Why Pentium?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Talal Itani, Jul 3, 2006.

  1. You must have misunderstood my sentence because that they didn't 'stop
    doing something', or consuming power (possibly current latch-up too), is
    why they stayed hot till power was removed.
     
    David Maynard, Jul 9, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. The same as "what" exactly? I've no idea what you mean by "classic" but
    the field of Operations Research & Management Science is rich with
    specialized software... anything from bare tools to integrated vertical
    solutions.
    The tools do not need to be created and are available from umm, vendors...
    who err, specialize in such stuff. The bare tools, e.g. simulation, LP,
    etc. and modelling in general, are not industry specific and can be applied
    to *any* enterprise; if the buyer lacks the expertise to actualize his
    model/solution, like I said there are vertical, integrated solutions which
    are applicable.
     
    George Macdonald, Jul 9, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Family businesses are often umm, problematic.:) There are, however many
    different tools just sitting around waiting to be discovered by people who
    need them, even smallish enterprises. As an example, from someone who
    posts in in c.s.i.p.h.c., there's SizeFitter by Johannes Andersen
    http://sizefitter.com - I figure there are thousands, if not millions, of
    businesses which could make profitable use of this tool. The only trouble
    is that the potential buyer often doesn't realize he has a "problem" which
    has a better "solution".

    BTW I am not an associate of Johannes - I just think his tool is very
    elegant, clever and probably under-utilized.
     
    George Macdonald, Jul 9, 2006
  4. AMD is not the one who burned you and their current CPUs have been superior
    for ~3 years.
    Intel's have claimed to shutdown and/or throttle since the P!!!s IIRC,
    though it didn't always help. AMD processors don't "continue to run" any
    longer and run considerably cooler even at full tilt - you're missing out
    on safety & energy waste.
    Defective? That would mean that every PC processor made before Intel
    succeeded with its thermal triggers "defective". Uhh, it's not the
    processor which was a fire hazard and would fail to get UL rating, if
    that's the case, but the system.
    I have one in the office which has been running happily for 4-5 years -
    sounds to me like you found an OEM who did not use the AMD boxed fan and
    cheaped out with a POS to coax a few $$ into his margin.
     
    George Macdonald, Jul 9, 2006
  5. To a certain extent it can be but we're not talking about processor
    speed... more to the point, with dual cores, and to a lesser extent with
    HyperThreading, there is a definite improvement in snapiness: the TLB and
    cache doesn't have to be flushed and refilled -- note that "refill" of the
    TLB requires walking page tables -- on every task switch. I can assure you
    the effect is noticable instantly.
     
    George Macdonald, Jul 9, 2006
  6. Talal Itani

    Plato Guest

    Not superior, just a better purchase.
     
    Plato, Jul 9, 2006
  7. Talal Itani

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I presume so. It's the NVIDIA driver reporting the temp for the
    graphics card, so wherever the driver gets it from is the source.
    Then why are the limits so much lower for CPUs?
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 9, 2006
  8. Talal Itani

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Intel CPUs work just fine. I see no reason to change.
    I don't want to waste safety or energy.
    If other processors already had it, yes.
    Yes, that's what UL told me. Lucky for AMD.
    I've already mentioned that it was not the stock fan. It was a very
    cheap sleeve-bearing fan and a cheap heatsink. The manufacturer was
    SonBook. The CPU fan on one of the machines failed a few days after I
    got it. Another took about two weeks, and I think a third lasted for
    almost a year. Worse yet, the failing fans would turn when first
    turned on, but would stop shortly thereafter, so when I first checked
    things, it looked like all the fans were running.

    There were other shortcuts in the machines. The CPU was almost behind
    the PSU, so even with the fan running, it was still hot. The
    components were not top quality. After the SonBook fiasco, I started
    building my own machines.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 9, 2006
  9. Talal Itani

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Well, 3.0 GHz is only 36% faster than 2.2 GHz, so that alone would not
    explain the big difference you are seeing.

    However, you have a 64-bit chip. Perhaps it is not optimized for
    32-bit operations.
    For a 1600x1200 color 8-bit image, 19 seconds. I could not try it
    with an A3-sized image because Photoshop says I don't have enough
    memory.
    On the same 1600x1200 image, it takes less than a second to apply the
    filter.

    If I upsize the image to 33 megapixels and apply the same filter, it
    takes 22 seconds to apply it.
    Some filters are naturally very slow; some of the Impressionist
    filters I have can take a few minutes (but they give great results).

    I routinely do things with 80-megapixel images and aside from a few
    filters, it's all very fast.

    Note also that I'm using Photoshop 5.0.2.
    Well, I don't know why it is so slow for you, then. It works fine for
    me.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 9, 2006
  10. Talal Itani

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Not significantly, in most cases.

    Also, if there isn't enough memory, every operation will involve
    extremely slow disk I/O.

    The difference between Photoshop with inadequate memory and Photoshop
    with plenty of memory is like night and day. Nothing speeds up
    Photoshop more than adding memory.
    I don't spend my day applying filters, that's for sure. I leave that
    for the newbies and the high-school kids.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 9, 2006
  11. Talal Itani

    Mxsmanic Guest

    It reminds me of some old and excellent sketches on "Saturday Night
    Live." There was one about a restaurant run by Greeks or something
    that has only cheeseburgers and Pepsi that comes to mind.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 9, 2006
  12. Talal Itani

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Every upgrade will change _something_, but in the world of
    microcomputers, the role of processor speed in overall performance has
    been dramatically exaggerated for many years. Today, processor speed
    is not the problem.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 9, 2006
  13. Talal Itani

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I don't set process priorities on a desktop machine, nor do I
    recommend that anyone else do so.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 9, 2006
  14. Talal Itani

    Mxsmanic Guest

    The "snappiness" of multiprocessor systems comes from the availability
    of a second processor thread, not from processor speed. Even an old
    dual PPro will be snappy compared to many uniprocessor systems, but
    only because it has two processors to which things can be dispatched,
    not because of any speed advantage.

    Windows XP and its family (NT) isn't very good about dealing with
    CPU-bound processes. They tend to slow the machine down because
    Windows will not pull them from execution and dispatch to other
    processes quickly enough to preserve good response time. The only
    solution is multiple processors--but they don't have to be fast. HT
    helps somewhat, although it has constraints of its own. HT works best
    when you have two significantly different threads to run.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 9, 2006
  15. Well, for one, because junction failure isn't necessarily the limiting
    factor. Speed counts and they can't run as fast at high temperatures.

    They're also denser with heavier bias (again for the speed) and, as a
    result, are more prone to localized hot spots. I.E. All them junctions
    gotta stay under max, not just the die average.
     
    David Maynard, Jul 9, 2006
  16. It makes quite a bit of difference for straight forward operations
    like applying a filter. The P4 is very good for this kind of
    operations because Netburst's kind of like a DSP :p
    I doubt that is the case since the A64 is basically a 32bit K7
    extended.
    It takes 32 seconds for me on 1600x1200. Quite significant and disk IO
    would have nothing to do with an image that small since we both have
    several times more memory than needed for this.

    It is quite strange why you cannot do the operations on A3 when you
    have 2GB versus my 1.5GB physical memory. The only explanation I can
    think of is the implementation in PS 5 and PS 8 is different wrt to
    memory usage i.e. PS8(CS) is more efficient in memory usage, which of
    course supports my point that CPU can be the bottleneck and not disk
    nor memory once you need to crunch through enough data.
    This will explain why you don't get the not-responding messages.
    Mine's single core, non-HT.
    3.3s for me
    14s for mine after upsizing it. This is a bit strange tho, our first
    reversal.

    I guess we need to define fast here. Fast to me is less than 3
    seconds. Basically, I only consider it fast if I click, take a breath,
    blink and it's done. At A3 sizes, basically none of the filters are
    fast from my POV.
     
    The little lost angel, Jul 9, 2006
  17. Talal Itani

    Mxsmanic Guest

    That is very strange indeed. That's almost twice the amount of time
    required on my machine.
    I agree, but maybe there is something strange about the radial filter.
    Maybe, although HT is hardly the same as two processors. It does work
    a lot like two processors as long as the two processor threads are
    quite different, though (if they are the same, they hit the same
    hardware on the processor, effectively forcing one thread to wait for
    the other, like a uniprocessor).
    Maybe you should take your machine back to the vendor.
    My PS 5.0.2 gets stuck if I try to do a radial blur on an A3 page.

    It is interesting to note that PS takes one fully processor, but the
    other HT thread remains idle, so response time on the system is
    completely unaffected.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 9, 2006
  18. I wouldn't necessarily put this down to HT. Where it is a matter of a
    single program consuming all available CPU it's a relatively simple
    matter for the OS to give another program the cycles needed for it to
    appear fairly responsive - provided it doesn't need too much CPU time
    of course. It's a mystery to me why at times Windows seems to handle
    this so poorly. An example of this would be [email protected] under UNIX -
    unlike its Windows counterpart, the UNIX version is always running in
    the background -not just when the screensaver kicks in. This doesn't
    affect response at all, although admittedly it does run at a low
    priority. In effect it soaks up any spare CPU capacity but doesn't
    slow down your operation of the machine more than a neglible amount.

    What really slows the feel of things down, IMO, is I/O activity. Two
    processes both fighting over the disk does seem to slow things down
    a lot. This is one area where SCSI still seems to have an advantage,
    despite the improvements to IDE over the years.
     
    Andrew Smallshaw, Jul 9, 2006
  19. Talal Itani

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I don't know why it handles it poorly, but it does. On a straight
    uniprocessor system, any program that is tightly CPU-bound will slow
    the system down considerably. And I know that it's a question of OS
    design, because the cursor continues to respond normally. So the
    hardware resources are there, but Windows is just not good at
    switching between applications when one of them is CPU-bound.

    NT-based systems are much, much better at this, but Windows as a whole
    still has trouble with it.
    Large timesharing operating systems (such as UNIX) long ago became
    very good at this type of thing.
    True. Fortunately applications usually don't fight over the disk. On
    one occasion when they were, though, I got the only unexplained BSOD
    I've had with Windows XP. I still don't know what happened.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 10, 2006
  20. Uhh, better performance at lower temp, better thermal management, quieter
    == superior.
     
    George Macdonald, Jul 10, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.