Program installation speeds.

[joshmoyer]

So here's the question. This is all theoretical, I don't have any actual concerns or complaints about the system. I'm curious as to what determines how quickly a program will install to your SSD/HDD. Say I'm installing a program to my SSD, and it's about a 2gb install, theoretically, my SSD could write that down (installing from SSD as well) in a few seconds, maybe ten or fifteen. But of course the CPU has to unpack the files, but the installer is only running the CPU at maybe 20% on a quad core. Which leads me to question why. Couldn't the installer utilize my CPU at say, 40-50% and install twice as quickly? Is it intentional so you don't slow the system down or even freeze it while installing? Or is there something limiting how fast the files can be found-unpacked-then installed?

 

[Ralston18]

The install speed will be only as fast as the slowest process along the path.

And "speed" claims are often based on ideal circumstances including high performance environments. No matter what device or application.

But it all does narrow down to the CPU and how many operations per second it can handle. The installation process will use as much as it can get but remember that the CPU is being shared by many, different ongoin processes and services.

Generally I try to shut down as much as I can during installs - not so much for the speed but to reduce the potential for some conflict and subsequent crash. That tends to be more of a problem per se.

Some software installs will suggest shutting down other applications.

But overall, CPUs are much faster by nature. Difficult for everything else to keep up....

Overall, the CPU is probably only doing 20% because the incoming data is not able to keep up.

 

[joshmoyer]

The install speed will be only as fast as the slowest process along the path.

And "speed" claims are often based on ideal circumstances including high performance environments. No matter what device or application.

But it all does narrow down to the CPU and how many operations per second it can handle. The installation process will use as much as it can get but remember that the CPU is being shared by many, different ongoin processes and services.

Generally I try to shut down as much as I can during installs - not so much for the speed but to reduce the potential for some conflict and subsequent crash. That tends to be more of a problem per se.

Some software installs will suggest shutting down other applications.

But overall, CPUs are much faster by nature. Difficult for everything else to keep up....

Overall, the CPU is probably only doing 20% because the incoming data is not able to keep up.

And how is the data having trouble keeping up? I'm confused. If the systems total CPU usage hits a maximum of 50% while installing, the cpu can't be slowing it down. So then is it the installation media? But a Ssd wouldn't be too slow.

 

[Ralston18]

There are two answers: one generic and one specific to your system.

First, for the general, you need to have an overall understanding of the way the CPU and the associated computer components all work together within the data processing cycle.

Google these words: " CPU data flow diagrams". As you will see there are many ways and viewpoints at varying levels of detail that present components and data flows involved.

Second, for the specific, you need to apply that overall understanding with respect to your CPU specifications plus the specifications for the other components in your computer. The data flows in your system will flow per the diagrams but the technical/performance details within your system determine how fast it all really works. Clock cycles are key. Overclockers speed up their CPUs to process data faster.

Historically adding memory improved system performance. Data did not get bogged down being written and read back and forth on the older mechanical HDDs. Less physical motion was necessay as more data could reside in memory. But older HDD's improved with faster rpms and interfaces. CPU workload was reduced by adding in GPUs - with their own memory. The overall goal to improve performance by speeding up the slowest process in the cycle. Caching, 32 bit to 64 bit. All sorts of hardware improvements leading to things such as the SSD...

If your CPU is only working at 50% capacity and you want to know why then you will need to use some utilities to measure and otherwise monitor your system. Task Manager, Performance Monitor, and a wide range of third party utility programs are available for doing so.

But overall my expectation would be that your CPU is simply more than capable of managing a simple installation and at some point out paces another slower step/component in the process. Could be the SSD or some other factor.

 

[joshmoyer]

There are two answers: one generic and one specific to your system.

First, for the general, you need to have an overall understanding of the way the CPU and the associated computer components all work together within the data processing cycle.

Google these words: " CPU data flow diagrams". As you will see there are many ways and viewpoints at varying levels of detail that present components and data flows involved.

Second, for the specific, you need to apply that overall understanding with respect to your CPU specifications plus the specifications for the other components in your computer. The data flows in your system will flow per the diagrams but the technical/performance details within your system determine how fast it all really works. Clock cycles are key. Overclockers speed up their CPUs to process data faster.

Historically adding memory improved system performance. Data did not get bogged down being written and read back and forth on the older mechanical HDDs. Less physical motion was necessay as more data could reside in memory. But older HDD's improved with faster rpms and interfaces. CPU workload was reduced by adding in GPUs - with their own memory. The overall goal to improve performance by speeding up the slowest process in the cycle. Caching, 32 bit to 64 bit. All sorts of hardware improvements leading to things such as the SSD...

If your CPU is only working at 50% capacity and you want to know why then you will need to use some utilities to measure and otherwise monitor your system. Task Manager, Performance Monitor, and a wide range of third party utility programs are available for doing so.

But overall my expectation would be that your CPU is simply more than capable of managing a simple installation and at some point out paces another slower step/component in the process. Could be the SSD or some other factor.

You're probably correct. My CPU probably is much too fast for such a mundane task. (I5 4690k @ 4.3ghz) but I'm still curious then, as to what is the slowest thing, that could be making installations of programs take more than mere seconds. What am I missing? Ram is more than fast enough, cpu is more than fast enough, an ssd should be more than fast enough. And every link between those components is faster than the components to themselves. So is it still possible to be hardware? Or is it software? Maybe the installers aren't multithreaded so they can't physically use more than half the cpu (assuming the installer is at least capable of using two cores, since that's been around since '03?)

 

[Ralston18]

Could be software - inefficient code that was not updated to take advantage of a "faster" environment. Do you have AV running? That could slow things. Could be some not so obvious configuration that needs to be a specific but perhaps counter-intuitive value.

Try some experiments to load the CPU as much as you can. Run Performance Monitor and Task Manager. Start running as many applications as you can and watch your system's performance. You can monitor various components. Figure out which one gets to near 100% capacity first.

Start shutting down apps and see when the capacity starts to drop again. Could be some unique combination of software, processes, and services....

Delve into your CPU and motherboard specs - words like "compatible" do not necessarily mean that it really works as you expect. Could be some small factor that is truly limiting your system's performance.

Yes things will run but if you do not now have some new hardware advancement "x" (usually via a new component) then you will not get the expected/full performance gain. E.g., a device claims to be USB 3.1 "compatible" but only because the plug happens to fit.

Hopefully someone who does a lot of overclocking can provide some additional comments and suggestions. There are trade-offs and risks to doing that.....

 

[joshmoyer]

Could be software - inefficient code that was not updated to take advantage of a "faster" environment. Do you have AV running? That could slow things. Could be some not so obvious configuration that needs to be a specific but perhaps counter-intuitive value.

Try some experiments to load the CPU as much as you can. Run Performance Monitor and Task Manager. Start running as many applications as you can and watch your system's performance. You can monitor various components. Figure out which one gets to near 100% capacity first.

Start shutting down apps and see when the capacity starts to drop again. Could be some unique combination of software, processes, and services....

Delve into your CPU and motherboard specs - words like "compatible" do not necessarily mean that it really works as you expect. Could be some small factor that is truly limiting your system's performance.

Yes things will run but if you do not now have some new hardware advancement "x" (usually via a new component) then you will not get the expected/full performance gain. E.g., a device claims to be USB 3.1 "compatible" but only because the plug happens to fit.

Hopefully someone who does a lot of overclocking can provide some additional comments and suggestions. There are trade-offs and risks to doing that.....

No av running. No other programs. And everything is totally compatible. I built this pc from the ground up and made sure of that. Probably stupid code. Anyway like I said. It was curiosity and theoretical. I'm not actually concerned about my system.