Hi all,
My AMD64 X2-3800+ is a great processor and for the most part I just trust that everything is running as it should. I assume that the whole dual core thing is doing what it was meant to do. I have found that going from my original non dual core AMD64, when I have a few things on the go it does indeed seems peppier.
Consider that I am usually downloading something in the background, encoding something, playing an MP3 and heck checking email and surfing and at all times running my media server (Tversity) ad whatever else lurks in the background and burning DVDs or CDs as well. About the only time I notice a minor slowdown is if I start repairing a missing file using PARS or if I start to unrar a 4 gig file?
However I have as of late been monitoring my CPU usage because before I was just going by ?feel?. I installed the AMD dual core driver, the Intel patch and also played with the registry "throttle" setting and the boot.ini thingy but honestly I cannot tell the difference in actual performance. I have been using mostly video encoders for my testing and for instance encoding from an Xvid to DVD using either AVI2DVD or TMPG or WInAVI or others and what I noticed is that no matter if I leave my affinity alone (default) or actually select only one processor or change the throttle in the registry, enable or disable cool and quiet, remove or add the boot.ini thing... that there is no difference in actual encoding time ever and that even if I don?t touch the affinity and let Windows just do its thing, that with encoding one of my CPUs is always at 100% and it?s not ?balancing?. Still no difference whatsoever.
Any ideas as to whether I am doing something wrong or suggestions on how folks balance their dual cores? Do you assign tasks specifically to one core or do most just let windows do it all?
My AMD64 X2-3800+ is a great processor and for the most part I just trust that everything is running as it should. I assume that the whole dual core thing is doing what it was meant to do. I have found that going from my original non dual core AMD64, when I have a few things on the go it does indeed seems peppier.
Consider that I am usually downloading something in the background, encoding something, playing an MP3 and heck checking email and surfing and at all times running my media server (Tversity) ad whatever else lurks in the background and burning DVDs or CDs as well. About the only time I notice a minor slowdown is if I start repairing a missing file using PARS or if I start to unrar a 4 gig file?
However I have as of late been monitoring my CPU usage because before I was just going by ?feel?. I installed the AMD dual core driver, the Intel patch and also played with the registry "throttle" setting and the boot.ini thingy but honestly I cannot tell the difference in actual performance. I have been using mostly video encoders for my testing and for instance encoding from an Xvid to DVD using either AVI2DVD or TMPG or WInAVI or others and what I noticed is that no matter if I leave my affinity alone (default) or actually select only one processor or change the throttle in the registry, enable or disable cool and quiet, remove or add the boot.ini thing... that there is no difference in actual encoding time ever and that even if I don?t touch the affinity and let Windows just do its thing, that with encoding one of my CPUs is always at 100% and it?s not ?balancing?. Still no difference whatsoever.
Any ideas as to whether I am doing something wrong or suggestions on how folks balance their dual cores? Do you assign tasks specifically to one core or do most just let windows do it all?
Facebook
Twitter