One point I forgot to make in my last post is that each point I listed, both singularly and in combination with the others, directly impacts CPU utilization.
73 David K6DCH Sent from my iPhone On Feb 19, 2010, at 1:04 PM, "David Herring, K6DCH" <da...@k6dch.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I have a degree in computer science and 25 years in the industry, and > *I* wish someone could explain the disparity in performance among PC > makes and models. Hi Hi > > The fact is there are a very large number of factors that come into > play. I can list some here... > > CPU -- 1 or 2? > > Video card -- on board processing? The same video board can display > vastly different performance depending on OS and driver. There is > also differences between models within the same line. > > Memory -- not just how much you have, but how much is actually > available for allocation to the apps. > > Disk -- when you get to a point where the OS has to page memory out to > to disk, the speed of the disk will make a huge difference in > performance. Granted you are already compromised in performance at > this point, but a faster disk will minimize the pain. Sometimes by an > order of magnitude. > > Drivers -- version and vendor make a big difference here. Some drivers > perform well. Others are junk. Hard to know which is which. > > Junk Software -- many vendors load up the PC with pure garbage that > suck up resources and provide little benefit. Sadly you don't always > know that this stuff is running or what it's doing. > > Background processes -- antivirus, malware scanners, file indexing, > etc. could impact performance in non-intuitive ways. > > I doubt I've even scratched the surface here, but I think we begin to > see that the combinations of factors at play here makes for quite a > challenge in explaining the disparity among machines. > > Sometimes an older PC will run things faster because it has less > unneeded garbage on it and better drivers. It could also have less > bloat (XP is less bloated than Vista, for example). > > When I get a PC, the first thing I do is wipe the hard drive and load > my own clean OS. It's a pain but it mitigates many of the problems > here and I have always had better performance afterward. > > Now I do not just reload the OS from the vendor supplied disks -- that > just loads the same junk back on. I reload using a fresh copy > purchased "off the shelf." > > Hope that sheds at least a little light on the issue. > > 73 > David. K6DCH. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 19, 2010, at 12:14 PM, "Steve Ellington" <n...@carolina.rr.com> > wrote: > >> I wish SOMEONE could explain the disparities between CPU usage on >> various >> computers while running PowerSDR. I'm using a Dell 3.4Ghz CPU, 4GB >> ram. I'm >> running the same EMU-0202 at 96Ks/s. Windows XP, LP-Bridge >> etc.....My CPU >> usage hovers around 45%. I can stop PowerSDR and CPU usage drops to >> 4%. >> Obviously PowerSDR is eating up a lot of CPU time. >> My older Compaq with a 1.8Ghz processor really could not run PSDR at >> all. >> Then we hear stories about old clunky computers running PDSR >> lightning >> fast...No one can seem to explain the difference. >> Mine runs fine but why would your CPU be less than mine when you are >> running >> more programs with less CPU and RAM? >> Steve >> N4LQ >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "ab2tc" <ab...@arrl.net> >> To: <elecraft@mailman.qth.net> >> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:18 PM >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] W9OY on P3 >> >> >>> >>> I would have agreed if Windows had offered developers an easy way of >>> prioritizing threads and processes. But as far as I know it doesn't >>> (or >>> developers don't know how to use it). In my experience the >>> performance of >>> a >>> PC with 90% CPU load is miserable for all processes running on it. >>> With >>> that >>> said, I don't see why PowerSDR should incur that kind of CPU load >>> on a >>> 3GHz >>> machine. I am running XP home edition on a dual core Dell at 2.9GHz >>> and >>> 2Gb >>> of RAM. My CPU utilization is hovering between 15 and 30% with all >>> of the >>> following running: >>> >>> LP-Bridge >>> HRD >>> PowerSDR with EMU-0202 sound card at 192ks/s >>> VE7CC cluster client (highly recommended) >>> Iexplore composing this message >>> Thunderbird mail client >>> DX Atlas >>> >>> I can add more applications and the CPU barely nudges upwards. I >>> think >>> most >>> people would agree that a car that has to be driven always with the >>> accelerator nearly to the metal is underpowered and not much of a >>> joy. I >>> am >>> a firmware developer and we always worry whenever the CPU >>> utilization >>> exceeds 50% even though we use OS's that allow intelligent >>> prioritization >>> of >>> tasks. >>> >>> AB2TC - Knut >>> >>> >>> Al Lorona wrote: >>>> >>>> Just a minor point: There might be a misconception that high CPU >>>> utilization means your computer is inadequate for the task. >>>> >>>> Actually, you want the CPU to work hard for you. It isn't only CPU >>>> you >>>> should worry about, it's what is called the 'run queue'. The run >>>> queue >>>> determines how long your job has to wait until it's serviced by the >>>> computer. It's okay to have 100% CPU (and in fact you want it) if >>>> you >>>> don't have to wait at all. >>>> >>>> A person assessing the performance of a computer looks at several >>>> other >>>> things besides CPU when determining what to tune for better >>>> performance. >>>> >>>> >>>> Don Wilhelm-4 wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I am using a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM, running >>>>> WinXP Pro and the CPU utilization ranges from 50% to 90%, so >>>>> anyone >>>>> thinking of choosing this alternative with a lesser computer had >>>>> better >>>>> think about a new computer first. >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://n2.nabble.com/W9OY-on-P3-tp4596769p4600120.html >>> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> ______________________________________________________________ >>> Elecraft mailing list >>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >>> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net >>> >>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >> >> >> --- >> --- >> --- >> --- >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2697 - Release Date: >> 02/19/10 >> 02:34:00 >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> Elecraft mailing list >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net >> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
