Re: jaws and processor speed:
- From: trouble <trouble1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: jfw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 05:03:34 -0500
your right and this bottle neck is part of the problems that jaws has with
sound cards. There is a fine line to walk when building a tuned system, and
mostly I say go high on the ram, because most of these manufactures cheep
out there. Thus the stutters and freeze ups from jaws. if building your own
or having one built you can design this bottle neck out and get all the
speed and power to make the programs like jaws, xp, office, and audio/video
software run smooth.
At 11:03 PM 1/16/04 -0500, you wrote:
>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.
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.
Other related posts: