how many processes not cpu's do you hov on your pc
- GONNAFISTYA
- Posts: 13369
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm
-
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
You're right, it scales to the use its getting. Unfortunately for me, my raid array sucks up most of it on a constant basis. I do have some headroom though. Also you can factor in the laptop powering its own screen, whereas a desktop screen is extra load. Just checked my TFT, and it draws 0.7A at 240v so that's about 150-200 watts on top of the box....shaft wrote:huh, lol ,what? You may have a 600w psu in your pc, but its only drawing the power demanded by your internal components.Foo wrote:Laptop is 18.5V*3.5A so 65 wattsCalcifer wrote:foo main desk top?sucks power
Desktop is 600 watts
So using laptop can cut electricity down by a factor of 9. Makes my bills a lot cheaper
someone correct me if im worng.
-
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
This thread has no value. I could have one thousand idle processes taking up 1kB. If I have enough Ram to make up for it. My computer would be running fine.
The general rule of thumb is to have less active processes running to yield most of the CPU time for the application in question.
The real question should be:
How much processor time (CPU usage) is wasted on idle/active applications while your computer is running. With standard browsing habits, my CPU usage never passes 5% and my page file never exceeds 300 MB
3200+ Athlon XP with 1 GB of ram. (36 processes, only a handful active)
The general rule of thumb is to have less active processes running to yield most of the CPU time for the application in question.
The real question should be:
How much processor time (CPU usage) is wasted on idle/active applications while your computer is running. With standard browsing habits, my CPU usage never passes 5% and my page file never exceeds 300 MB
3200+ Athlon XP with 1 GB of ram. (36 processes, only a handful active)
Last edited by duffman91 on Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
True, but when you have 30-60-80-100 etc. processes it eats ram too, and that will be noticeable if you don't have a lot (below 1gb)
Say you have 1gb, and your processes are taking up 500mb, and you start playing a heavy game that will eat the remainder and would want more, it'll start reaching for the page file.
I dunno but when I play games I like to have as little stuff running as I can.
Say you have 1gb, and your processes are taking up 500mb, and you start playing a heavy game that will eat the remainder and would want more, it'll start reaching for the page file.
I dunno but when I play games I like to have as little stuff running as I can.
Last edited by dzjepp on Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
-
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
PF 109 hereMKJ wrote:im having peaks of 2% right now, PF of 300. woopeedoo

wanna be leet like me?
http://www.tweakguides.com/TGTC.html
17 running processes, I have an unhealthy obsession with always trying to cut the processes to bare minimum. Even closing explorer when a game runs. (I have 1GB of ram)
Guess it's why I always load up first in to a level on multiplayer.
Guess it's why I always load up first in to a level on multiplayer.
Last edited by Turbine on Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
why can't u get it down to 13/14 like dzjepp and myself?Turbine wrote:17 running processes, I have an unhealthy obsession with always trying to cut the processes to bare minimum. Even closing explorer when a game runs. (I have 1GB of ram)
Guess it's why I always load up first in to a level on multiplayer.