Hello Dave,

  This is awesome. A real keeper of an e-mail. I am not in the market for a 
computer but this is still excellent knowledge to have and I do not have to buy 
a bunch of magazines or join another Yahoo group to get it.

Again, thank you.

Rick - KH2DF

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 28, 2010, at 9:10 PM, "Dave AA6YQ" <aa...@ambersoft.com> wrote:

CPU "capability" is but one set of dimensions (clock speed, instruction issue 
rate, cache size, cache organization) in a multi-dimensional problem that 
includes motherboard capabilities (CPU-memory interface, GPU organization and 
interface, memory organization and speed), disk capabilities (rotational 
latency, track-to-track seek time, transfer rate), and Windows configuration 
(settings on "Performance Options" window's Advanced tab, and a bunch more 
accessible via a Registry Editor).
 
If you monitor the excellent FlexRadio reflector, you'll see how challenging it 
is to "compute" a hardware configuration for optimized for just one 
application; building and evaluating multiple configurations was required to 
find the "sweet spot". Computing an optimal configuration to host 12 
applications is hopeless; this requires the application of general principles, 
not a spreadsheet.
 
The most critical decision should be made up front: do all of the applications 
you need run correctly in a 64-bit environment? If so, then plan on building a 
64-bit system (Windows 7, if your applications will all run there correctly); I 
wouldn't choose a motherboard that supports less than 16 GB of RAM, but you can 
start out by populating it with 2GB or 4GB as your budget allows (don't start 
with an initial increment that's would have to be discarded to utilize the 
maximum memory capacity, however). A 64-bit operating system does reduce the 
choice of serial port interfaces; see
 
<http://www.dxlabsuite.com/dxlabwiki/Win7VistaHardware>
 
As far as I know, none of the applications on your list can exploit more than 
one processor core, so you should choose a dual-core processor (Windows will 
run on one core, and your applications will compete for the second core); if 
PhotoShop were on you list, you'd reach a different conclusion. Spend some time 
on Intel's and AMD's web sites looking at the desktop processor comparison 
charts, e.g.
 
<http://www.intel.com/consumer/products/processors/corei7-specs.htm>
 
Dvorak's old rule of "third best" is a good starting point, as companies charge 
big premiums for their most-powerful CPUs. CPU selection should also consider 
cache size and architecture (bigger, with more sets is better). Also don't buy 
a CPU built with an older production process. From Intel, you want 32 nm 
lithography, not 45 nm; smaller transistors run faster and generate less heat.
 
In choosing a GPU, pick one that offloads all graphics processing, and will 
handle the screen resolution you'll likely be using over the next couple of 
years (taking multiple monitors into account, if that's a possibility). This 
will be an add-in card that can later be upgraded, so tradeoffs can be made. 
Alternatively, you can save some money by starting with the GPU from your 
current PC, assuming its above the bar and will run under the new PC's version 
of Windows.
 
With hard drives, its tempting to buy the biggest disk you can afford, but 
those spacious 1+TB drives are relatively slow, and a PC with one hard drive is 
slower than a PC with two hard drives. If you can, go with two hard drives - a 
~100 GB device with fast track-to-track times and low rotational latency to 
host the operating system, and a larger slower drive for your applications and 
data. Western Digital's Velociraptor family is a good candidate for the 
small/fast C: drive; you could consider a solid state "drive" for this role, 
but I have no personal experience with them. Choose a motherboard that supports 
a 3 GB SATA interface, and choose hard drives that exploit this interface. 
Again, you can save some money up front by starting with your current PC's hard 
drive in your new system, and upgrade later.
 
All DXLab applications run correctly under 64-bit XP, Vista, and Windows 7.
 
     73,
 
         Dave, AA6YQ
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com]on 
Behalf Of Andy obrien
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:17 PM
To: digitalradio
Subject: [digitalradio] Calculating CPU use for multiple applications?

 
I like to multitask, and I am greedy... I like to keep an eye on
several things at once. I am thinking about a better PC, one with
enough CPU capability to run many tasks at the same time. Is there a
way to calculate the total CPU demands of severall applications. Here
is a list of what I often run at the same time (or wish i could)

Commander (or HRD)
Winwarbler (or Multipsk)
DX Keeper
Spotcollector
Pathfinder
DX View
Weather Watcher
Firefox
Spectravue or SDR-RADIO Console
Fldigi
WSJT/JT65-HF
Dimension 4

Andy K3UK


Reply via email to