[Elecraft] W9OY on P3

[Steve Ellington]

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" <ab2tc at arrl.net>
To: <elecraft at 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 at 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