Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Can GM food be classified as 'organic'? | Audio Opinions | |||
Tantalum VS regular electrolytics in Audio filters and preamps | Pro Audio | |||
550 / 600 V electrolytics | Vacuum Tubes | |||
BRIAN L. MCCARTY, ORGANIC BRAIN DISORDER | Marketplace |