Barefeats' G5 test!

[AngryAngel]

How does performance of dual cores compare with dual processors?

Is there a cost advantage to dual porcessor systems (over dual cores)?

I am wondering why IBM/Apple didn't develop a version of the dual core POWER4 (with added VMX) instead of (or in addition) to the PPC 970, if they are going to sell many dual processor configured computers.

Any word on IBM's adoption of Hyperthreading (or a similar technology)?

 

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by Stike
Maybe bootup time
compared to Win98...

No, DOS.

 

[Lanbrown]

Apple published a SPECfp score of 15.7 for the Dual 2GHz G5. A Dell Precision WorkStation 350 (3.06 GHz P4) gets a 12.7. A dual processor Dell Precision Workstation 650 (3.06 GHz Xeon) gets an 18. And the single of that same system gets a 12.2. A dual processor IBM IntelliStation POWER 275 Workstation (1450 MHz) gets 19.6.

 

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by AngryAngel
How does performance of dual cores compare with dual processors?

Is there a cost advantage to dual porcessor systems (over dual cores)?

I am wondering why IBM/Apple didn't develop a version of the dual core POWER4 (with added VMX) instead of (or in addition) to the PPC 970, if they are going to sell many dual processor configured computers.

Any word on IBM's adoption of Hyperthreading (or a similar technology)?

Dual cores are typically cheaper for software for servers. Some software you pay by the CPU, so if you have two cores, it is still one CPU though. Some software companies make the distinction though, others do not. It also only takes one slot in a server, compared to two.

It is cheaper to make a dual processor system then a dual core processor.