Dual Processor, worth it?

[kelvin1704]

Is it really worth it to have Dual Processor?

I will use my system to edit video, its not professional, its just for fun. But I am wondering does it even helps a lot considering how much more we are investing it to it.

My worries are the software might not support it. I am using Windows 2000, and possibly migrate to XP.
But my software, its Sony Shake (forgot wat it really call) doesn't seem to be design for dual.

---

Other than that, any recommendation on wat dual processor motherboard i should use? i am using AMD chip

thanks

 

[kelvin1704]

anyone?

 

[SoulAssassin]

If the application that you're using is multi-threaded then I would say absolutely go for it, if not (which is probably the case) then you get into a grey area where you will still see a performance gain from going to the dual processor setup vs single of the same speed but the money you spend may be better off going towards a higher end processor. Speaking in general terms (and please don't flame me for making this statement) you'll see a 20-30% gain in general day to day functions by going dual. Now if you could spend half that money and get a much faster processor you'll be better off.

If you look at my setup in the autosig I would say I probably spent around $250-275 more since I went to the dual proc vs a single 1600. A big part of my choice to do that was for SETI (btw, join Team Anandtech!) since $250 to double your crunching power is much cheaper than building a full system.

To reiterate, if your app doesn't support multi-threading then spend the extra loot for a faster processor or more RAM. Let me know if you have any more ??'s.

 

[John]

Wow, this must be a life or death question since you deemed it necessary to bump this thread less than 30min after posting it. Did you try a SEARCH?

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27&threadid=660653&highlight_key=y&keyword1=dual

 

[etalns]

search is your friend

 

[kelvin1704]

thanks people for answering..

I understand the multi tasking program advantage to dual..

but what if i am using one program which are not design for multi tasking but I use a Operating System like XP which support Multi.. will that helps a lot? or its just the same issue?

thanks

 

[zephyrprime]

All windows programs are multitasking. I think that you are confusing multitasking with multithreading.

 

[kelvin1704]

multithreading?
oh.. ok, then does Windows XP support tat or its actually relys on the program itself?

 

[BFG10K]

Unless you have very specific needs it's much better to get a faster single proc system and upgrade more frequently.

 

[Superwormy]

Multitasking - Using more than one program at the same time, 20 to 30% performance gain if you're a power user - essentially the CPUs will divy up the CPU power required for the applications

Multithreaded - a single individual program is designed to take advantage of both (or 3 or 4 or etc etc) CPUs, depending on program and other things, up to twice as fast

Win2k is multithreaded, so it will use both CPUs, you will DEFINITALLY notice that your system is more responsive and snappy. (or at least I would) I would assume XP is hte same case.

If you'r enot using stuff that's multithreaded (3D Studio MAX, Lightwave, Maya 3D, Softimage Xi, Photoshop, Premiere) then Dual CPUs is probably worth nothing more than braggin rights.

 

[Dark4ng3l]

Im pretty sure only Win xp professional can multithread...

 

[kelvin1704]

Well, i am not using those software.

I am still new in Video editing, currently only using bundle software from Sony,they are the movie shaker 3.1. I believe its not multithreaded.

I am starting to get into video editing, can anyone tell me wat software that would support multithread?

and is it using only movie shaker a waste of money to build a dual?

 

[Pabster]

2K and XP are both fully multithreaded and SMP capable.

 

[IgoByte]

It's really up to you to decide if it's worth it. While you'll see the benefit from running a dual-CPU system with a lot of RAM, it will also be much more expensive. It's whether you're willing to sacrifice performace over cost or the other way around. A dual setup would benefit you in pretty much any case scenario, except for gaming, assuming you're running a SMP capable OS, which you are anyway.

 

[Sunner]

As long as you're not using rather high end programs, it's generally unlikely that they're multithreaded, if you're using software that came bundeled with your computer or some component, I think it's rather safe to assume it's not multithreaded.

In the end, unless you got lotsa cash and nowhere else to spend it, I'd say you're better off with a fast uni processor system.

 

[AtomClock]

I'm writing this from a dual PIII 900MHz Linux box and I can tell you that if I were building a box only for games then I would use a single processor. For any other purpose, I would go dual and use eithor Linux or win2k. Why, well, no one program really ever taxes a single CPU but if you have multiple tasks running at the same time (and you always do even if the second task is simply the OS) then the extra processer helps keep the system responsive. Also, it is usually a lot cheeper to get two low priced processors than it is to get a single high power processor.

$0.02

 

[guzik]

I'm quite convinced that WinXP Home Edition doesn't support SMP, only Pro edition. Actually I don't think you should migrate from 2k to XP. If you go to Home Ed. you downgrading your OS, spending $200 for upgrade to Pro Ed. doesn't make much sense. I agree with SoulAssassin and BFG, that unless you use specifically multithreaded software it's better to spend money for faster processor. I had couple dual machines in the past, powered by NT, and noticed that advantage of having two slower CPUs over one faster doesn't show up on light loads (1-2 apps), but is significant when you run several (4-5) at the same time. Right now even my server is single as Xeons are awfully expensive and cache deprived (P4) and Athlons don't gain much in duals (760). Btw, I read somewhere that Jackson enabled chips are to show up mid-2002. So, patience is needed.

 

[kelvin1704]

thanks everyone for their advice.

One last question, does WIN2k itself a multithreaded program? will I see a faster load up?

 

[Bovinicus]

Windows 2000 itself does use multithreaded programs, but it sounds to me like you should really find out if the program you are using for video editing is multithreaded. An easy way to do this is using task manager (The program that open when you hit ctrl + alt + deltete). Go to the processes tab. Click on view, then select columns. Check the thread count column. Find the executable for the video editing program that you are using (It must be open for this). See if the thread count exceeds one. It seems to me as though pretty much every program has use for dual CPU's...