[PD] Pd performance relationship to CPU model

[Jonathan Wilkes]

On 03/13/2015 09:08 AM, Samuel Burt wrote:
>
> I had watched the CPU numbers drop on portable Mac computers for some 
> time with frustration. At first, my friends said the extra cores will 
> give me more performance. Pd isn't multi-threaded! Then Intel started 
> the auto-overclock trend. Does Pd cause a CPU to run at its maximum 
> speed now? If I were to get a computer that is 1.8/2.6, is it only 
> going to run at 1.8? Can I get Gem to run on a second core with pd~? 
> These are all unclear issues for me and always delay me when I'm 
> considering an "upgrade".
>

Extra cores should give better performance for a multitasking operating 
system in general.  But it doesn't necessarily give you better 
performance for each individual task you want to do.  Pd is 
unfortunately one of those tasks, but then again so is your javascript 
event loop for every single modern web browser out there.  So the trend 
of chopping up cpus into little bits effects a lot more than just Pd.

I imagine it would run at 2.6, but I don't know what the Mac interface 
is for setting that.

I've read on this list that there are issues with using pd~ together 
with Gem.  It was suggested instead to run two instances of Pd, one for 
Gem and the other for audio.  You can communicate between the two using 
a netsend/netreceive pair over local host.

-Jonathan

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20150313/d5535147/attachment-0001.html>