[scribus] Scribus on 'modern' machines
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
> 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