent to anyone who has tried
normal tasks on both types of machines. A dual P3-1Ghz is much better than a
P4-2.4Ghz machine. The amount of time you spend waiting for the machine to
respond to your command is very much less.
Nonsense. You only rarely wait for applications to complete. But you
very commonly wait for applications to respond to your request. How can you
type an email when the system won't echo your keystrokes because it's
launching IE at blinding speed?
Using a single-CPU machine is frustrating. Even 3 seconds when I can't
work on my email because the machine is busy launching my browser drives me
nuts. I don't care how fast it can perform some task because *I don't wait
for the computer to finish* I do something else while it's working.
Have you actually used comparable machines? Say, a dual P3-1Ghz and a
P4-2.4Ghz for a day? Try it. The difference is noticeable instantaneously.
DS
kony said:There are SOME cases where the 2nd CPU is of benefit, but not for
typical PC use. Test your preferred apps.... if they run better then
by all means throw a 2nd CPU at 'em, but don't pretend a 2nd CPU is a
blanket performance boost, because in most _PC_ cases it isn't. This
is borne out time and time again, with single CPU systems costing same
or less, outperforming the dually. If money is no object, there are
even fewer cases where it's better to have a dual CPU system instead
of a 2nd (or 3rd, etc) system. If you mean a database server or
purpose-specific workstation with the right apps it's a different
situation, but then there are also benchmarks that show this.
kony said:"Real-world observations" are only as good as the data that supports
them. Your word is not enough to overcome a staggering number of
benchmarks of real applications, often running in these "half-a-dozen
user applications, a dozen system services" environments that you're
trying to differentiate. All those services and apps in the
background "usually" don't need a lot of CPU time, they'd run on a
Pentium 200 and certainly on a single CPU that's significantly faster
than either one of two in a dual CPU system.
It is not a fluid-like sequence of execution that gets the job done
faster, it's actual performance at each and every application, when
needed, one at a time then switching tasks faster than the user can
even perceive it. If all you want is a smooth experience regardless
of the actual performance, I suggest you take some valium. On the
other hand, if you want peak performance for the actual jobs you're
running, no subjective opinion can have more weight than actual
benchmarks of that application, in the same environment in which it's
to be running.
No amount of name-calling or other troll-like behavior is going to
make your argument seem valid without some verifiable examples.
You've done anything BUT provide a convincing argument.