Unless you just want IBM processors I would wait. Apple has pretty
much promised to change over to Intel chips completely this year.
There was a significant bump in speed for the first two. You might
get speed equal to the quad core for much less money by waiting a few
months.
I don't know about speed improvements with the quad core. I am sure
it has been tested independently. I know my old, slow 1gig dual
processor PowerMac is way, way faster than my newer 1.3gig Powerbook
when dealing with Photoshop. I don't know whether PS is written to
take advantage of additonal processors.
I looked around. Barefeats has a test. 4 is much better than 2.
http://www.barefeats.com/quad02.html
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Jan 29, 2006, at 5:36 PM, Andrew Gullen wrote:
> (If this is semi-OT, does that make reading it semiOTics?)
>
> I'm looking at a new Mac. I get to use and build software on PCs
> all day and
> don't think I could stand it at night too :-).
>
> Specifically I'm looking at the dual-core (not Core Duo) or quad-
> core Power
> Macs. The need for speed will come from Photoshop, and the use of
> scanned
> images from OM film cameras. Anyone have any info on whether the
> quad speeds
> up PS significantly over the dual? (I'm about to start googling,
> but the
> response here is liable to be more informative and more entertaining.)
> There's also a small clock speed difference to I believe.
>
> Other related thoughts? I've been looking at the Core Duo review
> someone
> helpfully posted a pointer to... Does the Core Duo use the 80x86
> instruction
> set or is it a new machine?
>
> TIA,
> Andrew
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|