Re: jaws and processor speed:
- From: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:05:43 -0500
Hi Dale and all,
These are good points with or without jaws. I suspect that getting the
sound and video off the board and even having two sound cardes will help
increase performance and a hard drive with speed to match and other
components and dual bus and hyper threading will up your chances of getting
ood performance. I think though with all that you still will not need half
the power to get to the threshold of jaws use. I can see a lot of problems
like burning and doing mail at the same time and listening to an audio
stream and doing mail at the same time decreasing but at some point along
the continuum, jaws performance does not increase any further because of the
nature of the beast. I do remember a while back seeing a system where the
dialogs popped up so fast that jaws didn't have a chance to read them.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Leavens" <dleavens@xxxxxxx>
To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: jaws and processor speed:
There are so many variables that there are several possibilities too.
I suspect that the speed and amount of cache is probably more significant
than the speed of the processor. Moving stuff about memory and in and out of
registers is the bottle neck. It is all very well to have the capacity to
execute thousands of instructions per second but if the data cannot be
delivered the instructions cannot be executed. With that in mind, bus speed
and RAM speed is also probably more significant in performance.
Your idea about offloading video from the processor used to be helpful and I
see no reason why it would not still be. Plenty of RAM also helps
performance to a point but somehow that can also be misleading. For some
reason it seems to me that none of these machines operates well once unused
resources is reported to be much below 80%. I have no idea what that is
about.
Admittedly these are just some observations and regrettably I have no solid
bench marks to present. I suppose that qualifies for unnecessary list
traffic.
Dale Leavens, Cochrane Ontario
dleavens@xxxxxxx
Home of the Polar Bear Express!
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: jaws and processor speed:
but what about the processor speed, which is what I am after. I ask again
because jaws is the bottle neck here and I have seen fast systems with
eloquence slow to a crawl even with an audio adaptor that is not built in.
----- Original Message -----
From: "trouble" <trouble1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: jaws and processor speed:
I would say anything around 512 ddr should work good, and with the prices
of chips you may want to think of 2 gig or higher depending on board.
At 07:39 AM 1/16/04 -0500, you wrote:
>I'm looking for benchmarks for a specification I'm working up to build a
pc.
>I want to know the most benifitial ram speed with jaws as the main
>consideration and of course, I will want to watch and maybe burn dvds, burn
>cds, run broad band and do streaming and such as well as word processing
but
>not a lot of high end stuff and not open too much at once. I will be using
>an external synthesizer but want a good audio card. I will be getting a
>32-bit card with a gig of ram on it if I can just to take the video off the
>processor as much as possible. I don't need a 128 bit card because I am
not
>doing cad/cam or high end gaming or modeling super sonic air craft or
>sending a space ship to the moon at least not yet.
>
>So, I might actually be quite comfortable with a 1.6 gb processor for
>instance unless all that high powered stuff I want including my 80 gb fast
>hd and my 40x optical drives just won't be supported by it. I don't want
>the pc to crawl, I don't want jaws to pull the system down too much either.
>
>I'm asking this because I have seen a lot of systems that run super fast
>without jaws but quite slowly with jaws and some that run super fast
without
>jaws and even though slower with jaws, still pretty fast so It got me to
>thinking that some bench marking might be in order becuase I don't want to
>spend a lot of money for nothing, on he other hand, if a 3.3 ghz processor
>will enhance the performance of jaws, well...
>
>
>--
>To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
>jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Tim
trouble
--
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
--
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
--
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
--
To post a message to the list, send it to jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message to
jfw-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
