Prev: Retrieving image from webcam (very slow)
Next: Deleting part of a figure
From: Kate J. on 6 Aug 2010 16:24
I've been in the process of setting up an extremely involved/complex system that involves the following software (note that all Mathworks software listed is consistent with the R2007b Matlab that I'm constrained to using):

Matlab R2007b
Simulink (models call MEX files & C-MEX s-function)
RealTime Workshop
xPC Target
GUIDE
Microsoft Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition compiler
graphics-intensive 3D visualizer
possibly in the future: Virtual Reality Toolbox

The system I'm in the process of setting up involves all of the above applications running at the same time, including 3 separate Simulink models. The PC that I had been using as my Host PC, for xPC Target purposes, has been found to be extremely inadequate for allowing the above applications to run simultaneously; the 3D visualizer itself takes up 100% of the processor when it runs.

I'm seeking advice from any computer experts on this forum who can recommend the specifications for a new PC that I will need to buy, to serve as my new Host PC. Here are a few pieces of input I've received from others:

-- The new PC has to be 32-bit, because xPC Target won't run on 64-bit machines.

-- It should have a multiple-core processor, because supposedly Matlab will always "hog" one processor, the visualizer will require one, etc. I'm trying to determine *how many* cores my new PC needs to have. I will be able to specify how many cores are used by all of the Mathworks processes, using the command 'maxnumcompthreads'

-- One candidate that I'm considering is this quad-core machine:
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0340210

It took me months to get my present Host set up so that it works; given the amount of time it will take to get my replacement Host up and running, I really need for this new Host to be adequate for all of the computing I'll be doing. In other words, I would prefer to err on the side of caution, and get a new Host with more speed/memory/etc. than the minimum necessary.

Thanks in advance for any input you have!
From: Kate J. on 10 Aug 2010 13:51
Any suggestions? Thanks for your help.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Retrieving image from webcam (very slow)
Next: Deleting part of a figure