Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wily who wrote (14382)	12/12/2003 7:35:35 PM
From: Howard R. Hansen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14778

Dual CPUs Here is an answer to a question that was posted in the News Groups about whether Windows XP Pro was intelligent enough to run one application program on one CPU and a second application program on a second CPU simultaneously in a dual CPU configuration. The answer was no and this is consistent with your experience Willy. Hence, if you have multi-threaded applications that were designed to run on dual CPUs, like PhotoShop, than you can gain 30 to 50% improvement in performance with dual CPUs. If you are trying to run multiple applications concurrently than go for the fastest single CPU configuration you can afford. When running multiple applications concurrently you won't gain enough increase in performance to justify a dual CPU configuration. Note this answer only applies to Windows XP Pro. I don't know if the results will be different when running OS X on a dual Mac G5. "Lets say you have two programs, neither of which are multi-threaded. If you have a dual processor system, will windows send the workload of both of them to the same processor or is it smart enough to send them to separate processors? Ahhh, No. Windows will not send different programs to different CPUs. It WILL send some of its own processes to the 2nd CPU, but it will not load program A to CPU A, and program B to CPU B. Sorry."