I forgot to mention that I DO have a separate graphics card and memory both on my old and new dual CPU Dell. Doesn't help usage at all. Steve N4LQ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Smith" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:46 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] W9OY on P3
> The graphics processor makes a big difference. I have several Dell > SX-260 computers that run SDR programs painfully slow, despite 2 GB of > RAM and 2.5 GHz CPU. > > It turns out that Dell's graphic processor has no dedicated memory but > rather shares normal RAM. That creates a huge bottleneck when running a > graphics intensive program such as all the SDR software. Some is > slightly worse than other but they all bog way down on the SX-260 > compared with a machine with a separate graphics card and memory. Same > SDR program on the SX-260 may run 70% CPU but only 10% on a computer > with a separate graphics card and memory, with similar CPU speed and RAM. > > Jack K8ZOA > > > On 2/19/2010 4:18 PM, ab2tc wrote: >> 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> >>> >>> >>> >> > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[email protected] > > 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:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
