I am thinking of building my own system (some of you may remember the Mother Board thread)
And I wanted to know about multiple processor machines.
i don’t know about multiples, but if you are going with anything faster than 900 megahertz, go for an AMD. thunderbird and duron are best.
Howyadoin,
Item #1: Depends…
If you’re running (or want to run) Windows NT, Win2K, Be, Linux, or Solaris (forgive me if I left out anybody’s cult) multiple processors can be useful. If you’re running Win9x or Me, and plan to continue with these, don’t bother, these OSes won’t support multiple processors.
Also, what do you plan to do with the machine? If you’re using 3dStudio MAX or Sound Forge or the like, or doing SETI@home kinda distributed processing and need more power, it’s worthwhile to add a CPU assuming you have already upgraded to 256MB PC133 SDRAM or better. Note that Win9x will not cache above 256MB, so there is a law of diminished returns there. If you’re gaming, web surfing, stuff like that, don’t bother.
Item #2: IDK…
Things have changed a lot recently with all the new Intel chipsets. Remember that of the Big 2, ONLY Intel supports multiprocessing at present. Athlon multiprocessor motherboards are on the way RSN. I would check out arstechnica.com or anandtech.com for reviews and info.
Item #3: It gets expensive…
Remember that if you are running WinNT or Win2K, more than 2 processors requires a special OS release CD (read: mucho dinero). Whether or not the extra processors and motherboard expenses are worth it depends on application and operating system. Some scale better than others, YMMV. I figure 2 CPUs are adequate, no point in sinking cash into chips that are obsolete so quickly.
Item #4: The software…
Most software was not designed to make efficient use of multiple processors, if at all. I’m sure some Lunix guy will be by any second to correct me tho…
That’s my 1K anyway…
-Rav
Currently, AMD has the Palomino chips which support multi-processing. Motherboards for use with these chips are starting to surface (I know Asus makes at least one such board, and I believe Tyan does as well).
I made my argument in favor of multiprocessor boards in this thread, about 9/10 of the way to the bottom:
(sorry, I’m too lazy to mess with it long enough to extract the post#)
(I fixed the coding. You need to put a space before and after the URL to invoke auto URL parsing.)
[Edited by DrMatrix on 08-25-2001 at 12:57 PM]
That was odd.
OK, let’s try plain old cut-n-paste:
This post was in a context where it has already been specified that the hardware platform was PC. Same arguments apply to the Macintosh, though – with MacOS X, multiprocessing equipment pays off, and will get better as more and more applications also start taking advantage of multiple processors.
Hmmm, no mention of what type of machine, how about a Mac with two processors?
See above, handy.
Personally, from my own experience, I think the only reason anyone needs a dual-processor machine is if you are running a high use file server.
Yep, one of those servers that is running serious file searches, consistantly used by 30 or more people and it’s getting hit on a VERY high level.
The average home user needs little more than about 1/2 the processing power that is available today.
High end users need higher RAM and a higher processor but honestly, if you aren’t running anything more than the internet and a few basic programs a dual processor is over doing it and even the latest and greatest is over doing it.
It’s kinda like owning a Ferrari when you can’t drive above 30 MPH…what’s the point.
FWIW, I run a 600 MHz Pent III with 256 RAM with a Western Digital UDMA 66 drive (7200 rpms) and run the latest Photoshop 6.0, Paint Shop 7.0, Office 2000 and other such typical programs. She runs fine if not a little hot this summer because of the heat.
I have yet to even see a CAD system need a dual-processor in my line of work and I work primarily in the construction industry. (although semi-retired 
) My client has a lot of wacky software but the only reason they have a dual processor is for their main file server that also runs Terminal Server so it’s a high use server…BTW, it’s a dual 550 Xeon with 1 GIG of RAM and has lasted well over a year with over 40 machines that hit it and it’s still under used.
Following said in a deep drunken Irish accent
SCREW yer “basic programs” crap!!
I won’t te run me games damn it!
None o’ yer sissy internet sheet.
I won’t te frag, and I’ll be damned if i eem caught under 30 FPS again!
Sounds like a good name for a song.
Not true. WinNT natively supports four without any special requirements. More than four requires support software from the manufacturer, not Microsoft. IIRC, Win2kWS only supports 2 CPUs, period and Win2kSvr and Win2kAS have the same 4 CPU limit as WinNT. OTOH, MBs supporting more than two CPUs are inherently expensive all on their own. Most are well beyond the reach of the average consumer. AMI’s barebones Goliath system was something like US$10,000, IIRC, CPUs, RAM, and HDDs not included.
On the benefits of dual processors: Since WinNT (and all other SMP-supporting operating systems) are multiprocessing, the second processor does impart significant performance benefits to single-threaded apps. There are always background operations taking place and the idle CPU is always ready to pick these up and allow the active app to capitalize the primary CPU. Usually, this amounts to a 20-40% boost. Multithreaded apps up this to 75-90%.
Tyan Thunder K7 (S2462)
Holy crow. The naysayers said “Nay” but it actually happened.
AMD released their much-awaited AMD 760MP chipset and Dual Athlons were born.
This board comes with a bevy of features: onboard video (ATi Rage XL 8MB, ick),
Dual Channel Ultra160 SCSI, and Dual 3Com 980 NICs. It only supports
Registered DDR PC2100 SDRAM, but it’s got everything but the kitchen sink.
Price: $499 (6/24/2001)
it might go with this topic … but what about over clocking your processor ?
ive never understood the point of this i mena if ya need a program to go faster i thought ya just bought more ram
but a conversation over heard in the software store that 2 people were having had me thinking
one said " oh this game needs such and such ram "
the other responded "your processor is so over clocked it wont matter "
so is that assumption true or are they morons ?
Nightshades, if you consider a system that does not use virtual memory at all, increases in RAM make no difference in how fast a system runs. You may run out of room in which to run processes; you may crash; but a 4 MB system without any virtual memory should run just as fast as a 128 MB system.
Macintosh users tend to be more aware of this than Windows users. The conventional Macintosh operating system (i.e., System 7, MacOS 8, MacOS 9) has a truly dismal virtual memory system, so most of us forked over for enough RAM to get away with turning virtual memory completely off.
Most operating systems tend to depend a lot on virtual memory (i.e., they use a “swap file”). That means the computer is writing chunks of information out of RAM and onto the hard drive’s swap file, and reading it back into RAM on an as-needed basis. An operating system with a good virtual-memory scheme can get away with this without a huge speed hit, but it will still speed up matters considerably to have more RAM…up until you have enough that you are effectively able to keep everything you need in real RAM and leave the swap file alone. After that point, adding more RAM doesn’t make your computer appreciably faster.