XavierMace
Diamond Member
- Apr 20, 2013
- 4,307
- 450
- 126
You're seeding a bunch of torrents on a two thread system, while trying to listening to streaming audio at the same time... no shit, the scheduler is going to struggle to fit all of those tasks into time slices smoothly without something losing out. Two threads is still two threads. Start messing with thread affinities, or just buy a good CPU already.
You're seeding a bunch of torrents on a two thread system, while trying to listening to streaming audio at the same time... no shit, the scheduler is going to struggle to fit all of those tasks into time slices smoothly without something losing out. Two threads is still two threads. Start messing with thread affinities, or just buy a good CPU already.
I suggest a dedicated media-playback core.
Indeed. I have an i3 in my HTPC. Audio playback takes up all of 1% CPU usage. You could stick 32x cores in there and still suffer from cr*ppy web browser flash plugin's many issues or transport glitches in general. Pumping the Internet connection full of torrents is probably causing a latency bottleneck in the net connection itself. Same reason people don't download 12x large files whilst multiplayer gaming then complain of elevated ping times.it's a network issue.
Indeed. I have an i3 in my HTPC. Audio playback takes up all of 1% CPU usage. You could stick 32x cores in there and still suffer from cr*ppy web browser flash plugin's many issues or transport glitches in general. Pumping the Internet connection full of torrents is probably causing a latency bottleneck in the net connection itself. Same reason people don't download 12x large files whilst multiplayer gaming then complain of elevated ping times.
You just need a Killer Network and all will be fine
I certainly know nearly all of Intel's and AMD's CPU stack. The point being, if a G3258 isn't enough grunt, then what is? Where does it end? If you keep going up the stack, you end up at something like the 5820K. That's not ignorance; that's hyperbole.This is silly. You want a "5th core" for something that uses almost zero resources already even though you admittedly have no idea how well it would work.
Then we have the ultimate ignorance factor... You've been around since 2001 and you apparently don't know that there are several processors that fall between a G3258 and a 5820k. This isn't the first time you've made statements like that either.
Oh, so even though my processor is only 20% utilized, you're going to say I need a quad-core? You call me ignorant, but you consider a CPU that is 20% utilized, to be "struggling"?So yeah, Intel isn't going to add a 5th media core. You're asking too much from your budget builds. So apparently yes, your options are to stick with your struggling G3258 or move up to a 5820k
You know, instead of asking for requests that will never happen, maybe you can ask Intel to make a processor that's more powerful than a G3258 but cheaper than a 5820k
That may well be. I'm using a WD switch (they were so successful in the networking space that they aren't, now), and it supports some purported QoS. There are 8 ports. 4 are "medium", two are "low", and two are "high". I have all three of my PCs, and the uplink (all gigabit) connected to the four "medium" ports in the middle. When I connected some of my PCs to the "high" ports, my streaming and other things were even more inconsistent. So I may replace that switch with a more "normal" unmanaged SOHO gigabit 8-port switch.it's a network issue.
Well, I'm only seeding, not downloading, so the downstream pipe should be pretty clear.Indeed. I have an i3 in my HTPC. Audio playback takes up all of 1% CPU usage. You could stick 32x cores in there and still suffer from cr*ppy web browser flash plugin's many issues or transport glitches in general. Pumping the Internet connection full of torrents is probably causing a latency bottleneck in the net connection itself. Same reason people don't download 12x large files whilst multiplayer gaming then complain of elevated ping times.
It has one, it is call an intel hd graphics.My point, was not that Intel needs more CPU cores for more software grunt. Rather, my point was that having a dedicated core for media, would allow it to run a lighter, more-direct, software stack.
You still have to tell the stream that it should keep playing,upload hurts your communication with the servers a lot.Well, I'm only seeding, not downloading, so the downstream pipe should be pretty clear.
I certainly know nearly all of Intel's and AMD's CPU stack. The point being, if a G3258 isn't enough grunt, then what is? Where does it end? If you keep going up the stack, you end up at something like the 5820K. That's not ignorance; that's hyperbole.
I certainly know nearly all of Intel's and AMD's CPU stack. The point being, if a G3258 isn't enough grunt, then what is? Where does it end? If you keep going up the stack, you end up at something like the 5820K. That's not ignorance; that's hyperbole.
How about all the processors in between the two that you apparently know about but are ignoring? "where does it end" is up to you. Chalk up one more thread where you're complaining about performance. It will end when you decide to configure a system that can meet your needs. It's up to you to decide if, when and how that happens. There's no need for a "media core" that's beyond silly. Notice how nobody who's replied to this thread has this issue, and no one has a "media core" enabled CPU.
Edit: I believe, that if we were all on XP still, without MS's newer Multimedia scheduler available, that doing heavy network transfers, would indeed cause media playback to lag and skip, just like Linux does.
That may well be. I'm using a WD switch (they were so successful in the networking space that they aren't, now), and it supports some purported QoS. There are 8 ports. 4 are "medium", two are "low", and two are "high". I have all three of my PCs, and the uplink (all gigabit) connected to the four "medium" ports in the middle. When I connected some of my PCs to the "high" ports, my streaming and other things were even more inconsistent. So I may replace that switch with a more "normal" unmanaged SOHO gigabit 8-port switch.
I'm not sure why you believe this when one of your own links mentions the problem doesn't exist under XP. You've apparently just now found out that Vista had a lot of bugs at launch (poor SMB performance anyone?) and somehow decided that this is some widespread and still relevant issue that should cause Intel to overhaul their processor design to fix. There's a reason all the articles you linked to about this are roughly the same age.
Oh, that's the thing, though, I don't see the issue in Windows 7, really, so if the switch was truely the cause, I would expect the problem to manifest in Windows as well. (I should clarify, I did see some issues when I was using the "low" and "high" ports, it seemed like it was using XON/XOFF-style rate-limiting QoS - I know that ethernet doesn't use XON/XOFF, that's an analog modem term, but I know that there is some 802.11 flow-control protocol, but I don't recall the proper name for it.)That's what you call a crappy switch and probably part of your problem.
Also, task manager is not a good tool for troubleshooting network performance "issues".
]Oh, that's the thing, though, I don't see the issue in Windows 7, really,[/B] so if the switch was truely the cause, I would expect the problem to manifest in Windows as well. (I should clarify, I did see some issues when I was using the "low" and "high" ports, it seemed like it was using XON/XOFF-style rate-limiting QoS - I know that ethernet doesn't use XON/XOFF, that's an analog modem term, but I know that there is some 802.11 flow-control protocol, but I don't recall the proper name for it.)
I should also note, that there are some threads here, I don't remember if they are in the *nix forum or where, that I read some people complaining about Firefox on Linux, specifically, lagging, especially on JS-heavy sites like Amazon.com.
This radio player site is very JS-heavy too.
The problem may simply be Firefox on Linux, seeing as how FF is basically single-threaded, and Flash Player depends on the browser to feed it data to stream, so if the browser is running some other task at the time, and there's a break in the buffer, well, there you go.