[scribus] Scribus on 'modern' machines

Asif Lodhi asif.lodhi at gmail.com
Sat May 3 07:58:50 CEST 2008


On 5/3/08, Craig Ringer <craig at postnewspapers.com.au>
> There's rarely a reason to bother doing either
> manually. The OS is pretty good about dynamically
> scheduling things so that a busy process gets constant
> CPU time and other tasks run on the other core. IMO it
> switches processes from core to core a little too
> freely, but that only matters for things that care
> about cache (and Scribus probably doesn't
> benefit from cache much except maybe during some image > operations).

Yes. OS is a better judge for handling the load. But complex vector
image rendering "might" be a good candidate if the image is too
complex and you might want to put it on a separate core.

> I've never been able to measure a performance
> difference between letting the OS scheduler do its
> thing and manually locking an app to its own
> private CPU core.

Yes. But when you manually allocate one or more cores to a process
then this, too, is carried out through the schedular. Manual core
allocation per process is just a facility in the Windows XP Task
Manager for users that need it for complex computing tasks such as 3D
rendering, etc. Only experimenting with this feature can make the
difference clear.

> A quad core processor of a given price will be
> significantly *slower* in per-core performance.
> Scribus is single threaded, and cannot usefully
> use more than one core.

May be, a Quad core processor is slow in handling a single-threaded
application but, very soon, multi-threading will NO longer come for
free as vertical scaling in the name of processor speed on a single
core has come to its limits and that's why they are making multi-core
processors to distribute the computing load acorss multiple cores.

I personally think that, if the price difference is relatively low,
then one should upgrade to a higher processor.


More information about the scribus mailing list