- Apr 24, 2008At 05:19 PM 4/23/2008, bill_w4zv wrote:
>I then tried the CQWW file below and got the following results, withYour wish is my command, sir ;^)
>CPU utilization hitting 100% at times in all cases:
>33 calls, 7009.0>7020.10, everything running on computer.
>33 calls, same QRG range, Internet connection and browser off.
>40 calls, 7007.0>7021.9, AVG anti-virus off.
>58 calls, 7002.0>7024.6, Skimmer display minimized.
>I could probably do a little better by shutting down more background
>processes but I'm curious what someone with a 2-3 GHz CPU gets when
>running the same CQWW file above?
With a 2.2 GHz Celeron, 768 MB DDR RAM (a VERY basic Dell 2400, four years
old, With XP home SP2) I got the following results off the same file.
Note that when playing back recordings the sound card is not involved;
Skimmer is processing the I/Q file directly, so settings like playback
sampling rate have no effect:
Decoders Other variables Calls Decoded CPU peak
Adaptive Not minimized 156 96%
250 "" 131 75%
300 "" 152 81%
350 "" 154 86%
400 "" 153 100%
Adaptive Telnet server off 154 100%
Adaptive Skimmer minimized 154 ?
Interesting, no? I would have to other programs minimized or in the
background do not affect decoding performance; one of the critical
questions I hope to answer in coming months is whether the reverse is true,
since we're talking about using Skimmer to feed spots to a contest logging
program, which has to be able to respond quickly, send CW, etc. My
personal tests with N1MM logger, using a Winkey for CW, have been very
encouraging; I suspect that MM simply takes precedence when it needs to,
and that the Winkey avoids any issues with making good CW.
73, Pete N4ZR
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>