4 ms·
Do you find that you're CPU limited in your workflow? Apps that are mostly idle don't need a dedicated CPU thread. Firefox playing a Youtube video on a rather o
by simias 8y ago
Do you find that you're CPU limited in your workflow? Apps that are mostly idle don't need a dedicated CPU thread. Firefox playing a Youtube video on a rather old i7-5820K @3.3GHz takes about 20% of one CPU on my machine. Emacs takes a negligible amount of CPU most of the time, so do my terminals. Compilation is really the only situation where I max out my machine.
In general if you only care about raw performance you'll run one heavy app per machine. You won't use the same server to render video and build your code at the same time, it will be more efficient to use two different servers for that.
- aasasd 8y agoTo me it seems that modern apps don't really stay frozen in the background like it was ten years ago, at least not on Mac. Something always keeps bubbling up in the process manager. Especially, JS GUIs seem to constantly occupy the CPU with something, even if a little―despite the supposedly event-driven nature.
- AstralStorm 8y agoEven then, the CPU utilisation is low, having one or two spare cores is enough to reap any latency benefits.
- geezerjay 8y agoHow do you arrive at that conclusion considering that nowadays browsers tend to run each page in dedicated threads and in some cases even processes? In that scenario your assertion would only hold if you assume no one has more than a couple of pages open at any given time.
- dragontamer 8y ago"Running Threads" in Windows and Linux don't use any CPU time unless there is something to do. Most of the time, threads and processes are in the blocked state. For example, waiting for mouse movements, or network traffic. Check your CPU utilization, I bet you its below 20% if you have anything close to a modern processor. Even with 30+ tabs open
- xkcdefgh 8y agowhat? read some OS books