internodal
Hi everyone,
I got a chance to try out my new laptop and XP10's at a house party last night, and everything worked flawlessly for 6 hours +
This morning, my friend noticed I had hyperthreading technology enabled. He showed me how this made the software use only 54% of the CPU's available processing power. We then proceeded to disable the hyperthreading in the BIOS and rebooted.
At that point, the CPU usage (when analysing a song) was up to 100%, and the software seemed to run A BIT smoother. But, the minute I put a hand on the XP10's touch-sensitive pad, the sound just went nuts (made sort of a loud hissing noise, cutting the music back and forth).
Tired rebooting and load the software again. Same thing happened as soon as I touched the scratch wheel.
Then went back to re-enable the hyperthreading and rebooted again. Everything was perfect from that point on.
It's not that I *really* mind having bought a 3.06 GHz P4 instead of a centrino, nor that I can't use the CPU to it's full potential, but I'd like it to be that way. I have zero problems with the laptop when hyperthreading is enabled (and it gets the job done, don't get me wrong). But still, I would like to use 100% of my CPU's power...
Any hints?
Internodal.
I got a chance to try out my new laptop and XP10's at a house party last night, and everything worked flawlessly for 6 hours +
This morning, my friend noticed I had hyperthreading technology enabled. He showed me how this made the software use only 54% of the CPU's available processing power. We then proceeded to disable the hyperthreading in the BIOS and rebooted.
At that point, the CPU usage (when analysing a song) was up to 100%, and the software seemed to run A BIT smoother. But, the minute I put a hand on the XP10's touch-sensitive pad, the sound just went nuts (made sort of a loud hissing noise, cutting the music back and forth).
Tired rebooting and load the software again. Same thing happened as soon as I touched the scratch wheel.
Then went back to re-enable the hyperthreading and rebooted again. Everything was perfect from that point on.
It's not that I *really* mind having bought a 3.06 GHz P4 instead of a centrino, nor that I can't use the CPU to it's full potential, but I'd like it to be that way. I have zero problems with the laptop when hyperthreading is enabled (and it gets the job done, don't get me wrong). But still, I would like to use 100% of my CPU's power...
Any hints?
Internodal.
Posté Mon 31 Oct 05 @ 6:29 am
SimonBal1984
you are using 100% of the power 3.06ghz without HT which means the proc is at maximum load. , hyperthreading is good in adtion and acts like having two cores it down not stop the computer using 100% of its power at all. it means instead of having 1 thread of data being processed at a time you can process more (about 1.5) with out sacrificing clockspeed :P, so no matter what hyperthreading is going to improve performance on all processors. the Pentium M which to refer to as the centrino (Centrino is the wireless technology not the processor) The Pentium M per single clock cycle beats the p4 for the amound it can prcoess If the Pentium M had HT pentium 4 it would destroy most of the higher end pentium 4's and leave it redundant hence intel did not add it because they wanted to keep the p4 on th market (acording to tomshardware)... tell your friend to read up on hyperthreading, imagine this hyperthreading on a dualcore will be like harving 3cores :D..
Aditionaly the the % used in the task/process manager is not the % of potential, but how much load the CPU has frm that application if it is at 100% other threads(from other program and your operating system) will take longer load, addition becuase its at 100% that is why you get the latency noises because their is probally more threads to be processed and they cant becuase other things are using the proc. HENCE Hyperthreading is very good you should leave it on the only thing it does is benifit Dont listen to your friend... and tell him to goto intel.com and check their basic article on hyperthreading :)
Aditionaly the the % used in the task/process manager is not the % of potential, but how much load the CPU has frm that application if it is at 100% other threads(from other program and your operating system) will take longer load, addition becuase its at 100% that is why you get the latency noises because their is probally more threads to be processed and they cant becuase other things are using the proc. HENCE Hyperthreading is very good you should leave it on the only thing it does is benifit Dont listen to your friend... and tell him to goto intel.com and check their basic article on hyperthreading :)
Posté Mon 31 Oct 05 @ 7:54 am
frd1963
Summary: you WANT to see lower CPU usage in Windows task manager. This means the CPU isn't working very hard and is able to do more tasks in a shorter time.
Posté Mon 31 Oct 05 @ 3:39 pm
acw_dj
Internodal,
When Windows indicates 5% of CPU usage and you are working well, this means that you have a very powerful computer to do your job and have another 95% to do other things.
Check this to understand what is done with Hyperthreading technology:
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentiumXE/index.htm
and select DUAL CORE DEMO, this Demo explains very clear what is done in both technologies.
When Windows indicates 5% of CPU usage and you are working well, this means that you have a very powerful computer to do your job and have another 95% to do other things.
Check this to understand what is done with Hyperthreading technology:
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentiumXE/index.htm
and select DUAL CORE DEMO, this Demo explains very clear what is done in both technologies.
Posté Mon 31 Oct 05 @ 8:38 pm
internodal
It's very simple to understand, the way you guys explained it. Plus, I just paid a visit to intel.com, and it all makes sense, now. :O)
Besides, I sort of came to the conclusion that, with or without hyperthreading, a typical non-analysed mp3 takes about 5 - 10 seconds to load completely. As for graphics and other features in the software, they all run without jerking, regardless of the hyperthreading config. So, I'm thinking "Why would I mess with a system that worked?"
Bottom line, I will leave hyper-threading activated, since the Laptop-XP10-VirtualDJ combination ran flawlessly, before I started tampering with the bios.
Thanks for the input, everyone!
Internodal.
Besides, I sort of came to the conclusion that, with or without hyperthreading, a typical non-analysed mp3 takes about 5 - 10 seconds to load completely. As for graphics and other features in the software, they all run without jerking, regardless of the hyperthreading config. So, I'm thinking "Why would I mess with a system that worked?"
Bottom line, I will leave hyper-threading activated, since the Laptop-XP10-VirtualDJ combination ran flawlessly, before I started tampering with the bios.
Thanks for the input, everyone!
Internodal.
Posté Tue 01 Nov 05 @ 7:34 am
acutally ima noob testing out the software.. but i beg to differ when it comes to the hyperthreading information.... a intel cpu .. performs 6 instructions per clock cycle . with out hyperthreading turned on.while hyper threading is turned on the cpu does 3 per core.. one being a virtual half-A$$ core. so in reality .. its only performing 4 and a half .. the point of hyperthreading is to trick windows into releasing more threads for the cpu to use. hypertheading is not true multitasking. and it has been show when the amd x2 4800 which have no hyper threading tech are still much faster than intels with hyper threading . intel has freely admitted that they screwed up with the dual core processors .the dual core cpu's share a frontside bus were as amd's do not . not to mention the memory controller is actually on the cpu for the amd's intel will be ... using the pm tech for their new line of cpu's and will be selling the p4's as celerons .. haha 3.8ghz celeron. just alittle bit of info ...
Posté Wed 02 Nov 05 @ 2:33 am
acw_dj
hazzy99,
I have a very good discussion about these before. I can tell you the real and awful true. AMD isn't as fast as Intel in their top of the line desktop processors (Servers are out of a question, Intel Itanium is the only real 64 bit processor in the market, Intel and AMD 64 are only 32bits processors (internally) which can handle 64 bit instructions). AMD has a very good overall performance, because with a slower clock do many great things. AMD have an independet bus for memory and for devices which is the more value of these processor.
Intel show his information (like I give before) available, and I found AMD really tricky in his info to sell and "let you think" something that AMD is not telling you. AMD X2 4800+ isn't as fast as his oposite rival Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 840 (3.2GHz, Dual Core, Hypertheading, 2MB Cache, BUS 800) (and now is 3.73GHz).
I can extended and point you why is one faster than other, but I found that is a question of taste. You like AMd fine, you like Intel fine too. But Intel is faster in many ways. Is the only processor which handles DDR2 667 and faster in dual channel (has more bandwith than AMD with DDR 400), is theonly which gives you motherboards with great performance and Matrix storage technology (faster HDs arrays with RAID 1,5, 10 and 50) and gice the chance to handle 1060 MHz in FSB (AMD works with 200MHz x2, Intel 200MHz x 4 and x 8). AMD is great for single process, for use with an application at a time, but Intel is faster with many programs at a time... Also AMD is better power saving, because it consumes less energy, (but it isn't faster).
AMD X2 4800+ is a 2.2GHz processor with 2MB Cache and 6.4MB/s memory bandwith (DDR400 standard) + 8.2MB/s for devices... Intel only has 13.6MB/s bandwith (with DDR2 667), shared, but faster.
Is hard to try to compare apples with watermelons... but faster means faster than other
isn't it? http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html
(Note that in that benchmark they are using DDR2 533 and no DDR2 667 or faster which can give Intel more speed than DDR2 533)
I have a very good discussion about these before. I can tell you the real and awful true. AMD isn't as fast as Intel in their top of the line desktop processors (Servers are out of a question, Intel Itanium is the only real 64 bit processor in the market, Intel and AMD 64 are only 32bits processors (internally) which can handle 64 bit instructions). AMD has a very good overall performance, because with a slower clock do many great things. AMD have an independet bus for memory and for devices which is the more value of these processor.
Intel show his information (like I give before) available, and I found AMD really tricky in his info to sell and "let you think" something that AMD is not telling you. AMD X2 4800+ isn't as fast as his oposite rival Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 840 (3.2GHz, Dual Core, Hypertheading, 2MB Cache, BUS 800) (and now is 3.73GHz).
I can extended and point you why is one faster than other, but I found that is a question of taste. You like AMd fine, you like Intel fine too. But Intel is faster in many ways. Is the only processor which handles DDR2 667 and faster in dual channel (has more bandwith than AMD with DDR 400), is theonly which gives you motherboards with great performance and Matrix storage technology (faster HDs arrays with RAID 1,5, 10 and 50) and gice the chance to handle 1060 MHz in FSB (AMD works with 200MHz x2, Intel 200MHz x 4 and x 8). AMD is great for single process, for use with an application at a time, but Intel is faster with many programs at a time... Also AMD is better power saving, because it consumes less energy, (but it isn't faster).
AMD X2 4800+ is a 2.2GHz processor with 2MB Cache and 6.4MB/s memory bandwith (DDR400 standard) + 8.2MB/s for devices... Intel only has 13.6MB/s bandwith (with DDR2 667), shared, but faster.
Is hard to try to compare apples with watermelons... but faster means faster than other
isn't it? http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html
(Note that in that benchmark they are using DDR2 533 and no DDR2 667 or faster which can give Intel more speed than DDR2 533)
Posté Wed 02 Nov 05 @ 9:45 am
SimonBal1984
i dont get the argument anyway noone said the intel was faster than the AMD... or slower.... the comparision was with the asme processor with hyperthreading enable and hyperthreading disabled and when enabled it does increase performance :)
Posté Wed 02 Nov 05 @ 4:27 pm
antileon
acw_dj:
Found your post interesting and I think I can agree with you almost fully :)
But sometimes you also have to compare how much juice you can squeese out of the money spent on your configuration. Just my 2cents.
Found your post interesting and I think I can agree with you almost fully :)
But sometimes you also have to compare how much juice you can squeese out of the money spent on your configuration. Just my 2cents.
Posté Wed 02 Nov 05 @ 6:29 pm
acw_dj
You're right Antileon,
But now AMD Dual Core Processors aren't cheaper than Intel. I found some configurations to be cheaper vs AMD. I think AMD is a great product, but isn't what all people could "think" what it is.
I Have AMD and Intel in my setup, but I like more the Today Intels than Todays AMDs. It's a preference, Cyder has a powerful AMD64 and he said it's the way to go... both configurations let you have great VirtualDJ experience.
But the post tell us 2 lies, one AMD 4800 X2 isn't faster than Intel DualCore processor. Second; AMD X2 4800 isn't cheaper than Intel Pentium D 840 (Intel equivalent).
AMD X2 4800+ (2.4GHz, 2MB Cache):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103544
Intel Pentum D 840 ( 3.2GHz, 2MB Cache, FSB800)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116211
But now AMD Dual Core Processors aren't cheaper than Intel. I found some configurations to be cheaper vs AMD. I think AMD is a great product, but isn't what all people could "think" what it is.
I Have AMD and Intel in my setup, but I like more the Today Intels than Todays AMDs. It's a preference, Cyder has a powerful AMD64 and he said it's the way to go... both configurations let you have great VirtualDJ experience.
But the post tell us 2 lies, one AMD 4800 X2 isn't faster than Intel DualCore processor. Second; AMD X2 4800 isn't cheaper than Intel Pentium D 840 (Intel equivalent).
AMD X2 4800+ (2.4GHz, 2MB Cache):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103544
Intel Pentum D 840 ( 3.2GHz, 2MB Cache, FSB800)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116211
Posté Wed 02 Nov 05 @ 9:57 pm
just wanted to make some corrections on the hyperthreading thing thats all
Posté Wed 02 Nov 05 @ 11:50 pm