How can I make one core a fast as possible?

[Todd]

Hi All,

I have an interesting design problem on a replacement computer
for a customer. I have her agreed to replace her current eight
year old computer with a new one, finally.

The current software she is running is a fancy POS (Point of
Sale, what did you thing I meant?) system that includes
billing, inventory, etc.. The software vendor requests
we stay with XP.

Now, here is the interesting part. Printing an invoice
drives them crazy as it can take up to five minute with
the customer tapping his foot in front of them. The
current system is two core. One of the cores is max'ed
out at 100% creating the print process. (The other core is
around 2 or 3 percent.) Soon as the core drops, the
printer starts. (I have asked the vendor when he will
multithread his stuff and he had no clue.)

So basically, I need to design a new computer that had
at least one core that is faster than h---. Probably
two core would be enough. (If the vendor ever multithreads,
I could always upgrade the processor.)

Anyone have any tips?

-T

 

[Paul]

Hi All,

I have an interesting design problem on a replacement computer
for a customer. I have her agreed to replace her current eight
year old computer with a new one, finally.

The current software she is running is a fancy POS (Point of
Sale, what did you thing I meant?) system that includes
billing, inventory, etc.. The software vendor requests
we stay with XP.

Now, here is the interesting part. Printing an invoice
drives them crazy as it can take up to five minute with
the customer tapping his foot in front of them. The
current system is two core. One of the cores is max'ed
out at 100% creating the print process. (The other core is
around 2 or 3 percent.) Soon as the core drops, the
printer starts. (I have asked the vendor when he will
multithread his stuff and he had no clue.)

So basically, I need to design a new computer that had
at least one core that is faster than h---. Probably
two core would be enough. (If the vendor ever multithreads,
I could always upgrade the processor.)

Anyone have any tips?

-T

I'll predict what will happen.

If I gave you a 7GHz processor, the core would still run
at 100%.

My prediction is based on a guess that the code is
busted. There is a tight loop in the code, and
that is what is causing 100% CPU usage on one core.
You cannot beat such a problem, with a faster
processor. If I built you a 100GHz processor out of
HBT transistors, it would still be maxed at 100%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterojunction_Bipolar_Transistor

"was demonstrated to cut off at a speed of 710 gigahertz"

The processor is "spinning its wheels" and gaining
no traction. Only the software developer can fix
this - you can't. The code is *badly* written.

*******

Numerically, this is the fastest stock clock I can find. (4.3GHz Turbo)
I think processors like this one, may have been run up to around
7GHz on liquid nitrogen.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819106009

But in terms of effectiveness (better IPC), a processor like this
benchmarks better. And being a "K" unlocked processor, you can
overclock using nothing more than a multiplier setting in the BIOS.
Just crank the CPU core voltage, crank the multiplier, for
a nice speedup. This is a lot of processor, for $330.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116501&Tpk=3770k

If you read the reviews on that one, a couple people
got overclocks to 4.7GHz. Which is not bad for conventional
cooling. (Using one of those small water cooler loop
products, makes for an impressive, and relatively
cheap build for your customer. Wait until you
show them this inside the computer )

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cooling/2012/01/09/corsair-h100-review/1

I only picked out a couple processors, just for fun, as they're really
not going to help you.

The 3770K is not at the top of the chart here, because this
is a "multi-threaded" benchmark. If you do video editing
and video rendering, you want something with more cores,
from the top of this chart.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

To find the fastest processor for single threaded code, you need to
look at SuperPI results on hwbot.org .

First place here, is awarded to a 3770K overclocked to 7.063GHz.

http://hwbot.org/submission/2343311_andreyang_superpi___32m_core_i7_3770k_4min_38sec_203ms

This is the dude, as he adds coolant to his "home project".
Andre Yang in action. Processors like this, only run at 7GHz,
for about 20 minutes to half an hour at a time (because the
copper pot boils away all the coolant)

http://www.cowcotland.com/images/news/2012/10/559456_10151433101072388_108913470_n.jpg

The cooler is a copper pot, with a nice polished bottom on
it that sits right on top of the processor. The socket area
around the processor, is typically protected with sheet
neoprene, to try to prevent condensation. If condensation
builds up around the socket, the motherboard corrodes out
in about six months. (Of course, a "professional" overclocker,
wouldn't be keeping his motherboard for six months. He'd
have bought another one by then.)

http://img.tomshardware.com/us/2003/12/30/5_ghz_project/icecold5.jpg

Paul

 

[Todd]

I'll predict what will happen.

If I gave you a 7GHz processor, the core would still run
at 100%.

My prediction is based on a guess that the code is
busted. There is a tight loop in the code, and
that is what is causing 100% CPU usage on one core.
You cannot beat such a problem, with a faster
processor. If I built you a 100GHz processor out of
HBT transistors, it would still be maxed at 100%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterojunction_Bipolar_Transistor

"was demonstrated to cut off at a speed of 710 gigahertz"

The processor is "spinning its wheels" and gaining
no traction. Only the software developer can fix
this - you can't. The code is *badly* written.

*******

Numerically, this is the fastest stock clock I can find. (4.3GHz Turbo)
I think processors like this one, may have been run up to around
7GHz on liquid nitrogen.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819106009

But in terms of effectiveness (better IPC), a processor like this
benchmarks better. And being a "K" unlocked processor, you can
overclock using nothing more than a multiplier setting in the BIOS.
Just crank the CPU core voltage, crank the multiplier, for
a nice speedup. This is a lot of processor, for $330.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116501&Tpk=3770k

If you read the reviews on that one, a couple people
got overclocks to 4.7GHz. Which is not bad for conventional
cooling. (Using one of those small water cooler loop
products, makes for an impressive, and relatively
cheap build for your customer. Wait until you
show them this inside the computer )

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cooling/2012/01/09/corsair-h100-review/1

I only picked out a couple processors, just for fun, as they're really
not going to help you.

The 3770K is not at the top of the chart here, because this
is a "multi-threaded" benchmark. If you do video editing
and video rendering, you want something with more cores,
from the top of this chart.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

To find the fastest processor for single threaded code, you need to
look at SuperPI results on hwbot.org .

First place here, is awarded to a 3770K overclocked to 7.063GHz.

http://hwbot.org/submission/2343311_andreyang_superpi___32m_core_i7_3770k_4min_38sec_203ms


This is the dude, as he adds coolant to his "home project".
Andre Yang in action. Processors like this, only run at 7GHz,
for about 20 minutes to half an hour at a time (because the
copper pot boils away all the coolant)

http://www.cowcotland.com/images/news/2012/10/559456_10151433101072388_108913470_n.jpg


The cooler is a copper pot, with a nice polished bottom on
it that sits right on top of the processor. The socket area
around the processor, is typically protected with sheet
neoprene, to try to prevent condensation. If condensation
builds up around the socket, the motherboard corrodes out
in about six months. (Of course, a "professional" overclocker,
wouldn't be keeping his motherboard for six months. He'd
have bought another one by then.)

http://img.tomshardware.com/us/2003/12/30/5_ghz_project/icecold5.jpg

Paul

Hi Paul,

I do believe you called it. This is seem to happen
after on "update" to the software.

Thank you for the astonishing reply!

-T

 

[BeeJ]

Todd brought next idea :

Hi All,

I have an interesting design problem on a replacement computer
for a customer. I have her agreed to replace her current eight
year old computer with a new one, finally.

The current software she is running is a fancy POS (Point of
Sale, what did you thing I meant?) system that includes
billing, inventory, etc.. The software vendor requests
we stay with XP.

Now, here is the interesting part. Printing an invoice
drives them crazy as it can take up to five minute with
the customer tapping his foot in front of them. The
current system is two core. One of the cores is max'ed
out at 100% creating the print process. (The other core is
around 2 or 3 percent.) Soon as the core drops, the
printer starts. (I have asked the vendor when he will
multithread his stuff and he had no clue.)

So basically, I need to design a new computer that had
at least one core that is faster than h---. Probably
two core would be enough. (If the vendor ever multithreads,
I could always upgrade the processor.)

Anyone have any tips?

-T

You need to tell the sw developer that the code is causing the problem
and that in the loop that is causing 100% CPU usage s/he needs to
release CPU time to other apps. Typically the OS API call can be Sleep
for one millisecond and possibly a doevents type call depending on the
code language. This is a very simple fix for the code usually just two
line of code.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Hi All,

I have an interesting design problem on a replacement computer
for a customer. I have her agreed to replace her current eight
year old computer with a new one, finally.

The current software she is running is a fancy POS (Point of
Sale, what did you thing I meant?) system that includes
billing, inventory, etc.. The software vendor requests
we stay with XP.

I would first try to see if it works stock in Windows 7, or at the least
in XP compatibility mode. There is also a virtualized XP environment for
Windows 7 Professional and Ultimate available called "XP Mode", which is
more compatible than XP compatibility but much slower too.

Now, here is the interesting part. Printing an invoice
drives them crazy as it can take up to five minute with
the customer tapping his foot in front of them. The
current system is two core. One of the cores is max'ed
out at 100% creating the print process. (The other core is
around 2 or 3 percent.) Soon as the core drops, the
printer starts. (I have asked the vendor when he will
multithread his stuff and he had no clue.)

So basically, I need to design a new computer that had
at least one core that is faster than h---. Probably
two core would be enough. (If the vendor ever multithreads,
I could always upgrade the processor.)

Most of the recent processors by Intel and AMD have something just for
you like that. AMD calls theirs Turbo Core, while Intel calls theirs
Turbo Boost. Basically they both overclock one or two cores by another
200 MHz or more. But as Paul said, it's likely that no matter what, the
core will get maxed out at 100%. But modern processors will probably be
maxed out a shorter amount of time at 100%. So instead of maxing out for
5 minutes, it might only max out for 1 minute or 30 seconds. Still a lot
of time, but much less than before.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Todd]

I would first try to see if it works stock in Windows 7, or at the least
in XP compatibility mode. There is also a virtualized XP environment for
Windows 7 Professional and Ultimate available called "XP Mode", which is
more compatible than XP compatibility but much slower too.

With the software vendor requesting XP and the employees
mainly being retirees ("I WANT FOUR INCH LETTERS!"), I
can not complicate their lives special stuff.

Even if it did run fine in W7 (it doesn't), there is the
problem of teaching the retirees something new. Sometimes,
I just give up and let them have what they want. And
when you think about it, it is their money not mine.
To meet my needs (food, roof over my head), I have
to meet their needs.

Hell, I fixed probably the only remaining DOS computer
in this county last month (a controller for a CNC
machine). Pay me to solve a mystery, I am your man.

But, I do appreciate your point. Well stated.

-T

 

[BillW50]

In Yousuf Khan typed:

Most of the recent processors by Intel and AMD have something just for
you like that. AMD calls theirs Turbo Core, while Intel calls theirs
Turbo Boost. Basically they both overclock one or two cores by another
200 MHz or more. But as Paul said, it's likely that no matter what,
the core will get maxed out at 100%. But modern processors will
probably be maxed out a shorter amount of time at 100%. So instead of
maxing out for 5 minutes, it might only max out for 1 minute or 30
seconds. Still a lot of time, but much less than before.

Some people wonder why I have 30+ computers. And this is one reason why.
As 30+ processors are always better than one. As one could be tied up
doing just one task, but another one is unaffected and recording TV
shows flawlessly. ;-)

 

[BillW50]

In Yousuf Khan typed:

I would first try to see if it works stock in Windows 7, or at the
least in XP compatibility mode. There is also a virtualized XP
environment for Windows 7 Professional and Ultimate available called
"XP Mode", which is more compatible than XP compatibility but much
slower too.

I have a number of Windows 7 and Windows 8 machines here. But to be
honest, they all could die tomorrow and it wouldn't bother me a bit.
Also Windows 7 and 8 wastes too much time doing nonsense things in the
background. Like automatically sorting the file list. Doesn't 7/8 have
anything better to do than to waste CPU time on such nonsense? I tried
Windows 7 on a netbook once. And even if you never open a single
application, Windows 7 at idle was still eating 50% of the Celeron
900MHz. And you could forget browsing, watching paint dry was far
faster. :-(

 

[Todd]

In Yousuf Khan typed:

I have a number of Windows 7 and Windows 8 machines here. But to be
honest, they all could die tomorrow and it wouldn't bother me a bit.
Also Windows 7 and 8 wastes too much time doing nonsense things in the
background. Like automatically sorting the file list. Doesn't 7/8 have
anything better to do than to waste CPU time on such nonsense? I tried
Windows 7 on a netbook once. And even if you never open a single
application, Windows 7 at idle was still eating 50% of the Celeron
900MHz. And you could forget browsing, watching paint dry was far
faster. :-(

I am trying to find a tablet with Fedora on it, a USB port,
Ethernet Port, and 802.11 b/g/n to test Internet connections.
So far, no luck.

 

[BillW50]

In Todd typed:

I am trying to find a tablet with Fedora on it, a USB port,
Ethernet Port, and 802.11 b/g/n to test Internet connections.
So far, no luck.

I am not sure why it has to be Fedora, as I would rather use Windows
myself. But a lot of PC tablets out there should be fine for your
requirements. As long as Fedora has drivers for the hardware.

 

[Todd]

In Todd typed:

I am not sure why it has to be Fedora, as I would rather use Windows
myself. But a lot of PC tablets out there should be fine for your
requirements. As long as Fedora has drivers for the hardware.

You have so much more control over the computer with
Fedora than windows. Sometimes when I am troubleshoot
networking problems, I will boot off my Fedora Live CD.
Plus, it is more fun than Windows.

Also, it runs gobs faster than Windows, so I won't feel
the tablet hit so bad. And, I won't have any worry about
catching s--- from my customers network.

Any tablets out there without the OS installed that
you like?

 

[BillW50]

In Todd typed:

You have so much more control over the computer with
Fedora than windows. Sometimes when I am troubleshoot
networking problems, I will boot off my Fedora Live CD.
Plus, it is more fun than Windows.

If you say so, I wish I could say the same.

Also, it runs gobs faster than Windows, so I won't feel
the tablet hit so bad. And, I won't have any worry about
catching s--- from my customers network.

I've never found any Linux fast myself. Try Linux on a 2GB of RAM
machine with a Celeron 900MHz underclocked to 633MHz with a 800x480
screen and Linux falls on its face trying to play a full screen youtube
video. I get a frame a second. Yet XP SP2 running on the same machine
can pull off the same full screen video on an external monitor at
1440x900 playing at 30 frames per second without breaking a sweat.

Any tablets out there without the OS installed that
you like?

If you don't mind those off of corporate lease, there are tons of those
out there. In fact, this is one of them. This one came without a hard
drive, but lots of them have a hard drive and had the drive wiped for
security reasons. Thus they have no OS. Many are just around 100 bucks
or a tad more. Some look like they just came out of the box. In fact, I
just bought one that was still sealed in the box and just came off of
corporate lease (for about 160 bucks for a $2550 tablet). A lot of
departments spend their whole budgets on stuff they will never use.
Because if they didn't, their budgets gets cut next year.

My favorite PC tablet so far is a Motion Computing LE1700. They came
with a different configurations (like most models). And I love the Core2
Duo L7400 (1.5GHz) with SXGA+ (1400x1050 resolution). What is nice about
these is that they will run just about any OS you want to throw at them.
Even the more demanding ones. And finding a tablet model with SXGA+ is
truly rare in the tablet market. Most seems to focus on 1280x900 instead
nowadays.

 

[Todd]

I've never found any Linux fast myself. Try Linux on a 2GB of RAM
machine with a Celeron 900MHz underclocked to 633MHz with a 800x480
screen and Linux falls on its face trying to play a full screen youtube
video. I get a frame a second. Yet XP SP2 running on the same machine
can pull off the same full screen video on an external monitor at
1440x900 playing at 30 frames per second without breaking a sweat.

Oh ya. Video did stink for the longest time. VLC has finally come
into its own.

If you don't mind those off of corporate lease, there are tons of those
out there. In fact, this is one of them. This one came without a hard
drive, but lots of them have a hard drive and had the drive wiped for
security reasons. Thus they have no OS. Many are just around 100 bucks
or a tad more. Some look like they just came out of the box. In fact, I
just bought one that was still sealed in the box and just came off of
corporate lease (for about 160 bucks for a $2550 tablet). A lot of
departments spend their whole budgets on stuff they will never use.
Because if they didn't, their budgets gets cut next year.

My favorite PC tablet so far is a Motion Computing LE1700. They came
with a different configurations (like most models). And I love the Core2
Duo L7400 (1.5GHz) with SXGA+ (1400x1050 resolution). What is nice about
these is that they will run just about any OS you want to throw at them.
Even the more demanding ones. And finding a tablet model with SXGA+ is
truly rare in the tablet market. Most seems to focus on 1280x900 instead
nowadays.

Thank you!
http://www.amazon.com/Motion-LE1700-1-5GHz-12-1-Inch-Windows/dp/B000ZKFRBM

 

[BillW50]

In Todd typed:

Oh ya. Video did stink for the longest time. VLC has finally come
into its own.

Yeah well VLC is really good and all, but it still doesn't hold a candle
to WMP on the same machine. I mean I tested both by testing on lesser
and lesser machines until one breaks. When you go the other way and give
both more powerful processors, VLC does very well indeed.

Thank you!
http://www.amazon.com/Motion-LE1700-1-5GHz-12-1-Inch-Windows/dp/B000ZKFRBM

Yes that is the one. ;-)

 

[Todd]

Yeah well VLC is really good and all, but it still doesn't hold a candle
to WMP on the same machine. I mean I tested both by testing on lesser
and lesser machines until one breaks. When you go the other way and give
both more powerful processors, VLC does very well indeed.

Is it just me, or do you find VLC "cumbersome" to use?

 

[BillW50]

In Todd typed:

Is it just me, or do you find VLC "cumbersome" to use?

No, not really. I do wish it had a playlist display more like WMP
though.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

With the software vendor requesting XP and the employees
mainly being retirees ("I WANT FOUR INCH LETTERS!"), I
can not complicate their lives special stuff.

I understand that completely, recently I got my mother a cellphone. Had
too search long and hard for one with absolutely no useless features,
and with large buttons and large display letters.

Even if it did run fine in W7 (it doesn't), there is the
problem of teaching the retirees something new. Sometimes,
I just give up and let them have what they want. And
when you think about it, it is their money not mine.
To meet my needs (food, roof over my head), I have
to meet their needs.

The main reason for suggesting it was because if you're getting a new
machine with greater than 3-4GB then you'll be wasting the remaining
RAM. So Windows 7 64-bit would've been the choice. But there is also
another alternative, not very popular, but still a choice: Windows XP
64-bit! Same interface as XP 32-bit, but more memory, and better
processor management.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Todd]

The main reason for suggesting it was because if you're getting a new
machine with greater than 3-4GB then you'll be wasting the remaining
RAM. So Windows 7 64-bit would've been the choice. But there is also
another alternative, not very popular, but still a choice: Windows XP
64-bit! Same interface as XP 32-bit, but more memory, and better
processor management.

Yousuf Khan

Hi Yousuf,

Thank you for the tips!

Since I am the system builder, I am calling out two
2 GB modules (Dual interleave). If they want 64 OS
in the future, they can just replace their memory
at that time. (Memory is really cheap lately.)

Did you ever get 64 bit XP to work right?

-T

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Did you ever get 64 bit XP to work right?

I've never touched 64-bit XP in my life. What problems have you heard
of? Went straight from 32-bit XP to 64-bit Win7.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Todd]

I've never touched 64-bit XP in my life. What problems have you heard
of? Went straight from 32-bit XP to 64-bit Win7.

Yousuf Khan

Hi Yousuf,

I read a writer in Info World that said it only worked
on Wednesdays.

One lady called me years ago who couldn't get any of
her drivers to work. I told her she should go back
to 32 bit. I think she was getting a second opinion.

Other than that, nothing.

-T