Running SPSS Using Dual Core Processor

[Björn Türoque]

I am just wondering if anyone has had some performance issues with SPSS
running on a dual core machine, I got a faster machine with a dual core
processor and it does not seem to be going any faster. Are there any issues
anyone knows of?

Don

[Mark A Davenport MADAVENP]

Dual core support is supposed to come with version 16.  You won't see any difference in speed with presently available releases.

Mark


----- Original Message -----
From: Don Asay [[hidden email]]
Sent: 06/04/2007 10:23 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Running SPSS Using Dual Core Processor



I am just wondering if anyone has had some performance issues with SPSS
running on a dual core machine, I got a faster machine with a dual core
processor and it does not seem to be going any faster. Are there any issues
anyone knows of?

Don

[Ralph Grubb]

How about supporting dual core processors with an interim fix, hence
improved performance, rather than attempting to justify still an another  expensive
upgrade?

Dr. Ralph E. Grubb
Performance Improvement Associates,  Inc.
2253 William Ct.
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
voice 914.962.3419  fax [phone] (new)




************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

[Mark A Davenport MADAVENP]

At the risk of sounding like an apologist, I don't think dual core support is as simple as a patch.  I sense it requires a pretty extensive rewrite of core programming.

I have not seen many other pieces of software that support dual processor technogy outside of the game market so I am actually suprised at the offer.

Mark




----- Original Message -----
From: RalphG2703
Sent: 06/04/2007 10:40 AM
To: Mark Davenport MADAVENP; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Running SPSS Using Dual Core Processor



How about supporting dual core processors with an interim fix, hence
improved performance, rather than attempting to justify still an another  expensive
upgrade?

Dr. Ralph E. Grubb
Performance Improvement Associates,  Inc.
2253 William Ct.
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
voice 914.962.3419  fax [phone] (new)




************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

["Marc Halbrügge"]

> Are there any issues anyone knows of?
When I ran SPSS on a dual core, I've had sometimes problems that looked
like synchronization issues:
Although SPSS had finished its computations, the GUI didn't allow new
actions, always responding "SPSS Processor is busy" or similar.

[Victor Kogler]

I've been using SPSS on a dual processor machine for some time.  Since
SPSS is not a multiprocessor aware application, there is no performance
advantage.  The primary benefit is derived from having a machine that is
better able to multi-task.  Thus, I can be running a macro-driven set of
SPSS procedures on a 450 MB data file that produces output several
hundred pages long while also working in Word or Excel or writing an
e-mail.  Doing so requires adequate RAM and a version of Windows (XP
Professional or a Vista edition other than 'Basic') that supports dual
core or 2 physical processors.

Finally, SQL Server is multiprocessor aware and if you have that
software on your computer and use SPSS to work with data in that
environment, Views selecting subsets of very large data tables run very
quickly.  By virtue of limiting variables and cases to those of
interest, this reduces the amount of time needed to import the data into
SPSS and the time it takes to analyze that data.

Victor



Marc Halbruegge wrote:
>> Are there any issues anyone knows of?
>>
> When I ran SPSS on a dual core, I've had sometimes problems that looked
> like synchronization issues:
> Although SPSS had finished its computations, the GUI didn't allow new
> actions, always responding "SPSS Processor is busy" or similar.
>
>
>

[Bonnie Hedlund]

You mention having enough RAM--what have you found to be enough?

Blessings,

Bonnie


Director of Institutional Research
Azusa Pacific University
[phone]
Matt: 6:33

-----Original Message-----
From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
Victor Kogler
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 10:13 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Running SPSS Using Dual Core Processor

I've been using SPSS on a dual processor machine for some time.  Since
SPSS is not a multiprocessor aware application, there is no performance
advantage.  The primary benefit is derived from having a machine that is
better able to multi-task.  Thus, I can be running a macro-driven set of
SPSS procedures on a 450 MB data file that produces output several
hundred pages long while also working in Word or Excel or writing an
e-mail.  Doing so requires adequate RAM and a version of Windows (XP
Professional or a Vista edition other than 'Basic') that supports dual
core or 2 physical processors.

Finally, SQL Server is multiprocessor aware and if you have that
software on your computer and use SPSS to work with data in that
environment, Views selecting subsets of very large data tables run very
quickly.  By virtue of limiting variables and cases to those of
interest, this reduces the amount of time needed to import the data into
SPSS and the time it takes to analyze that data.

Victor



Marc Halbruegge wrote:
>> Are there any issues anyone knows of?
>>
> When I ran SPSS on a dual core, I've had sometimes problems that
looked
> like synchronization issues:
> Although SPSS had finished its computations, the GUI didn't allow new
> actions, always responding "SPSS Processor is busy" or similar.
>
>
>

[Jeff-125]

At 06:44 PM 6/4/2007, you wrote:
>You mention having enough RAM--what have you found to be enough?
>
>Blessings,
>
>Bonnie


...not really a question that can be answered easily. Like many other
things, it depends.

As a general rule, 2 gigs of Ram is considered a "sweet spot" with
most operating systems in that more tends to provide a rapidly
decreasing benefit per cost. It also depends somewhat on how many
sticks/slots the ram is on. Many don't realize this, but most systems
run best when only 2 (out of generally 4) ram slots are used.
...adding 3 or 4 sticks to fill those slots can actually show down
the performance of the ram when that extra isn't really needed. If
you see the serious "gamers" you will almost always see them running
2 and only 2 sticks of 1 gig each for this reason, but keep in mind
that this difference is probably marginal at best. 2 gigs will run
several programs at once and rarely would most people use more than 2.

So, if not already clear, if you're buying a new machine, I would
tend to shoot for 2 gigs making sure that they are configured as 2 -
1 gig sticks and not the less-expensive combination of 4 512 meg
sticks. That way you can add more if needed without getting rid of
the old sticks and you can also have a relatively cost effective
machine without overkill that probably isn't needed.

...and by the way, the current 32 bit operating systems can't handle
more than 3 or 4 gigs (depending on the exact configuration and how
you count what is available).