MFC executable is 100% slower on faster machine
in [MFC]
|
Prev: Thread Pool Class?
Next: Intellisense
From: Peter Olcott on 23 Jan 2010 13:25 "Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:u4yjs6EnKHA.1552(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)SeeScreen.com> wrote in message > news:4OKdnQ_BNJzFjMbWnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> >> I found out last night that the difference is related to >> video card settings. I was able to make the faster >> machine much faster than the slower machine by setting >> the NVIDIA 9800 GTX to maximize performance over quality. >> This setting has now stopped working. >> > > Boot in VGA-only mode (hit F8) and see if the performance > get better. Maybe it's the video adapter+driver that is > causing excessive interrupts or unnecessary bus accesses. > Does your program use video card for high volume > operations? > I don't think that is it. I think that I was able to get hardware GDI acceleration before, and it is turned off now.
From: Ajay Kalra on 24 Jan 2010 10:10 On Jan 22, 4:43 pm, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...(a)SeeScreen.com> wrote: > I recently upgraded my computer hardware from a 2.4 Ghz > Celeron to a 2.66 Ghz Core i5 and an MFC application that I > developed runs only half as fast on the faster machine. What > could be causing this? > > Both machines have identical sata hard-drives, and the fast > machine has much faster RAM 1333 ddr3 and 4.0 GB. The slower > machine has 2.0 GB of 333 ddr RAM. Why is the slower machine > twice as fast on the same executable? If you access to a profiler, this would be a good time to use it. In case you dont, I would fire the debugger and break/pause when CPU is pegged high and see if it gives you clue as to where it breaks. Also, is the new machine acting fine for other apps? -- Ajay
From: Peter Olcott on 27 Jan 2010 10:03 I found out more about the problem. It was not actually the video card settings. If I run two aspects of the program in question, they are 100% slower than the slower machine. If I run them again on the fast machine they are 500% faster than the slow machine. One aspect of this is the 1.5 memory growth factor does not have to grow memory the second time around, it is already fully allocated. "Ajay Kalra" <ajaykalra(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cac3cb8b-d37f-404f-a737-089589256e05(a)22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... On Jan 22, 4:43 pm, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...(a)SeeScreen.com> wrote: > I recently upgraded my computer hardware from a 2.4 Ghz > Celeron to a 2.66 Ghz Core i5 and an MFC application that > I > developed runs only half as fast on the faster machine. > What > could be causing this? > > Both machines have identical sata hard-drives, and the > fast > machine has much faster RAM 1333 ddr3 and 4.0 GB. The > slower > machine has 2.0 GB of 333 ddr RAM. Why is the slower > machine > twice as fast on the same executable? If you access to a profiler, this would be a good time to use it. In case you dont, I would fire the debugger and break/pause when CPU is pegged high and see if it gives you clue as to where it breaks. Also, is the new machine acting fine for other apps? -- Ajay
From: Peter Olcott on 28 Jan 2010 09:29 It turns out to not be the video card settings after all. When I first run two different aspects of the program, then they are both 500% to ten-fold faster, thus much faster than the slow machine. This is with the original video card settings. "Ajay Kalra" <ajaykalra(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cac3cb8b-d37f-404f-a737-089589256e05(a)22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... On Jan 22, 4:43 pm, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...(a)SeeScreen.com> wrote: > I recently upgraded my computer hardware from a 2.4 Ghz > Celeron to a 2.66 Ghz Core i5 and an MFC application that > I > developed runs only half as fast on the faster machine. > What > could be causing this? > > Both machines have identical sata hard-drives, and the > fast > machine has much faster RAM 1333 ddr3 and 4.0 GB. The > slower > machine has 2.0 GB of 333 ddr RAM. Why is the slower > machine > twice as fast on the same executable? If you access to a profiler, this would be a good time to use it. In case you dont, I would fire the debugger and break/pause when CPU is pegged high and see if it gives you clue as to where it breaks. Also, is the new machine acting fine for other apps? -- Ajay
From: Alexander Grigoriev on 28 Jan 2010 10:28
In a few words, what does your program do? Does it read or write files, of what size, does it do any intensive display operations, does it do any heavy calculations, what data size it's processing, how much memory it allocates for the data being processes, etc? Without that information it's not possible to identify the bottlenecks. And, by the way, do you have an antivirus running on a "slow" machine? It can slow file operations quite a lot. "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)SeeScreen.com> wrote in message news:sLWdnS0J7aazAvzWnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > It turns out to not be the video card settings after all. When I first run > two different aspects of the program, then they are both 500% to ten-fold > faster, thus much faster than the slow machine. This is with the original > video card settings. > > "Ajay Kalra" <ajaykalra(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:cac3cb8b-d37f-404f-a737-089589256e05(a)22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 22, 4:43 pm, "Peter Olcott" <NoS...(a)SeeScreen.com> wrote: >> I recently upgraded my computer hardware from a 2.4 Ghz >> Celeron to a 2.66 Ghz Core i5 and an MFC application that I >> developed runs only half as fast on the faster machine. What >> could be causing this? >> >> Both machines have identical sata hard-drives, and the fast >> machine has much faster RAM 1333 ddr3 and 4.0 GB. The slower >> machine has 2.0 GB of 333 ddr RAM. Why is the slower machine >> twice as fast on the same executable? > > If you access to a profiler, this would be a good time to use it. In > case you dont, I would fire the debugger and break/pause when CPU is > pegged high and see if it gives you clue as to where it breaks. > > Also, is the new machine acting fine for other apps? > > -- > Ajay > |