5GHz no faster than 2.4???

Hey guys, I have my AEBS configured in 5GHz n only mode... and I see no speed increase compared to 2.4GHz b/g/n mode... why is this?? I went from 54Mb/sec -g to 300Mb/sec -n, and so moving files around on my network between 2 MBPs or between my MBP and my air disk is no faster. Is there a setting that I am missing, or some configuration that I'm not setting right?

The intent for most implementations of .11n is that only 20 MHz channels are to be used in the 2.4 GHz band, while 40 MHz channels are supported in the 5 GHz band. This is not really a part of the IEEE standard, but rather a convention supporting backward compatibility of .11n with .11b/g networks.
The Apple AEBS explicitly supports this convention by only allowing 20 MHz channels in the 2.4 band hence a max burst data rate of 130 Mbps. It supports 40 MHz channels in the 5 GHz band up to 300 Mbps burst.
Now .. the burst rate is really quite different than the net (or "cooked" data rate). I have done benchmarks of all these networks .. and in a clean RF environment (minimal walls, no microwave ovens, no wireless phones, other competing networks) ... a .11g network can get throughputs just a bit north of 20 Mbps and .11n in a 20 MHz channel in 2.4 GHz band a bit north of 60 Mbps.
.11n in the 5 GHz band in a 40 MHz channel will exceed 150 Mbps.
.11n is really best working in the uncongested 5 GHz band in a 40 MHz channel.

Similar Messages

Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word.

Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word. Sample Editor playback sounds like Alvin on a meth binge. Spoken phrase is generated from Textspeech. Textspeech can export files as WAV files or MP3 files. Perhaps a clue?: When exported Textspeech WAV file is dragged and dropped into track in arrange area of new project, it exhibits same supersonic speed. When Textspeech file is exported as MP3 file and dragged and dropped in arrange area track, it plays at correct speed.

Thanks Erik,
If nothing else, this huge list of updates and fixes, shows clearly that the Logic Dev team is working hard on fixing and improving LPX to a major degree.... and from the list of fixes done.. show they do read the bug reports submitted!
As an aside....
I recall how all the 'naysayers' prior to LPX (and in some cases, since...) were proclaiming how Logic was dead, the team was being disbanded, we won't see any further development, the Dev team doesn't listen or care... and so on....... I wonder where those people are now?

Why is Mac Pro 2.66 only 1.3x faster than 2.7 G5 on CPU intensive stuff?

I produce DVDs so my Compressor DVCam -> MPEG2 encoding is the most time consuming task. Take the MacWorld benchmarks, I was dissappointed the QC 2.66 was a third faster than a DC 2.7 G5 running Compressor.
I would have expected almost 2x as fast, basically halving encoding times. The Mac Pro took 107s vs G5 137s only 1.28x as fast OR put another way jobs complete in 78% of the time taken for the G5.
This is key reason for me to have just sold a G5 DC 2.3...but I'm dissappointed with these early indicators. Would it be reasonable to assume Apple have not optimised Compressor for Intel - surely not at this late stage?
G4 Dual Gigabit Mac OS X (10.4.7) ATI 9800 Pro

Terpstar,
I was wondering if you have had a chance to use Motion yet. I have a MBP, and using Zapfino fonts with SciFi Glow crashes my system every time. I would be interested to see if this is the case on other intel based systems. This has led to a failure of my main logic board twice over the last month. See my thread:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=614641&tstart=25
Also, of the two GB ram I have installed, FCP doesn't seem to utilize more than 100MB of RAM. Although the VM size is several GB for the app. I noticed that in order to utilize both cores on my MBP, Airport had to be turned off.
Also, as Ned Snowing was saying, there is no doubt that there are going to be many software bugs that must be sorted out. Especially since this program is being adapted for intel macs, and not re-written.

I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

Can i add a normal usb driver?
Yes, but be sure that the drive is formatted correctly for Mac in Mac OS Extended (Journaled)
I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network?
The drive will appear as a shared network drive, like the Time Capsule.
It will work as fast than time capsule?
No, the drive will operate at about half or 50% of the speed of the Time Capsule.

Mencoder H.264 20 times faster than Compressor 2

I tested mencoder with compressor running with 5 G5s. the H.264 implementation of mencoder was four times faster than the 5 dual core quads clustered with compressor two and queermaster . my single computer alone with just a dual 2 ghz processor encoded a movie 20 times faster than compressor with Queerrmaster on this same machine.
compressor costs more than mencoder(free in DVision). to get compressor you have to get an expensive Pro app.
What's wrong with this picture?

Well, I have heard this lament before with the G5s, and all I can say is that I guess Apple is slowly starting to drop support for the PowerPC generation (it was inevitable). I assume you've upgraded to 3.0.1?
As for Motion 3 (and someone correct me here if I am wrong), I believe it's slower because of the full 3D integration. Whether or not you have a lot of 3D aspects, I think it still calculates for it, causing your response and render time to decrease.

New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally. I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC. Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth. It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively). Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

Is FIREFOX 3.6.13 is faster than 3.6.8?

Is FIREFOX 3.6.13 is faster than 3.6.8?

I have no real idea, but I suspect
* the changes will be more to do with security fixes etc (you could study the release notes) if anything 3.6.13 could conceivably be marginally slower than 3.6.8
* it may be more appropriate to compare much earlier versions or the new beta firefox4; but when doing so remember also the changing capabilities, and requirements of modern browsers.

How can I get rid of this Lollipop update? My phone drains faster than it can take a charge!

I've just spent 4 hours on the line w/ Verizon support agents who were all very nice, but nobody could solve my problem. Without anything else happening on my phone, I hit an icon to launch an app, and it takes like 2 minutes for anything to happen. The battery drains faster than it can get charged in SAFE MODE!
Is there a way to go back to the old OS without rooting?

Thanks. I have been using the built-in battery monitor as well as the application manager. It helps seeing the processes that are chewing away at your phone's RAM and battery, but at this point, it's not even helpful anymore.
I don't think 'Samsung.Settings' is something I can disable on my phone and that is what's hogging up 80% of my phone's resources. (Fresh boot and all)
What really irks me is that I've never signed up to be a BETA tester for Samsung which is basically what we all are doing... Factory reset, remove all apps, add each app back individually, find what app(s) are causing the problems, etc.
No - this should have been vetted out long before they decided to push out an OS update that has no backward motion of loading the previous OS...
<Rant off>

Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2?

Hi,
Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2? Also, how much better resolution is the iPad 3 from the iPad 2? I was just wondering because I heard that the new iPad isn't worth it's price.

The New iPad is not remarkably faster, but does have a faster chip, which is required to handle the amazing Retina display. The new display on New iPad is without question significatly better than iPad 2 and offers nearly 4 times the resolution of iPad 2. Whether it's important to you, only you can know. To see the difference, go to an Apple store where they still sell iPad 2 and New iPad. For me, the difference was night and day, which is why I sold my iPad 2 and upgraded to New iPad.

Can the WD Raptor make my 2.0 Dual faster than my new 2.3 Dualcore?

A few weeks ago I had asked what would make my machine at work - 2.3 Dualcore w/2GB of RAM - slower than my home machine; 2.0 DP w/2.5GB of RAM.
The new Dualcore was unreasonably slow and I followed the few suggestions to wipe the drive, which brought it up to snuff... but I still find it slower than my 2.0 at home. At simple tasks (contextual menu pop-ups, software loading, etc...) as well as more complex Photoshop and 3D tasks.
It's not the very last generation 2.0, but the one prior, e.g. 8GB of RAM capable, PCI-Express, and liquid cooling, etc...
I doubt the .5 of RAM can make that much difference, is the WD Raptor the difference and am I just spoiled by it?
Thanks for any suggestions.
-Vincent

So you have a Raptor as boot in your home based Dual Processor and it seems faster than the faster Dual Core you have at work.
That's understandable, especially since the Dual Core most likely has a 7,200 RPM 250 GB slow drive (and more filled being at work, using more fonts?), plus the Dual Core shares a fronside bus, unlike the Dual Processor which has one for each. Photoshop pre-CS2 swaps memory to disk, so a faster boot drive will help. (Tiger overrides CS2's RAM limit, so more RAM will give better performance)
At home you have the Raptor as boot and most of your user files on the second drive I'm assuming, allowing you to access two drives at once using two busses.
Of course CPU intensive tasks the Dual Core 2.3 should beat the Dual 2, but since Mac OS X is heavy boot drive speed dependant (caches, swaps etc) the "User Interface feel" should be more responsive on your Dual 2, giving you the impression it's faster.
Big fat filled slow boot drives really cripple Mac OS X performance (NAND RAM coming?)
I've written a better explaination here
click for text doc

The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than the error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine.

The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine. why does it register so many yellow, pink & blue warnings, errors, etc. ???
This happens no matter where I am browsing, yahoo, google, mail or news. Clearing the console seems to help with the speed of FF after an hour or so of browsing, it slows down terribly and if not cleared and or shut down and relaunching FF, both actually, it is painfully slow, like dial-up.

Hi Mac Attack,
My computer will not disconnect from the internet. It seems to find a clone router and continues even when I shut down and unplug my my own home iy
Your main question was 'chopped' in the title. Please reply in the body of a reply box with the full question and anything you have tried. And no, the long report was not helpful .
If the same website is opening each time you launch a browser (Safari?) hold down the shift key as you launch to prevent previous pages from opening.
Have a look at your settings in Safari > Preferences. Especially General and Privacy.
Reset Safari to remove cookies and other stored data.
System Preferences > General
Have a look at your settings in System Preferences > Security & Privacy.
Call back with more questions.
Regards,
Ian

Will my duel 800 G4 work with Leopard? Its fast than the 867 G4?

My duel 800 G4 was the top of the line when I purchased it, much faster than the 867 G4, which seems to be the limit on the new Leopard operating system. Will I still be able to upgrade? I have seen on other Apple forums many people asking the same question? I would appreciate any help.

Well, the minimum system requirements that Apple tells us really aren't always totally truthful. For example, they say OS 10.4 needs a minimum 256 MB Ram, and a DVD drive. That isn't true. I have tested this on a few different machines and found that the true minimum requirements are 192 MB for installation, 128 MB for running. On an ibook G3 500 mhz with 128 MB RAM, 10.4 ran surprisingly well. It was a little laggy of course, but it was stable and reliable. Also, you do not need a DVD drive, as you can use target disk mode to install the system from another computer (yes, the other computer needs a dvd drive...but I am speaking in specifics). What they say in their requirements is for the general public, but most of the time they aren't entirely dogmatic on those requirements.
If it were my guess, I would say 10.5 will probably run on your system. If they entirely cutoff installation based on clockspeed, I'm guessing some mac-hacker will figure it out.
Also, as far as your computer being top of the line "when you bought it"-that's the issue. Basically everyone's mac was top of line or near top of the line at it's release. But we all know the computer industry is not a slow moving market. Your computer can be outdated in a few months or a year. I helped a guy buy his first mac a few months ago (imac). 2 days later Apple released the new imac. That's the nature of computers. And you really can't expect Apple to keep supporting machines approaching 7 years old (my ol' Gigabit). They want to be at the head of the market, and pushing the old out is some times the only way to do it.
You always have the option to upgrade your system. Go and look at some cpu upgrade cards. They aren't all that expensive. For $400 I turned my dual 450 to a dual 1.4 Ghz (and don't forget the level 3 cache). Third party upgrades are what keep us old timers goin.

Are the brushes in Photoshop CC faster than CS6 - still need to use CS5 for large files

Hey,
Are the brushes in Photoshop CC any faster than Photoshop CS6.
Here's my standard large file, which makes the CS6 brushes crawl:
iPad 3 size - 2048 x 1536
About 20-100 layers
A combination of vector and bitmap layers
Many of the layers use layer styles
On a file like this there is a hesitation to every brush stroke in CS6. Even a basic round brush has the same hesitation, it doesn't have to be a brush as elaborate as a mixer brush.
This hesitation happens on both the mac and pc, on systems with 16 gb of ram. Many of my coworkers have the same issue.
So, for a complicated file, such as a map with many parts, I ask my coworkers to please work in CS5. If they work in CS6 I ask them to not use any CS6 only features, such as group layer styles. The only reason why one of them might want to use CS6 is because they're working on only a small portion of the map, such as a building. The rest of the layers are flattened in their file.
Just wondering if there has ever been a resolution to this problem...or this is just the way it is.
Thanks for your help!

BOILERPLATE TEXT:
Note that this is boilerplate text.
If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
such as your platform (Mac or Win),
exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
your settings in Photoshop > Preference > Performance
the type of file you were working on,
machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
what error message(s) you receive,
if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them,
if you're having printing issues, indicate the exact make and model of your printer, paper size, image dimensions in pixels (so many pixels wide by so many pixels high). if going through a RIP, specify that too.
etc.,
someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster, who is not a Windows user).
a screen shot of your settings or of the image could be very helpful too.
Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
Thanks!

Video in my flash presentation playing faster than the animation

I have a flash presentaion that contains flvs, devided to chapters,everytime a video ends (chapter ends) a flash animation runs (like title changing,and thunmbnails changing).
the prob i m having is that on a core2quad, animation is faster than videos,and on p4 video is slower than animation.
the best played presentation is on core2duo.
how can we solve this prob?
thanx

Try calling Apple - (1-800-MY-APPLE)
and/or you can try the online service assistant-
http://www.apple.com/support/serviceassistant/overview.html
Message was edited by: belovedjs

Faster than realtime transferes..?

I have a new iMac, and I am using iMovie.
Is there a palmcamera that I can use that would let me transfer video as files instead of uploading them at realtime..?

Yes you want a camera that records to disc, HDD or SD card but not to tape. However they aren't always necessarily faster than real time, and your imac will play a great part in whether that's possible or not

5GHz no faster than 2.4???

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for