AMD Phenom X4; 2 cores maxed out, Windows 7 says CPU frequency 75%

[Ron]

Okie dokie, maybe someone here knows for sure?

I am running an application on my desktop Windows 7 machine whose CPU is an AMD Phenom x4. The application is processing images already scanned at 600dpi into HP's scan center (or some such) and then it delivers the scans to Photoshop.

The hpiscnapp process consumes between 46 and 50% CPU and the rest of the machine is pretty much idle - 1% on disk and 50% of 6 Gig of RAM in use.

Resource Monitor shows that the CPU frequency is 65-77%.

I am assuming from the above facts that the HP software is able to run two threads simultaneously and that they each max out one core. I also assum that the "frequency" referred to by Resource Monitor is the chip's operating speed. This allows me to assume that if the chip was running at 100% frequency the job would be done in less time since each core would complete it's tasks more quickly.
(I am also assuming that Windows or AMD (whoever is controlling frequency) isn't being real smart, and is looking at totla CPU usage instead of seeing that threads are maxing out individual cores)

The sequential scanning then processing of multiple docs at once is taking a looooong time.

1st question: Does anyone know for sure if my assumptions are correct?

2nd question: Is there any way to peg the cpu at full speed?

3rd question: I am using photoshop to acquire from TWAIN device to perform the scan. HPs scan center then opens and runs things, scanning at 600dpi. I then process the faxes in photoshop to keep the dpi quality but then resample to 200dpi to cut down on the image size. (I do this because scanning at 200dpi seems to give poor results) Is there a better (faster) way? These are received physical faxes that have varying (poor) quality to begin with and further degredation makes them nearly illegible.

Thanks in advance

[Vin DSL]

OMG!!!

You're still running Winders?!?!?

I stopped reading after the first paragraph. Really!

Good luck...

[Vin DSL]

Okay, sorry! I drank a glass of water, and took a piss...

TWAIN device? Are you for real?

I checked the date on this thread. I thought it was one of those 10 year-old threads that got resurrected by a spam bot.

TWAIN device? Photoshop?

Man, does that take me back... Kinda depressing, actually!

[Vin DSL]

Aha! I get it!

This is an old DEHE forum.

Bwahahahahaha!

Good one, Ronnie! I fell for it, hook, line & sinker!

What OS are you really running?

[Ron]

I did find the Photoshop option to import from a WIA device (which was the same scanner) and it bypassed the HP software and scanned directly into photoshop at the speed of the scanner's sheet feeder, eliminating the problem. But thanks for the help on topic! :/

[Vin DSL]

But thanks for the help on topic! :/

Sorry!

I thought this thread was a gag n' brag -- like celebrating family birthdays for a week.

Sheesh! You don't have to be a snob about it...

[Ron]

So you're saying you don't know. OK, just say it! No reason to feel embarrassed about it. Maybe some helpful geek over at anandtech would know?

[Vin DSL]

1st question: Does anyone know for sure if my assumptions are correct?

All depends...

Do you know the difference between wandering and wondering?

[humayonkabir]

Ron when a pc whatever it's vendor runsin idle mode it shows it's cpu's deafault frequency buy when you run a game or blue ray movie the cpu utilization will automatically swithced to 100% frequency.my pc Intel core 2 quad cpu @ 2.33GHz 4MB L2 cache it also shows 75% frequency but when i play a game it turns automatically on 100%.So don't worry about it.

[Ron]

Thanks for the input.

Usually when I run anything that consumes a fair amount of CPU, the frequency jumps up, so if say, Resource Monitor is showing 50% CPU use, frequency is already pushed up, usually near 100%.

In that particular case for some reason the frequency stayed low even though the two processes were maxed out on each of their cores. I am guessing that these processes were being pegged to a single core or something similar that somehow confused the chip's speed circuitry into thinking there was no reason to speed up.

The issue was averted by running different software to achieve the same result, so all is well. THANKS!

BTW, I purchased my wife a new 2nd gen core 2 i3 based lappy last month. niiiiice machine and very nice processor. Pretty much the lowest end of Intel's new 2nd generation core 2 mobile line, and it's 10% faster than my AMD quadcore tower. Awesome.

Looking at the CPU benchmark specs, Intel has really taken a major leap ahead of AMD in performance with the 2nd gen core 2 line.
It may be time for me to look at slipping a new motherboard/CPU/RAM into that tower. I wonder what $300 or $400 could get me in terms of performance?