Better performance with lower CPU_COUNT ?

Hi
We had big performance problems on our production database, after lots of tunings and configuration we still didn't reach anywhere (oltp takes 9 hours when it take 20 minutes on test db).
production server Dual Xeon 2.8 2GB RAM RAID5 10k/s RPM Win 2k3.
Test db Intel 2.8 1 GB RAM 1 IDE disk Win 2000 Pro.
I've noticed the difference between the test db and the production db was the gets/s the production db was NOT using any CPU and I/O was almost null unlike the test db which the gauges were showing 100 % full on everything.
so stupidly we set the CPU_COUNT to 1 and PARALLEL_THREAD_PER_CPU = 1 when it was 2 x 4.(test db 1x2 unchanged)
surprisingly the response time went diving from 9 hours to just 7 minutes.
we check load balancing on CPUs and HT option, everything's fine.
now we are confused!! ANY suggestions is apreciated, has anyone else encountered such a problem???
Oracle 9i Rel2 9.2.0.1.0 on Win 2003 Standard.
Thanks in Advance
Regards
Tony G.

Hi
The article on asktom.com was very usefull.
We will 1st patch the oracle version to the certified version on Win 2K3 (9.2.0.1.3.0 or higher), and then set the nescessery parameters (PARALLEL_ADAPTIVE_MULTI_USER, PARALLEL_AUTOMATIC_TUNING, etc..).
My question: do i have to alter the underlaying tables to parallel and gather stats on those tables in order the Cost Base Optimizer works correctly? and will this alteration affect other queries?
Any suggestion or comment is more than welcomed, Thanks in Advance
Regards
Tony G.

Similar Messages

Get a better performance with audio interface?

Hi all.
I got a silly question. I run Logic 7 on a Powerbook G4 12" with 1.33 Ghz and (only) 768 Mb RAM and a (hard to built in) 160 Gb Harddrive.
After having often the "Disk is too slow..." message I was thinking about buying a external audio interface (presonus firebox).
My simple question is: does an external audio interface give Logic (or CoreAudio) more free DSP-Power? So that maybe I got a better performance? Or do I need to get something like a TC Powercore Firewire?
An answer would be great ... otherwise I have to sell my nice and small 12incher and buy an Intelbook ...
Thanks. Frank.
Powerbook G4 12" 1.33 Ghz Mac OS X (10.4.8)

A new audio interface won't help.
You should start by getting an external 7200 RPM Firewire drive to put your audio on. That right there will help, especially with higher track counts.
Secondly, get more RAM. 768 of RAM is borderline for Logic. I always recommend at least 1 gig. Go ahead and max out that Powerbook to 2 gig of RAM, if you can.
All that to say, an Intel mac would be a huge improvement over the Powerbook. And if you do go that route, still get an external FW drive for audio, and as much RAM as you can afford.

Better Performance WITH RECOMPILE option

Is performace gain when executes a stored procedure using the WITH RECOMPILE option ?
Why ?
dmpcal

Is performace gain when executes a stored procedure using the WITH RECOMPILE option ?
Why ?
As with many performance question, the answer is: It depends.
If the procedure includes statements the best plan depends heavily on the input parameters, WITH RECOMPILE can help. Although, these days it is better to use the query hint OPTION (RECOMPILE) for that particular query.
But if the procedure is complex, the compilation time may overshadow execution time and WITH RECOMPILE will cost performance.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, [email protected]

What MacBook Pro will I get better performance with the 2.4ghz 256 SSD or the 2.6ghz 128 SSD these are also refurbished models

I'll wanting to buy one of these these are refurbished and cannot choose please help me thanks :)

Refurbished 13.3-inch MacBook Pro 2.4GHz Dual-core Intel i5 with Retina Display
Originally released October 2013
13.3-inch (diagonal) Retina display; 2560-by-1600 resolution at 227 pixels per inch
8GB of 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
256GB Flash Storage1
720p FaceTime HD camera
Intel Iris Graphics
Apple Certified Refurbished
OR
Refurbished 13.3 inch MacBook Pro 2.6Ghz Dual-Core Intel i5 with Retina
Originally released October 2013
13.3-inch (diagonal) Retina display; 2560-by-1600 resolution at 227 pixels per inch
8GB of 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
128GB Flash Storage1
720p FaceTime HD camera
Intel Iris Graphics
Apple Certified Refurbished
Which one is the better one, they are the same price what one will run faster and what one would you buy
Many Thanks :)

How can I get better performance with OSX on my iMac G3?

I just recently got a G3 iMac running at 400mhz with 512 mb of RAM, and it has OS 10.4.10. I am relatively new to Macs; its been a few years since I've used one.
So, it actually runs surprisingly well, but I'm wondering if theres a way to sort of tone the visuals to make it run a little faster. I loaded windows XP pro onto an older dell that I just had sitting around, and was able to tone down the visuals enough to make it run very well on a 500 mhz machine with 256 mb of RAM, so I'm sure if I can tone down XP enough for an old computer, I can do the same with OSX.

Welcome to Apple Discussions.
You are somewhat limited by the 400MHz processor speed. Increasing your RAM will be helpful. Look at these links
52 Ways to Speed Up OS X
http://www.imafish.co.uk/articles/post/articles/130/52-ways-to-speed-up os-x/
Tuning Mac OS X Performance
http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/performance.html
11 Ways to Optimize Your Mac's Performance
http://lowendmac.com/eubanks/07/0312.html
The Top 7 Free Utilities To Maintain A Mac.
http://mac360.com/index.php/mac360/comments/thetop_7_free_utilities_to_maintain_amac/
Mac OS X: System maintenance
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=607640
 Cheers, Tom

Is there any way to get a better performance with this Xquery ?

I created two tables.
One has XBRL docoument with XMLType based on Clob and I'm going to select several columns from it and insert them into the other table.
I used this SQL using XMLTable.
INSERT INTO SV_XBRL_ELEMENT
SELECT r.finance_cd,r.base_month,xt.context_id,xt.ns,xt.name,nvl(xt.lang,'na')
as lang,xt.unit,xt.decimals,xt.value
FROM SV_XBRL_DOC r,
XMLTABLE(
XMLNAMESPACES(
'http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink' AS "xlink",
'http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase' AS "link",
'http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance' AS "xbrli",
'http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217' AS "iso4217",
'http://www.xbrlkorea.com/kr/kisinfo/fr/gaap/ci/2007-02-09' AS "kisinfo-ci",
'http://www.xbrlkorea.com/kr/kisinfo/fr/gcd/2007-02-09' AS "kisinfo-gcd",
'http://www.xbrlkorea.com/kr/kisinfo/fr/profile/2007-02-09' AS "kisinfo-profile",
'http://www.xbrlkorea.com/kr/kisinfo/fr/ratio/2007-02-09' AS "kisinfo-ratio",
'http://www.xbrlkorea.com/kr/kisinfo/fr/common/scenario' AS "kisinfo-scenario",
'http://www.xbrl.or.kr/kr/fr/gaap/ci/2006-05-31' AS "kr-gaap-ci",
'http://www.xbrl.or.kr/kr/fr/common/pte/2006-05-31' AS "krfr-pte",
'http://www.xbrl.or.kr/kr/fr/common/ptr/2006-05-31' AS "krfr-ptr",
'http://www.xbrl.or.kr/2006/role/subitem-notes' AS "p0",
'http://xmlns.oracle.com/xdb' AS "ora"),
for $item in
$doc/xbrli:xbrl/*[not(starts-with(name(),"xbrli:")) and
not(starts-with(name(),"link:"))]
where $item/@contextRef
return <item contextRef="{$item/@contextRef}" xml:lang="{$item/@xml:lang}"
unitRef="{$item/@unitRef}" name="{local-name($item)}" ns="{namespace-uri($item)}">{$item}</item>'
PASSING r.xbrl as "doc"
COLUMNS context_id varchar2(128) PATH '@contextRef',
ns varchar2(128) PATH '@ns',
name varchar2(128) PATH '@name',
lang varchar2(2) PATH '@xml:lang',
unit varchar2(16) PATH '@unitRef',
decimals varchar2(64) PATH '@decimals',
value varchar(256) PATH '.'
) xt
SV_XBRL_DOC has 1450 records(1450 documents).
SV_XBRL_ELEMENT has more than 110,280 record (110,280 elements)
the sql above takes more than 6000 seconds with my machine (10g,sun5.8 4 cpus), I admit it's a big number of records, I'm looking for more efficient way to do.
Is there any point to boost the sql ?
here is the part of the xbrl document sample.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<xbrli:xbrl xmlns:xbrli="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:fines-b-ot="http://fss.xbrl.or.kr/kr/br/b/ot/2007-06-30" xmlns:fines-aa001="http://fss.xbrl.or.kr/kr/br/gaap/aa001/2007-06-30" xmlns:xbrldt="http://xbrl.org/2005/xbrldt" xmlns:ref="http://www.xbrl.org/2004/ref" xmlns:xbrldi="http://xbrl.org/2006/xbrldi" xmlns:iso4217="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217">
<link:schemaRef xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://fss.xbrl.or.kr/kr/br/fines/aa001/2007-06-30/fines-aa001-2007-06-30.xsd"/>
<xbrli:context id="ctx_AAA001C">
<xbrli:entity>
<xbrli:identifier scheme="http://fss.xbrl.or.kr">0010002</xbrli:identifier>
<xbrli:segment>
<xbrldi:explicitMember dimension="fines-b-ot:newItemDimension">fines-b-ot:AAA001C</xbrldi:explicitMember>
</xbrli:segment>
</xbrli:entity>
<xbrli:period>
<xbrli:instant>1999-03-31</xbrli:instant>
</xbrli:period>
</xbrli:context>
<xbrli:context id="ctx_BAA001C">
<xbrli:entity>
<xbrli:identifier scheme="http://fss.xbrl.or.kr">0010002</xbrli:identifier>
<xbrli:segment>
<xbrldi:explicitMember dimension="fines-b-ot:newItemDimension">fines-b-ot:BAA001C</xbrldi:explicitMember>
</xbrli:segment>
</xbrli:entity>
<xbrli:period>
<xbrli:instant>1999-03-31</xbrli:instant>
</xbrli:period>
</xbrli:context>
<xbrli:context id="ctx_CAA001C">
<xbrli:entity>
<xbrli:identifier scheme="http://fss.xbrl.or.kr">0010002</xbrli:identifier>
<xbrli:segment>
<xbrldi:explicitMember dimension="fines-b-ot:newItemDimension">fines-b-ot:CAA001C</xbrldi:explicitMember>
</xbrli:segment>
</xbrli:entity>
<xbrli:period>
<xbrli:instant>1999-03-31</xbrli:instant>
</xbrli:period>
</xbrli:context>
<xbrli:context id="ctx_DAA001C">
<xbrli:entity>
<xbrli:identifier scheme="http://fss.xbrl.or.kr">0010002</xbrli:identifier>
<xbrli:segment>
<xbrldi:explicitMember dimension="fines-b-ot:newItemDimension">fines-b-ot:DAA001C</xbrldi:explicitMember>
</xbrli:segment>
</xbrli:entity>
<xbrli:period>
<xbrli:instant>1999-03-31</xbrli:instant>
</xbrli:period>
</xbrli:context>
<xbrli:unit id="KRW">
<xbrli:measure>iso4217:KRW</xbrli:measure>
</xbrli:unit>
<fines-b-ot:AAA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_AAA001C" unitRef="KRW">14</fines-b-ot:AAA001R>
<fines-b-ot:AAA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_BAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:AAA001R>
<fines-b-ot:AAA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_CAA001C" unitRef="KRW">14</fines-b-ot:AAA001R>
<fines-b-ot:AAA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_DAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:AAA001R>
<fines-b-ot:A1AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_AAA001C" unitRef="KRW">7</fines-b-ot:A1AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:A1AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_BAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:A1AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:A1AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_CAA001C" unitRef="KRW">7</fines-b-ot:A1AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:A1AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_DAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:A1AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:A2AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_AAA001C" unitRef="KRW">7</fines-b-ot:A2AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:A2AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_BAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:A2AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:A2AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_CAA001C" unitRef="KRW">7</fines-b-ot:A2AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:A2AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_DAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:A2AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:BAA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_AAA001C" unitRef="KRW">4788</fines-b-ot:BAA001R>
<fines-b-ot:BAA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_BAA001C" unitRef="KRW">49</fines-b-ot:BAA001R>
<fines-b-ot:BAA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_CAA001C" unitRef="KRW">4837</fines-b-ot:BAA001R>
<fines-b-ot:BAA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_DAA001C" unitRef="KRW">30</fines-b-ot:BAA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B1AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_AAA001C" unitRef="KRW">4788</fines-b-ot:B1AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B1AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_BAA001C" unitRef="KRW">48</fines-b-ot:B1AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B1AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_CAA001C" unitRef="KRW">4836</fines-b-ot:B1AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B1AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_DAA001C" unitRef="KRW">29</fines-b-ot:B1AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B11AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_AAA001C" unitRef="KRW">2317</fines-b-ot:B11AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B11AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_BAA001C" unitRef="KRW">21</fines-b-ot:B11AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B11AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_CAA001C" unitRef="KRW">2338</fines-b-ot:B11AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B11AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_DAA001C" unitRef="KRW">2</fines-b-ot:B11AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B111AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_AAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:B111AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B111AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_BAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:B111AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B111AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_CAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:B111AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B111AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_DAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:B111AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B112AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_AAA001C" unitRef="KRW">60</fines-b-ot:B112AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B112AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_BAA001C" unitRef="KRW">2</fines-b-ot:B112AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B112AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_CAA001C" unitRef="KRW">62</fines-b-ot:B112AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B112AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_DAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:B112AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B113AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_AAA001C" unitRef="KRW">185</fines-b-ot:B113AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B113AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_BAA001C" unitRef="KRW">1</fines-b-ot:B113AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B113AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_CAA001C" unitRef="KRW">186</fines-b-ot:B113AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B113AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_DAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:B113AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B114AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_AAA001C" unitRef="KRW">408</fines-b-ot:B114AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B114AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_BAA001C" unitRef="KRW">5</fines-b-ot:B114AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B114AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_CAA001C" unitRef="KRW">413</fines-b-ot:B114AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B114AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_DAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:B114AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B115AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_AAA001C" unitRef="KRW">1664</fines-b-ot:B115AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B115AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_BAA001C" unitRef="KRW">13</fines-b-ot:B115AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B115AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_CAA001C" unitRef="KRW">1677</fines-b-ot:B115AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B115AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_DAA001C" unitRef="KRW">2</fines-b-ot:B115AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B12AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_AAA001C" unitRef="KRW">2471</fines-b-ot:B12AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B12AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_BAA001C" unitRef="KRW">27</fines-b-ot:B12AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B12AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_CAA001C" unitRef="KRW">2498</fines-b-ot:B12AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B12AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_DAA001C" unitRef="KRW">27</fines-b-ot:B12AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B2AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_AAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:B2AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B2AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_BAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:B2AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B2AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_CAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:B2AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B2AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_DAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:B2AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B3AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_AAA001C" unitRef="KRW">0</fines-b-ot:B3AA001R>
<fines-b-ot:B3AA001R decimals="0" contextRef="ctx_BAA001C" unitRef="KRW">1</fines-b-ot:B3AA001R>
</xbrli:xbrl>

Using 11g along XML indexes can greatly improve this XQuery. We can discuss further offline.
Regards,
Geoff

Better performance with higher resolution with ultra..why ?

how is this possible ? I got a q6600, 8gb ram and a msi ultra8800.Running crysis with everything to max on 1024X768 at 32 fps, and 1280X1024 at 40 ?
weird, any ideas as to why thats happening ?
cheers

me again...sorry for bothering
got another question concerning my ultra, and might as well post it here....Is this h2o cooling compatible with my msi 8800 ultra ?
http://www.virtual-hideout.net/reviews/Mega_Watercooling_Roundup/Zalman_Reserator_2/index.shtml
sorry if its a stupid question, but im really really REALLY a noob here
cheers for any info

Performance with low disk space

Hi all
I have 3 internal HHD in my G4 AGP. My main bootable HDD(10gb) has 3 gb space left. Should I be concerned of slow performance soon or should I upgrade to 120gb or higher asap?
Thanks
Web dude

3GB is plenty of free space for OSX, but the 120GB will give some increased speed, anyway, since it packs a lot more data per track.

90 watt psu or 65 watt psu/ Better performance with USB devices?

The 20Volt 65W psu that came with my 3000 N200 0769aku laptop is replaceable with
a 20 Volt/90W Lenovo AC adapter.
I am connecting devices to all usb ports (two hard drives, wireless mouse, ILOK software dongle) and a two port firewire express card.
Would having a "beefier" psu help cause when plugging all this in at once?
Thanks

If you need it, I don't believe so. If a 90W would hurt - no way.
Andy ______________________________________
Please remember to come back and mark the post that you feel solved your question as the solution, it earns the member + points
Did you find a post helpfull? You can thank the member by clicking on the star to the left awarding them Kudos Please add your type, model number and OS to your signature, it helps to help you. Forum Search Option T430 2347-G7U W8 x64, Yoga 10 HD+, Tablet 1838-2BG, T61p 6460-67G W7 x64, T43p 2668-G2G XP, T23 2647-9LG XP, plus a few more. FYI Unsolicited Personal Messages will be ignored.
Deutsche Community Comunidad en Español English Community Русскоязычное Сообщество
PepperonI blog

Bottom line, does 8800 ultra sli setup ensure better performance ?

greetings all, first time poster here !
anyways, just got my new rig in town the other day, quad core q6600, 4 mg ram, msi 8800 ultra OC, vista 32bit..thing is mad.Have a question tho, putting the already insane performance bar aside, if money isnt an object, would another ultra result in an obvious performance boost, or are we speaking only marginal advantages here, like early slis 6600gt for example, sli setup was only 25/30 percent faster than one card performance.
thanks for every answer in advance
cheers

Quote
so you say, the bigger the resolution the better performance with ultra ?
Well the performance is not better the higher the resolution. The ADVANTAGE compared to a slower card or single card to SLi is higher.
Quote
How far can you reckon can this be pushed
Very doubtful it will do 700mhz gpu. At least nobody can tell you what one of those vgas does. It's a matter of the individual sample. You will only find out by testing. But the possibility you kill it that way is very little. If you keep an eye out for the temps and those don't get past 100°C you're fine.
If you set gpu clock too high it will show with artifacts or bluescreens in 3d. So if you lower the clock when experiencing such behavior you won't damage your card. Of course you shouldn't set way too high clocks. I'd recommend not to set any higher than 700mhz unless this proves to be rockstable. Mem clock shouldn't set higher than 2300 but doubtful it will make it.
DON'T TRUST MSI UTILITY! Set clocks manually and check after any step. Many of those GeForce 8 especially oc versions or high end models don't even do stock settings. So best would be checking the card first at stock settings and then starting to oc.

Best performance with forms 4.5 than 6i ?!!!

Hi,
Since i'd upgrade my app with forms 6i, i find that when i make a query, this is more slow with 6i than 4.5, with the same db(8i).
Does anyone else had the same problem?
What could i do to resolve the problem?
Thanks.
null

See my earlier posting 'Speeding load time of WEB Forms50'. I
have had no takers yet on a solution to this. There may be some
hints for you there.
Good luck on this one - Forms over the WEB seems to be very
processor and memory hungry. We would like to support about 200
users on a VERY simple search screen, but we need about 2Gbyte
of physical memory on the server to get any amount of useful
speed out of it. Each Forms session takes up about 10Mbyte on
the server - as soon as this starts swapping out to disk then
your run-time performance goes right downhill. The earlier-
mentioned posting gives some hints on speeding up the startup
time, and it does work.
Regards,
Jason Judge
Natasha Murillo (guest) wrote:
: How I can Get better performance with Forms 4.5 and 6.0 on the
: WEB???
: It is very slow and my customers are not very happy with
that...
: Please help me...
null

GroupingCollection2 with better performance

I created a GroupingCollection2 with better performance (in
comparision with GroupingCollection) by tweaking the
implementation. You can find a sample/swc here
http://flexpearls.blogspot.com/2008/06/groupingcollection-with-some-better.html
If you have some free time please test it and let me know if
you find any bugs !
Of-course if you like the performance and would like to use
it in your app, feel free :)

Thanks for your input Grant; it's very helpful
Just to summarize my next steps.
- since a MAC Pro can't handle the new 6G SSDs with SATAIII, I'd have to go with the SSD 3G.
I'll proably get the 115 GB or 240GB model – any thoughts which one I should get
- I'll get an additional hard drive; perhaps: 2.0TB Western Digital 'Caviar BLACK' 7200RPM 6Gb/s HDD 64MB Cache – is this a model you'd recommend
Which one of these should be my boot drive? On the other drive I'll have all my big Photoshop and InDesign job files; applications should be on the boot drive; correct?
- I'll get more RAM. I could return all of my 8 1GB pieces and get 6 x 4GB = 24 GB RAM. Or I can keep 4 of my old and get 4 x 4 GB RAM = 20 GB RAM
I never seen posts were 20 GB RAM was tested. I wonder if it makes a huge difference if I get 20 or 24, since in tests the performance difference between 16 and 24 doesn't seem to be very much. Any thoughts?

Better Performance on Win7 64-bit with Crysis, GTA IV?

Hi. Has anyone tried the Boot Camp 3.2 on Windows 7 64-bit? How is the performance with Crysis/Warhead, GTA IV and similar taxing games? Any fps improvements? Thank you in advance. Gbu.

If you want to reduce memory(60%) '''when firefox minimize[only in windows os] '''there is an easy old good trick:
type in the address bar '''about:config'''
then press the button '''i'll be careful i promise'''
then '''right-click''' anywhere in the list of preferences and choose '''new''' > '''boolean'''
then type in the open window '''config.trim_on_minimize'''
then click''' OK''', and in the next window select '''TRUE''' and click '''OK'''.
exit firefox and restart-it.
'''works only in windows os'''
see for more info :
[http://kb.mozillazine.org/About:config About:config]
[http://kb.mozillazine.org/Config.trim_on_minimize Config.trim on minimize]
thank you
Please mark "Solved" the answer that really solve the problem, to help others with a similar problem.

MBP Retina low performance with external displays

Hi everyone!
I have a very bad performance with my MBP 15´´ retina display when it comes to ad an external display. I have a FUL HD LG monitor that looks very bad when i connect the HDMI or the thunderbot port with the proper adapter (as bad as you can´t even read). I want to know if this may ba a hardware problem just with my computer or if it is a software problem, any ideas? does anyone have the same issue?
How can i update my NVIDIA card???
Thanks a lot!

Topic seems to come up here often. Apple has a tendency to dismiss the issue.
Its a pretty well known problem that Mac font smoothing doesn't seem to work well on high resolution third party external displays, making text hard to read. In addition, I think the Mac HDMI resolution support is limited to 1080p, so you must use DP or DVI video interfaces to see full monitor resolution.
The OS default is no font smoothing on external displays (except perhaps the apple display). There is a terminal command that will enable font smoothing for any external monitor, but it often doesn't work well enough. I found that using the OS zoom feature magnifies text to the point to be easily readable. You can set zoom parameters in the accessibility systems preference panel.
For some reason, sometimes the Mac OS thinks some monitors are TVs and use YCbCr instead of RGB. You can open the color sync utility and brouse the settings to see what is being used. There are scripts available that can fix that but are more complicated to install than an app.
It seems that PCs are way ahead of Macs with external display implementation. Most folks having monitor problems with a Mac do not see the same issue with PCs or Unix/Linux OSs.
Oh as far as updating the video card, can't. The monitor "drivers" are built into the OS. When a new display is connected, the OS finds the profile for it.

Poor Performance with my new System

Hi All,
Great Forum. Hopefully someone here can provide me some direction. I just built my first AMD based system (spec's below). Everything is running smooth and stable, but I dont believe I am getting the performance out of this rig as I should. Specifically, I am getting very low scores on 3Dmark05 (5100 - 5300) with my rig at stock settings.
I've surfed through these forums for days and found many folks getting much better performance out of components that are not as robust as mine. So, I am looking for some guidance. So far, Here's what I've done:
1: Bios: I've disabled the "smart & cool"
all of the "aggressive timings" are disabled
Video is selected to AGP (128mg since that's what the BFG Technician recommended for the 256mg GPU's)
boosted video voltage to 1.6v
Manually set all of the ram timings (listed below in the system description)
Processor HT is set to 5x (i got this from the AMD site)
most of the other settings are set to auto.
2: Temps: The CPU is currently idling around 42 degrees. 46 under load
The GPU is idling around 62 degrees. this seems a bit high, but i havent been able to verify.
3: CPU Scores in 3DMark05 are in the mid-high 6000's
Ive also tried to load the registry oc program for the GPU (from guru) and it only made things worse. standard clock settings (factory oc'd) work best. The system is extremely stable and runs quite smoothly. It's very quiet and cool (42-46 cpu, 34 ambient)
I am not sure where I went wrong here, but something is just not making sense. I've read posts where folks are getting scores in the 10's and 11's with lesser processor and GPU gear. Any directions here would be greatly appreciated. Hopefully i've posted enough information. Thanks for your help!
MB: MSI K8N Neo Platinum
Award BIOS, v1.8
PROC: AMD Athlon 64 4800+ (42 degrees idle, 46 degrees loaded)
MEM: 2x Corsair TwinX-3200C2-Pro (2.5, 3, 3, 6, 1T @ 2.7 volts)
GPU: BFG GeForce 6800GT OC 256MB AGP, nVidia v78.01
PSU: UltraX-Connect 500W
HD: WD Raptor 74G 10,000 rpm
CD: Plextor DVD-R/W
FAN/HS: XP-90 e/w SilentCat fan (yes, it fits with the memory in slots 3&4. No problems with this with the new bios. All is stable and runs well)
Windows XP SP2

Thanks for the replys guys.
I did read a few threads where folks were boasting numbers in the 10's and 11's. From your notes, it appears that they were simply blowing smoke. I appreciate knowing that, although I dont understand the purpose of posting inaccurate information in these forums. These are (and will continue to be) and excellent resource unless they become clogged with garbage.
As far as temperatures on the GPU, I figured it was a bit high, but according to BFG, it's good to 120C (that seems way outta line). i imagine that i would get a bit better performance from it by replacing the stock heatsink/fan combo with an aftermarket GPU cooler from Zalman. The right thing to do is to replace my MB with a ASUS SLI-Premium and put a couple of 6800 Ultra's in it (lol).
I appreciate the information. It appears that i have achieved the maximum from my PC, and as I stated before, it runs great. Thanks again for the help guys. If I get rich and decide to change out the guts for an SLI set up, I'll let you know. Until then, I think i'll grab a GPU cooler and see if I can get the temps down a bit.
Is there any benifit to removing the stock Heatsink/Fan and trying some Artic Silver 5 in there? I've heard a few folks have gotten some decent results doing that.
Thanks again
doggy

Better performance with lower CPU_COUNT ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for