Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default organic electrolytics in audio equipment?

wrote in message
...

On Feb 7, 6:44 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

One of the dirty little secrets of computing is that multiple cores ("The
next big thing" for the last 2 years) don't do anything for most
software.
It's even hard to get multiple apps going long enough to benefit from
that
aspect of the benefits of multiple cores.


Bottom line - take an older (2-3 years) machine and give it modern
amounts
of RAM which is dirt cheap these days, and it may stand up to a very hot
new
machine very well.


If you really want a thrill, upgrade the 2-3 year old clunker with a
couple
of 1 GB drives in a RAID array, which most motherboards have supported
for
the past 2-3 years.


OTOH. I do make steady use of video editing of video editing software
that
does exploit multiple processors, and they are very nice for rendering
and
the like.


Start task manager and take a look at the processes.


Been there, done that.

Each one of hose exes goes computable periodically.


Multiple cores do no good if the processor is idle or can be scheduled
shortly.

Multiple core does help.


No doubt multiple core is a help, but in fact it rarely provides an
effective multiplication of power. While my 3 desktops are all multiple
core, I am frequently working on customer machines that are single core. A
really, fast single core is still the best solution.



  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
[email protected] JamesGangNC@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default organic electrolytics in audio equipment?

On Feb 9, 7:43*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Feb 7, 6:44 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:





One of the dirty little secrets of computing is that multiple cores ("The
next big thing" for the last 2 years) don't do anything for most
software.
It's even hard to get multiple apps going long enough to benefit from
that
aspect of the benefits of multiple cores.
Bottom line - take an older (2-3 years) machine and give it modern
amounts
of RAM which is dirt cheap these days, and it may stand up to a very hot
new
machine very well.
If you really want a thrill, upgrade the 2-3 year old clunker with a
couple
of 1 GB drives in a RAID array, which most motherboards have supported
for
the past 2-3 years.
OTOH. I do make steady use of video editing of video editing software
that
does exploit multiple processors, and they are very nice for rendering
and
the like.

Start task manager and take a look at the processes.


Been there, done that.

Each one of hose exes goes computable periodically.


Multiple cores do no good if the processor is idle or can be scheduled
shortly.

Multiple core does help.


No doubt multiple core is a help, but in fact it rarely provides an
effective multiplication of power. While my 3 desktops are all multiple
core, I am frequently working on customer machines that are single core. A
really, fast single core is still the best solution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I did not say multicore is a multiplication. In fact the bigger
limitation is that the various versions of windows do not context
switch very well. By comparison unix makes much better use of
multiple processors. You are correct in that there is very little
individual software capable of of dividing computational tasks into
components that can be working on simultaniously. At least not in the
typical user's world. But these days even user machines freqeuntly
have background services that can benefit from a multiprocessor
environment. And single core microprocessors are only slightly faster
that dual and quad core any more.
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default organic electrolytics in audio equipment?

wrote in message
...


I did not say multicore is a multiplication.


good.

In fact the bigger
limitation is that the various versions of windows do not context
switch very well.


Good insight.

By comparison unix makes much better use of
multiple processors.


I'll take that at face value.

You are correct in that there is very little
individual software capable of of dividing computational tasks into
components that can be working on simultaniously. At least not in the
typical user's world.


That't the rub.


But these days even user machines freqeuntly
have background services that can benefit from a multiprocessor
environment.


IME, that is a second order effect.

And single core microprocessors are only slightly faster
that dual and quad core any more.


Agreed, because increases in core speed without big bad thermal problems is
an unsolved problem.

Same thing happened with mainframes 2 decades ago, except the OS's werefar,
far better multitaskers than Windows. I think that Windows multitasking
falls about in the I/O department. It is OK when the I/O load is relatively
light, but put the pedal to the metal on the hard drive, and everything but
the primary task still seems to choke.


  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
[email protected] JamesGangNC@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default organic electrolytics in audio equipment?

On Feb 9, 10:13*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

...

I did not say multicore is a multiplication.


good.

In fact the bigger
limitation is that the various versions of windows do not context
switch very well.


Good insight.

By comparison unix makes much better use of
multiple processors.


I'll take that at face value.

*You are correct in that there is very little
individual software capable of of dividing computational tasks into
components that can be working on simultaniously. *At least not in the
typical user's world.


That't the rub.

*But these days even user machines freqeuntly
have background services that can benefit from a multiprocessor
environment.


IME, that is a second order effect.

*And single core microprocessors are only slightly faster
that dual and quad core any more.


Agreed, because increases in core speed without big bad thermal problems is
an unsolved problem.

Same thing happened with mainframes 2 decades ago, except the OS's werefar,
far *better multitaskers than Windows. I think that Windows multitasking
falls about in the I/O department. *It is OK when the I/O load is relatively
light, but put the pedal to the metal on the hard drive, and everything but
the primary task still seems to choke.


Yes, I would agree that a lot of i/o on a desktop by any single
process will bog it down. Our desktop doubles as a music server and
when I'm backing up a dvd from local hd to dvd-r the music server can
not keep up. That may factor into the unix comparison as well. Unix
tends to be on servers more commonly and servers tend to have more
sophisticated i/o systems that typical desktop computers. There are
certainly many factors beyond cpu that have an effect on computer
performance.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
[email protected] dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default organic electrolytics in audio equipment?

On Feb 9, 11:29*am, wrote:
There are certainly many factors beyond cpu that
have an effect on computer performance.


As evidence, consider that to build one of my client's
applications takes 01:13 on an 800 MHz P4 running
Windows 2000Pro SP4, takes 01:50 on a 2.4 GHz
running WinXP SP2, and 2:05 on a 2.8 GHz running
Vista. The first 2 machines have 1 GB RAM and the
Vista is running 4 GB. All three machines have been
sleaned up and are not running any untoward
background tasks like virus checkers and the like.

As a result of these tests, Vista is not permitted
anywhere near here. I have further made the strong
recommendation to my client that they NOT deploy
their system on Vista platforms.

And, it's interesting to note, the industrial applications
world, corporate IT and others that are Winders based
have pretty soundly rejected Vista. Further, Microsoft
has very quietly announced that XP licenses and support
will be available through to 2013 at a minimum.

The only way to make Windows a bigger piece of
**** than it already is is to make it bigger, which
Vista is, by a lot.



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
[email protected] JamesGangNC@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default organic electrolytics in audio equipment?

On Feb 9, 12:29*pm, wrote:
On Feb 9, 11:29*am, wrote:

There are certainly many factors beyond cpu that
have an effect on computer performance.


As evidence, consider that to build one of my client's
applications takes 01:13 on an 800 MHz P4 running
Windows 2000Pro SP4, takes 01:50 on a 2.4 GHz
running WinXP SP2, and 2:05 on a 2.8 GHz running
Vista. The first 2 machines have 1 GB RAM and the
Vista is running 4 GB. All three machines have been
sleaned up and are not running any untoward
background tasks like virus checkers and the like.

As a result of these tests, Vista is not permitted
anywhere near here. I have further made the strong
recommendation to my client that they NOT deploy
their system on Vista platforms.

And, it's interesting to note, the industrial applications
world, corporate IT and others that are Winders based
have pretty soundly rejected Vista. Further, Microsoft
has very quietly announced that XP licenses and support
will be available through to 2013 at a minimum.

The only way to make Windows a bigger piece of
**** than it already is is to make it bigger, which
Vista is, by a lot.


There can be surprising differences in other areas as well. I
remember benchmarking a database on two machines. One was an ibm
server and the other a compaq. (before hp bough compaq) The compaq
ran 60% faster even though both machines used an identical intel
processor and had the same memory and same os.
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Mr.T Mr.T is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,108
Default organic electrolytics in audio equipment?


wrote in message
...
There can be surprising differences in other areas as well. I
remember benchmarking a database on two machines. One was an ibm
server and the other a compaq. (before hp bough compaq) The compaq
ran 60% faster even though both machines used an identical intel
processor and had the same memory and same os.


Probably disk intensive then, and could be something as simple as file
fragmentation, or OS optimisation differences.

MrT.




  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
[email protected] JamesGangNC@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default organic electrolytics in audio equipment?

On Feb 10, 2:14*am, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
wrote in message

...

There can be surprising differences in other areas as well. *I
remember benchmarking a database on two machines. *One was an ibm
server and the other a compaq. *(before hp bough compaq) *The compaq
ran 60% faster even though both machines used an identical intel
processor and had the same memory and same os.


Probably disk intensive then, and could be something as simple as file
fragmentation, or OS optimisation differences.

MrT.


At the time we concluded it was architecture differences. Both pcs
were new out of the box purpose built to perform the benchmark. It
was disk intensive but both machines were state of the art servers
with scsi disk subsystems using a collection of the same disks with
the identical file locations. It convinced us to lean more business
compaq's way. It also didn't help ibm any that this was during one of
the ibm problem periods when it was taking them 4 to 6 months to
deliver pc servers.
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default organic electrolytics in audio equipment?



Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote in message
On Feb 7, 6:44 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

One of the dirty little secrets of computing is that multiple cores ("The
next big thing" for the last 2 years) don't do anything for most
software.
It's even hard to get multiple apps going long enough to benefit from
that aspect of the benefits of multiple cores.


Bottom line - take an older (2-3 years) machine and give it modern
amounts of RAM which is dirt cheap these days, and it may stand up to a

very hot
new machine very well.


If you really want a thrill, upgrade the 2-3 year old clunker with a
couple of 1 GB drives in a RAID array, which most motherboards have

supported
for the past 2-3 years.


OTOH. I do make steady use of video editing of video editing software
that does exploit multiple processors, and they are very nice for rendering


and the like.


Start task manager and take a look at the processes.


Been there, done that.

Each one of hose exes goes computable periodically.


Multiple cores do no good if the processor is idle or can be scheduled
shortly.

Multiple core does help.


No doubt multiple core is a help, but in fact it rarely provides an
effective multiplication of power. While my 3 desktops are all multiple
core, I am frequently working on customer machines that are single core. A
really, fast single core is still the best solution.


Especially with a BIG on CPU cache and oodles of cheap memory.

Graham


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can GM food be classified as 'organic'? Schizoid Man Audio Opinions 12 January 12th 06 06:50 PM
Tantalum VS regular electrolytics in Audio filters and preamps Jona Vark Pro Audio 33 September 24th 05 03:08 PM
550 / 600 V electrolytics Bob Hedberg Vacuum Tubes 0 April 2nd 04 11:46 PM
BRIAN L. MCCARTY, ORGANIC BRAIN DISORDER MYSYKOT Marketplace 0 August 18th 03 01:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:37 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"