how would one determine if he could maximize his output by using a quad core processor or even a dual core...how would these two compare running astronomy software?
I am looking to build a computer to run my telescope and it will need to have 4 or 5 seperate programs running at the same time...there's no way to limit these...it is what it is...what I'm trying to figure out is if I need the fastest CPU (being dual core or quad core) with the largest bus to keep things from getting dropped/lag as data passes back and forth from the scope mount to the computer and from the guide scope to the computer and finally the image from the camera being downloaded to the computer...
For a little clarification...
Mount control = planetarium program and EQMOD run USB (or serial if there is a serial port - there will be a serial port!!)
Guide Cam = Starshoot autoguider camera and PHD Guiding run USB
Main Camera = capture program run USB
It doesn't sound like alot but seems to be very taxing on a computer when we are doing this for 6 to 8 hours a night...the mount tracks the object across the sky while autoguiding issues corrections so I don't have star trails...and well the capture program kinda speaks for itself...
On another note...I have an older custom build from a few years ago...Its got an ASUS P3B-F MB the rev on the board is 1.03 so I can not go any higher than a PIII 600 cpu (which it has...showing as 601 Mhz w/ 100 Mhz FSB)...I just ordered 3 sticks of 256MB SDRAM to top out the memory at 1 gig...my question is will overclocking the cpu help in this situation and where might I find overclocking info on a PIII 600...I'm actually a little out of my league when it comes to this type tweaking but if I had a good set of "destructions" I could probably pull it off...
right now I use my laptop to do run everything but its alot newer...and every once in awhile it will lock up when I'm on an imaging run...so if nothing else I would like to split the main camera off to the laptop and let the other computer run the mount...but it would be nice to be able to do it all off one machine...
Thanks for any insight you might offer on the subject...
I am looking to build a computer to run my telescope and it will need to have 4 or 5 seperate programs running at the same time...there's no way to limit these...it is what it is...what I'm trying to figure out is if I need the fastest CPU (being dual core or quad core) with the largest bus to keep things from getting dropped/lag as data passes back and forth from the scope mount to the computer and from the guide scope to the computer and finally the image from the camera being downloaded to the computer...
For a little clarification...
Mount control = planetarium program and EQMOD run USB (or serial if there is a serial port - there will be a serial port!!)
Guide Cam = Starshoot autoguider camera and PHD Guiding run USB
Main Camera = capture program run USB
It doesn't sound like alot but seems to be very taxing on a computer when we are doing this for 6 to 8 hours a night...the mount tracks the object across the sky while autoguiding issues corrections so I don't have star trails...and well the capture program kinda speaks for itself...
On another note...I have an older custom build from a few years ago...Its got an ASUS P3B-F MB the rev on the board is 1.03 so I can not go any higher than a PIII 600 cpu (which it has...showing as 601 Mhz w/ 100 Mhz FSB)...I just ordered 3 sticks of 256MB SDRAM to top out the memory at 1 gig...my question is will overclocking the cpu help in this situation and where might I find overclocking info on a PIII 600...I'm actually a little out of my league when it comes to this type tweaking but if I had a good set of "destructions" I could probably pull it off...
right now I use my laptop to do run everything but its alot newer...and every once in awhile it will lock up when I'm on an imaging run...so if nothing else I would like to split the main camera off to the laptop and let the other computer run the mount...but it would be nice to be able to do it all off one machine...
Thanks for any insight you might offer on the subject...