Howard,
I would even say that posted answer was a little to a lot optimistic about the improvement you can get from duals on an application like photoshop. A review by Ace's Hardware (just the first one I came across looking for benchmark data on google) concludes there is little benefit from a dual machine, and especially, $ for $, you're better off with a faster mono machine:
"The Photoshop benchmarks showed us surprising results as well: a dual CPU system is of little use compared to a faster single processor system in this application. A fast clocked single processor with the best memory subsystem performs much better, between 4 and 44%!"
aceshardware.com
But as both Jon and I noted, there are server applications like database servers, where the multi-cpu setup is essential—the same Ace's review has benchmarks for these types of apps, but they are hardly typical apps for a desktop machine.
In my experience, duals for the desktop just add some level of usability. For some types of intensive cpu activity there is some cpu capacity left over to do other things. It's hard to quantify or to put a value on it and I really don't know which way I would go were I to upgrade now. I'd scout around to see what kind of dual system I could get for the same money as an up-to-date mono system and then weigh some of the other trade-offs that are important to me like maintenance, noise, heat, etc.
And then, who knows, I might be sorry if I choose the mono system, because it's hard to say how much I'm taking for granted with my present dual system, having been using it for a while now...
Another thing to consider is multi-boxes. If you really want cpu-independent multi-tasking it can be a good way to go. I haven't tried this yet, but some have posted on this board that they use applications like RemoteAdministrator to control the satellite machines eliminating the need for extra monitors, keyboards and mice. KVM switches can be used too.
wily |
