The site is read-only. Please transition to use Robotics Stack Exchange
| ROS Resources: Documentation | Support | Discussion Forum | Index | Service Status | ros @ Robotics Stack Exchange |
 | 1 | initial version |
From my experience, the more cores the better.
My desktop system runs a simulation we're doing at about 0.2 x realtime. (4 core @ 2.33ghz, 4gb RAM, ATI Radeon HD 3450)
But our workhorse workstation runs it real time without breaking a sweat (8 core @ 3.33 Ghz, 16GB, NVIDIA Quatro FX 4800) but is probably overkill.
| | 2 | No.2 Revision |
From my experience, the more cores the better. And a nice video card.
My desktop system runs a simulation we're doing at about 0.2 x realtime. (4 core @ 2.33ghz, 4gb RAM, ATI Radeon HD 3450)
But our workhorse workstation runs it real time without breaking a sweat (8 core @ 3.33 Ghz, 16GB, NVIDIA Quatro FX 4800) but is probably overkill.
Edit: It's possible my slimmer system was not CPU bound and was rather Video Card bound, but I couldn't get it much faster even running headless, so it's unclear to me where the bottle neck was.
| | 3 | No.3 Revision |
From my experience, the more cores the better. And a nice video card.
My desktop system runs a simulation we're doing at about 0.2 x realtime. (4 core @ 2.33ghz, 4gb RAM, ATI Radeon HD 3450)
But our workhorse workstation runs it real time without breaking a sweat (8 core @ 3.33 Ghz, 16GB, NVIDIA Quatro FX 4800) but is probably overkill.
Edit: It's possible my slimmer system was not CPU bound and was rather Video Card GPU bound, but I couldn't get it much faster even running headless, so it's unclear to me where the bottle neck was.
ROS Answers is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.
