Processor speed is only one factor that determines
system "performance". Memory speed, cache size, disk
subsystem performance (VERY important with audio and video
streams for increased track count), CPU architecture, and
the application itself all play a part. Your hardware
configuration, the operating system, and the applications
you run will dictate which of these factors effect
performance the most.

These many factors make it difficult to give you a
definitive answer that will be correct for any particular
system.

As you've already noticed, you likely won't notice a huge
difference in "performance" running audio applications
between a single 800 and a dual 500 system based on
processor speed alone. I am not convinced at all that an
800 will get you more tracks and FX over a dual 500 (your
disk subsytem will likely have a bigger impact with regard
to the track issue, and the processor power on the FX
issue).

What you should gain with the dual processor system,
***independent of the other factors***, is "stability" and
increased reliability ... primarily from the fact
that "peak load" on the processor, one of the big factors
affecting stability in any system, is reduced dramatically.
In many situations this can also give you some of the other
benefits such as increased track counts and power to run
more FX that you are looking for in a system.

All other factors being the same, I would not hesitate to
go with the dual processor system in your scenario ...
providing all my hardware will run under an operating
system that supports dual processors.

FWIW

KAC ...


David W. Ruby wrote:
>>Now i have observed that as far as a major diff in audio
>>apps using a pent3 500 or a pent3 800 proccessor was very
>>little.The increase was very minor.
>>Could it be good enough to run a dual pent3 500 board for
>>video as well as audio and achieve more from this.Or is
it
>>faster and going to achieve more tracks going dual pent3
>>800?
>>I know alot of folks will say 800 because it is
bigger;more
>>powerful.But from what i am finding it is very minute as
>>far as a huge increase.
>>Can anyone tell me more about this and tell me if a sigle
>>pent3 800 computer is just as fast and will achieve same
>>amount of trax as a pent3 500 dual computer?
>>I ask this the most because I have a pent3 500 computer
as
>>our recorder and need more trax and power for more fx on
>>top of the extra tracks we need.
>>Which makes more sense as far as options?
>>Thanx to all.
>>

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>Processor speed is only one factor that determines
>>system "performance". Memory speed, cache size, disk
>>subsystem performance (VERY important with audio and
video
>>streams for increased track count), CPU architecture, and
>>the application itself all play a part. Your hardware
>>configuration, the operating system, and the applications
>>you run will dictate which of these factors effect
>>performance the most.
>>
>>These many factors make it difficult to give you a
>>definitive answer that will be correct for any particular
>>system.
>>
>>As you've already noticed, you likely won't notice a huge
>>difference in "performance" running audio applications
>>between a single 800 and a dual 500 system based on
>>processor speed alone. I am not convinced at all that an
>>800 will get you more tracks and FX over a dual 500 (your
>>disk subsytem will likely have a bigger impact with
regard
>>to the track issue, and the processor power on the FX
>>issue).
>>
>>What you should gain with the dual processor system,
>>***independent of the other factors***, is "stability"
and
>>increased reliability ... primarily from the fact
>>that "peak load" on the processor, one of the big factors
>>affecting stability in any system, is reduced
dramatically.
>>In many situations this can also give you some of the
other
>>benefits such as increased track counts and power to run
>>more FX that you are looking for in a system.
>>
>>All other factors being the same, I would not hesitate to
>>go with the dual processor system in your scenario ...
>>providing all my hardware will run under an operating
>>system that supports dual processors.
>>
>>FWIW
>>
>>KAC ...
>>
>>
>>David W. Ruby wrote:
>>>>Now i have observed that as far as a major diff in
audio
>>>>apps using a pent3 500 or a pent3 800 proccessor was
very
>>>>little.The increase was very minor.
>>>>Could it be good enough to run a dual pent3 500 board
for
>>>>video as well as audio and achieve more from this.Or is
>>it
>>>>faster and going to achieve more tracks going dual
pent3
>>>>800?
>>>>I know alot of folks will say 800 because it is
>>bigger;more
>>>>powerful.But from what i am finding it is very minute
as
>>>>far as a huge increase.
>>>>Can anyone tell me more about this and tell me if a
sigle
>>>>pent3 800 computer is just as fast and will achieve
same
>>>>amount of trax as a pent3 500 dual computer?
>>>>I ask this the most because I have a pent3 500 computer
>>as
>>>>our recorder and need more trax and power for more fx
on
>>>>top of the extra tracks we need.
>>>>Which makes more sense as far as options?
>>>>Thanx to all.
>>>>

I may be wrong on this one, but I believe Only windows 2000
and Windows NT will support dual processors. I'm not sure
on Windows ME (never considered that to be a real upgrade
so I never looked into it). I believe Windows 98 SE will
not support dual processors.

My question is, does anyone know of a manufacturer that has
a dual processor motherboard for AMD Athlon processors? I
see the 950Mhz thunderbirds are only $160 now!!! I checked
the Asus website and found nothing. My favorite
motherboard companies are either Asus or Abit so I would
really like to hear some news of either of these companies
with a dual Athlon Thunderbird board. You guys sticking
with those Intel legacies can spend a lot of hard earned
cash, but I really have enjoyed my Athlons kick ass
performance. Although Intel does have the pentium 4's at
1.4Ghz and 1.5Ghz at a measly $600 and $850 respectively,
and I believe they have 1meg of L2 cache on them too. I'll
wait for AMD's answer to this which will have more cache
and cost 50%less.

My other question is, I too am just considering this dual
processor PC now, and am just shopping around and probably
won't take the plunge for another 6 months or so, but do
your processors have to match when you go dual processor.
I wouldn't be able to run a 600Mhz and a 900Mhz on the same
board would I?

David W. Ruby wrote:
>>
>>
>>Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>>>Processor speed is only one factor that determines
>>>>system "performance". Memory speed, cache size, disk
>>>>subsystem performance (VERY important with audio and
>>video
>>>>streams for increased track count), CPU architecture,
and
>>>>the application itself all play a part. Your hardware
>>>>configuration, the operating system, and the
applications
>>>>you run will dictate which of these factors effect
>>>>performance the most.
>>>>
>>>>These many factors make it difficult to give you a
>>>>definitive answer that will be correct for any
particular
>>>>system.
>>>>
>>>>As you've already noticed, you likely won't notice a
huge
>>>>difference in "performance" running audio applications
>>>>between a single 800 and a dual 500 system based on
>>>>processor speed alone. I am not convinced at all that
an
>>>>800 will get you more tracks and FX over a dual 500
(your
>>>>disk subsytem will likely have a bigger impact with
>>regard
>>>>to the track issue, and the processor power on the FX
>>>>issue).
>>>>
>>>>What you should gain with the dual processor system,
>>>>***independent of the other factors***, is "stability"
>>and
>>>>increased reliability ... primarily from the fact
>>>>that "peak load" on the processor, one of the big
factors
>>>>affecting stability in any system, is reduced
>>dramatically.
>>>>In many situations this can also give you some of the
>>other
>>>>benefits such as increased track counts and power to
run
>>>>more FX that you are looking for in a system.
>>>>
>>>>All other factors being the same, I would not hesitate
to
>>>>go with the dual processor system in your scenario ...
>>>>providing all my hardware will run under an operating
>>>>system that supports dual processors.
>>>>
>>>>FWIW
>>>>
>>>>KAC ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>David W. Ruby wrote:
>>>>>>Now i have observed that as far as a major diff in
>>audio
>>>>>>apps using a pent3 500 or a pent3 800 proccessor was
>>very
>>>>>>little.The increase was very minor.
>>>>>>Could it be good enough to run a dual pent3 500 board
>>for
>>>>>>video as well as audio and achieve more from this.Or
is
>>>>it
>>>>>>faster and going to achieve more tracks going dual
>>pent3
>>>>>>800?
>>>>>>I know alot of folks will say 800 because it is
>>>>bigger;more
>>>>>>powerful.But from what i am finding it is very minute
>>as
>>>>>>far as a huge increase.
>>>>>>Can anyone tell me more about this and tell me if a
>>sigle
>>>>>>pent3 800 computer is just as fast and will achieve
>>same
>>>>>>amount of trax as a pent3 500 dual computer?
>>>>>>I ask this the most because I have a pent3 500
computer
>>>>as
>>>>>>our recorder and need more trax and power for more fx
>>on
>>>>>>top of the extra tracks we need.
>>>>>>Which makes more sense as far as options?
>>>>>>Thanx to all.
>>>>>>

For the Window's world you are correct about WinNT and
Win2K being the only OS's supporting mulitple processors at
this time.

Never tried it personally, but supposedly if you match the
frequency of multiple processors in the same system they
can be of different speeds. However it is generally
considered that you would be better off running matching
processors as they are usually tested specifically to run
in a matched configuration.

KAC ...


Brian Franz wrote:
>>I may be wrong on this one, but I believe Only windows
2000 and Windows NT will support dual processors.

>>My other question is, I too am just considering this dual
>>processor PC now, and am just shopping around and
probably won't take the plunge for another 6 months or so,
but do your processors have to match when you go dual
processor. I wouldn't be able to run a 600Mhz and a 900Mhz
on the same board would I?