[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Hyperthreading (was Software for Mac)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard L. Hess" <arclists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
If you're running hyperthreading look at the Windows Task Manager
(ctrl-alt-del or Start>Windows Security if you're remote desktopping) and
check how much activity is in each thread during some of your intensive
processes.
What I saw was one thread was running 50% and the other was running 0%.
When I turned off hyperthreading, the one thread ran at 100% (or close to
it). That seemed to optimize the PC.
This is why I'm worried about migrating to multi-core processors as it
appears that while the processors may be more efficient in their use of
clock cycles, the individual cores don't have the raw number of clock
cycles as the 3-year-old 3+ GHz P4 chips.
I have been unimpressed by some Core 2 Duo machines that I have used, and
have not been able to trace down why.
If I can get a 3.2 GHz P4 machine from 2005 for $350 or so with an XPPro
license, I'm not going to experiment and spend $2000 or more for a really
top-of-the line quad core at this point. Did I mention my wife is of
Scottish ancestry and it has rubbed off?
At some point, if I could be sure that I could speed up audio rendering by
2-3 x with a new machine, I'd certainly consider it.
Also, the Nikon scan software did not appear to use the multiple threads
and the display seemed about the same as with the audio rendering so I've
disabled hyperthreading on my two dedicated machines, the 3.0 GHz audio
machine and the "new" used 3.2 GHz photo scanning machine.
For office work and multiple windows, the multi-core model appears
wonderful, but for single applications it appears that we may not see the
increase in speed that we've seen in the past.
For example, since 1984, here are the clock speeds of my primary PC
4.77 MHz, 66 MHz, 132 MHz (clock doubled in 66),
333 MHz, 2400 MHz, 3000 MHz
Photo work was done on the 66 MHz and up, audio was done starting with the
333 MHz machine.
The 2400 to 3000 step was caused by diversity and moving functions rather
than for raw speed.
I want an increase like I saw from 333 to 2400 MHz or close to it <smile>.
Other than that the 8 Win XP machines here are 1.8 GHz Sempron, rest P4s:
2.4, 2.8 (3), 3 (2), 3.2 GHz
For most applications, all of these are fine. The only long waits are
extensive audio rendering operations (and I'm working on offloading some
from one machine to another--the network is not the bottleneck) and the
kids think the Web is sometimes too slow, but the two family 2.8 GHz
machines are lower end than the rest. The Sempron is my mail/web machine
that I remote desktop into -- wish I had bought one of the used Dells
instead (all are Dells except the store-built Sempron).
I'm currently using a new (this spring) Core 2 processor, running (MUCH TO
MY DISMAY, I might add!) Windows Vista...for the most part, I've seen NO
increase in speed or capacity; I've been blaming Vista (IMHO, this
abomination
places Bill Gates under the class of "justifiable homicide!!"). But it MAY
be the
machine itself?
Steven C. Barr