Re: amd 690g chipset
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 04:31:29PM -0500, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> * Douglas A. Tutty <dtutty@porchlight.ca> [080312 15:35]:
> > If you don't play games or watch videos, then what is slowing down a
> > 1700 MHz Celeron (or any other 1700 MHz CPU) so that you want faster?
> >
> > The most important thing is to have enough memory. With that Celeron
> > box, doing whatever you do that seems slow, run top and check that you
> > still have enough memory. Perhaps all you need is a memory upgrade.
> >
> > I don't play games either. I can do everything but watch videos on my
> > P-II with 64 MB ram, however Iceweasel hits swap. Heck, Xorg + icewm +
> > rxvt hits swap.
>
> Having discovered the gnome system monitor, I seldom run top anymore.
> But I have a gigabyte of RAM, about half of which is "user" and about
> half of which is "cache".
The gnome system monitor probably takes a bit of CPU power to run (more
than top). I also have a gib of memory, I have Konqueror running right
now on icewm and I'm using 200 or so MB with 800 or so free.
"cache" shows up in top on the "swap" line.
> Iceweasel pushes processor utilization to 100 percent; I would like to
> find a browser which is more economical.
Any process can push any processor to 100% momentarily. In your case,
is this 100% include waiting for IO? How long (in seconds) does it sit
at 100%? Iceweasel doesn't even put my P-II to 100% for very long,
other than the 47% it spends "waiting" while it swaps.
On my Athlon64 3800+ (single CPU), with top running in an xterm at a 0.5
second delay, the first time I start iceweasel, it takes about 5 seconds
to start, most of that waiting on IO. Close it, wait a minute, and
start iceweasel again, it takes about a second; some IO, but can't tell
too much in that short a time. Just sitting there, iceweasel uses 2%.
Try top and see what it tells you.
> I found a cheap AMD dual-core processor, and memory is cheap. All I
> need to find now is a no-hassle "plain vanilla" AM2 motherboard,
> preferably with on-board video.
You need to use top and see what is causing the CPU to be at 100%. If
it is all one process, then dual-core will do diddly for you.
What "more economical" means depends on what specific problem you are
experiencing. If your problem is when loading heavy graphics pages, the
problem could be your video driver.
I would suggest trying links2. It is light weight but does javascript,
SSL, etc and will help you decide if the problem is the browser or the
video rendering.
Personally, I like Konqureror.
Good luck.
Doug.
Reply to: