Reply-to: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx>
At 10:34 PM 2008-10-15, carlstephen koto wrote:
Richard, I was wondering why you disable hyperthreading on your PC?
Thanks
Steve Koto
Hello, Steve,
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).
Cheers,
Richard
Cheers,
Richard
Richard L. Hess email: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX
Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.