Bad HDMI performance in SL compared to Bootcamp W7

Hi!
I've stumbled over a problem when playing back Netflix content from my MBP (2009) onto a TV via HDMI. The TV is perfectly recognized as second monitor, but fullscreen playback of streamed content (e.g. Netflix, but also iTunes) shows little video stuttering, especially during scenes with a lot of movement (using the high-performance grafix card). Running Windows 7 from the Bootcamp partition, Netflix playback is smooth, thus I doubt it is due to a hardware problem.
If anyone has an idea why SL shows such a bad performance, I'd appreciate to hear your opinion (or solution)!
Best,
Geo

Ok this driver must really be a **** up, i just ran a grapichs only test with "Xbench" and when i ran it with 9600M GT i only got 2 point more than with the 9400M
Results:
nVidia 9400M
Results 156.44
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.5.6 (9G55)
Physical RAM 2048 MB
Model MacBookPro5,1
Drive Type Hitachi HTS543225L9SA02
Quartz Graphics Test 169.49
Line 162.85 10.84 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 198.70 59.32 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 165.19 13.47 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 160.07 4.04 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 165.97 10.38 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 145.25
Spinning Squares 145.25 184.25 frames/sec
nVidia 9600M GT:
Results 158.17
System Info
Xbench Version 1.3
System Version 10.5.6 (9G55)
Physical RAM 2048 MB
Model MacBookPro5,1
Drive Type Hitachi HTS543225L9SA02
Quartz Graphics Test 171.55
Line 162.38 10.81 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 204.42 61.03 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 167.78 13.68 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier 161.95 4.08 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text 167.77 10.49 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 146.73
Spinning Squares 146.73 186.13 frames/sec

Similar Messages

  • Bad INSERT performance when using GUIDs for indexes

    Hi,
    we use Ora 9.2.0.6 db on Win XP Pro. The application (DOT.NET v1.1) is using ODP.NET. All PKs of the tables are GUIDs represented in Oracle as RAW(16) columns.
    When testing with mass data we see more and more a problem with bad INSERT performance on some tables that contain many rows (~10M). Those tables have an RAW(16) PK and an additional non-unique index which is also set on a RAW(16) column (both are standard B*tree). An PerfStat reports tells that there is much activity on the Index tablespace.
    When I analyze the related table and its indexes I see a very very high clustering factor.
    Is there a way how to improve the insert performance in that case? Use another type of index? Generally avoid indexed RAW columns?
    Please help.
    Daniel

    Hi
    After my last tests I conclude at the followings:
    The query returns 1-30 records
    Test 1: Using Form Builder
    -     Execution time 7-8 seconds
    Test 2: Using Jdeveloper/Toplink/EJB 3.0/ADF and Oracle AS 10.1.3.0
    -     Execution time 25-27 seconds
    Test 3: Using JDBC/ADF and Oracle AS 10.1.3.0
    - Execution time 17-18 seconds
    When I use:
    session.setLogLevel(SessionLog.FINE) and
    session.setProfiler(new PerformanceProfiler())
    I don’t see any improvement in the execution time of the query.
    Thank you
    Thanos

  • Bad query performance - how to analyze it?

    Hi all,
    since 8 weeks we locate a bad query performance (round about 30% worse than before) in our BW system. At the moment we use a BIA on revision 49 with 4 blades (16GB).
    I have already read note 1318214 and analyzed that the most time is spend on the virtual provider(over 80%!).
    I´ve seen that a lot of time is spend on the "Datamanager":
    For example: It takes 0,76s to select 3.5million items in the relative provider and 78s!!! to select 0 items in the virtual provider.
    information from RSDDSTATTREXSERV:
    RFC Server    BIA client  BIA Kernel    ABAP RFC
    497          464              450               619
    So it seems to be a problem an the BW site, what can we do to improve the performance or analyse the query performance better.
    Best Regards,
    Jens

    Hi Jens,
    A few checks you may consider doing.
    BIA Availability :  Check the BI connection with BIA.
    Check if you need to rebuild BIA indices again. SAP recommends to do this often, to repair the degenerate indices or delete the indice which are not referenced any more.(eg data in the cube was compressed/deleted and the indices are no more needed.)
    Check the if BIA  reorganization is required - This is done to see the indices are evenly distribueded areoss the BIA Landscape.
    Try to find from BI Admin if major administration work was done within these 8 weeks.eg: Copy cube, dimension restructureing, copying data to some copy cube, archiving etc.
    You can use the BIA monitor to peform checks/monitor alerts from BIA servers
    [ BIA monitor|http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw70/helpdata/en/43/7719d270d81a6ee10000000a11466f/content.htm]
    This link would tell you on the overall status of the BIA and any actions if required.
    Also it has sublinks to other important transaction of BIA monitoring and maintainnance.
    To go to BIA monitor : RSA!---> BIA monitor icon.
    Is your virtual provider reading data from R/3 or BW.
    Generally virtual providers are used to read data from other systems , so it woulfd not have an indices in BIA, I believe if this is the case. except for some applications like BCS wher eyou may be reading data from BW itself.
    Hope this helps
    Bext regards,
    Sunmit.

  • BADI to perform a Cost Estimate Check in MD11

    I need a BADI to perform a cost estimate check in transaction MD11 whenever a planned order is getting created before SAVE. Can anyone please suggest me on this? The BADI MD_PLDORD_POST gets triggered after SAVE. I need a BADI which can be triggered before SAVE.

    Hi..
    You can define costing variants which have valuation variant for budgeted values parallel to the standard cost estimate  in Customizing for Product Cost Controlling.
    You can define target cost versions using above costing variants under the customizing transaction OKV6 as below picture.
    When you calculate variances, you can check “all target cost version” flag to calculate variances  for all target cost versions in the controlling area as below picture.
    You can analysis the difference between actual cost and several budget cost using target cost version as below picture.

  • BPC7-5 : Badi and Performance

    Hi experts,
    Does someone know how Badi impacts performance while executing simple reports ?
    And how I can optimize this ?
    Tks for your help,
    Rgds,
    olivia;

    oops, I forgot some cases :
    -> My report try to retreive data calculated tthrough the badi
    each time i make a refresh, it take more then 1 hour :-(
    how can i do to check the Badi ? to find the name of the badi ?
    is that normal that the calculation is made on the fly ? can i avoid this ? how?
    thks a lot for your reply,
    I m not very technical...sorry,
    Tks,
    Olivia;

  • N8 bad wlan performance or browser?

    Why does it take my phone so long to load pages?
    Bad wlan? It has 802.11n network
    Or is it the browser?
    Opera mobile 11 is also slow on heavy pages!
    N8 FW: 022.014 -- Please separate Artist & Albums!
    N86 8MP FW: 30.009 -- We need a new FW on this phone!
    E51 FW: 410.34.001
    E70 FW: 2.0618.07.10 -- Why no v3 for my code?

    How do you define long? It's a bit impossible to answer unless you give us some load times for popular sites that others can compare to.
    Personally i've had no issue with wlan or browser speeds and the N8 out performs any other past Nokia device i've had. If you are comparing the speed to a high end android phone or an iphone then it will be noticeably slower with some sites.

  • Performance gain 7800 compared to 6600 card

    Hi,
    It seems that some people here have upgraded from the 6600 card to the 7800 card. I would like to know about the performance gain using Aperture 1.5 compared to the 6600 card.
    Is is worthwhile to upgrade the card or is it better to wait for the announced (rumoured?) x1900 g5 edition? Let's assume that the x1900 g5 arrives of course.
    It looks like welovemacs.com is selling the 7800 cards. That seems like a more stable option then buying one of the reflashed cards.
    Some info on how the 6600 card performs:
    -D2x nef images: sliders and cursor are not close to real-time.Some sliders like shadow-highlight tool are very slow.
    -D70 nef images: sliders still not real-time, but usable.
    Previews are all turned off
    Jochem

    We're talking about performance now (visible FPS), not tearing. In fact, I hadn't witnessed any perceptible tearing until I turned off VSync, and with SNA enabled I still couldn't watch 1080p without some lag. This is all with the environment variable you mentioned.
    Everyone I know with a SandyBridge GPU has perfect stability and performance- I'm sure you're having an amazing time with it, SNA or not. The premise of this post is that even the previous generation can play 1080p videos and run GNOME Shell smoother than silk. :\ Unfortunately, it seems Intel on Linux hasn't had as much attention with Ironlake. I really don't want to shell out even more money for an Ivy Bridge laptop this year, but I may just end up doing that if the situation doesn't improve. It was a big letdown considering Intel's amazing support in the past.
    I guess it's really not too bad, but as a Multimedia Designer, I need my desktop compositing to be totally slick, on principle. I figured an i5 with higher specs than my old laptop would be enough. Oh well, I guess I can't always have my GNOME and eat it. I will continue to investigate and maybe get in contact with the mailinglist.
    UPDATE: Tried to use JHBuild with no success. Aside from the not-so-necessary packages that needed Python2, there are some utterly necessary packages that I just couldn't build due to unrelated build errors. I don't even think a GNOME developer could make out how to fix them very easily, so I'm gonna' give up on that road for the moment. I'm going to see if there's a way to upgrade just gnome-shell, mutter, and clutter through the AUR.
    Last edited by ScionicSpectre (2012-02-16 05:39:28)

  • Bad reporting performance after compressing infocubes

    Hi,
    as I learned, we should compress requests in our infocubes. And since we're using Oracle 9.2.0.7 as database, we can use partitioning on the E-facttable to still increase reporting performance. So far all theory...
    After getting complaints about worse reporting performance we tested this theory. I created four InfoCubes (same datamodel):
    A - no compression
    B - compression, but no partitioning
    C - compression, one partition for each year
    D - compression, one partition for each month
    After loading 135 requests and compressing the cubes, we get this amount of data:
    15.6 million records in each cube
    Cube A: 135 partitions (one per request)
    Cube B:   1 partition
    Cube C:   8 partitions
    Cube D:  62 partitions
    Now I copied one query on each cube and with this I tested the performance (transaction rsrt, without aggregates and cache, comparing the database time QTIMEDB and DMTDBBASIC). In the query I selected always one month, some hierarchy nodes and one branch.
    With this selection on each cube, I expected that cube D would be fastest, since we only have one (small) partition with relevant data. But reality shows some different picture:
    Cube A is fastest with an avg. time of 8.15, followed by cube B (8.75, +8%), cube C (10.14, +24%) and finally cube D (26.75, +228%).
    Does anyone have an idea what's going wrong? Are there same db-parameters to "activate" the partitioning for the optimizer? Or do we have to do some other customizing?
    Thanks for your replies,
    Knut

    Hi Björn,
    thanks for your hints.
    1. after compressing the cubes I refreshed the statistics in the infocube administration.
    2. cube C ist partitioned using 0CALMONTH, cube D ist partitioned using 0FISCPER.
    3. here we are: alle queries are filtered using 0FISCPER. Therefor I could increase the performance on cube C, but still not on D. I will change the query on cube C and do a retest at the end of this week.
    4. loaded data is joined from 10 months. The records are nearly equally distributed over this 10 months.
    5. partitioning was done for the period 01.2005 - 14.2009 (01.2005 - 12.2009 on cube C). So I have 5 years - 8 partitions on cube C are the result of a slight miscalculation on my side: 5 years + 1 partion before + 1 partition after => I set max. no. of partitions on 7, not thinking of BI, which always adds one partition for the data after the requested period... So each partition on cube C does not contain one full year but something about 8 months.
    6. since I tested the cubes one after another without much time between, the system load should be nearly the same (on top: it was a friday afternoon...). Our BI is clustered with several other SAP installations on a big unix server, so I cannot see the overall system load. But I did several runs with each query and the mentioned times are average times over all runs - and the average shows the same picture as the single runs (cube A is always fastest, cube D always the worst).
    Any further ideas?
    Greets,
    Knut

  • Premiere Elements 10 Bad/No performance on Win 8 64-bit Core i5-4440 16gig ram and GeForce GTX-650

    Since just over a year i'm the owner of Premiere Elements 10, however it has never pleased me due to bad and inconsistant performance. Just putting video's one after another without any transitions works so-so a few frames per second (which is rediculus). But when i start doing things like motion keyframes, i have no preview at all just a bit of choppy audio. First i thought it was my laptop (a win 7 64-bit core i7 3rd gen, with geforce 610m and 8gig of ram) not bad but i thought well it is a laptop so it might be a bit slower, i'll have to deal with it. However since a few months i own a new PC (specs above), and experience the very same issue. No performance! Every time i think about editing a video i start the program and within a few minutes i get so angry with it that i close it and leave the video's be.
    Pre-Rendering the workspace also has no effect at all. I have no red bar above the timeline (sometimes even green).
    And worst of all it keeps messing up the timing of the video while editing. If you change a clip in the timeline all clips following (the motion edits) are destroyed. Which is only visible after a few hours of rendering, since live preview is only audio.
    What in the world can be done to fix this problem. As you probably can read i'm pretty annoyed.
    The free video editing software that comes with the gopro moves rotates and scales smoothly in live playback, so it is not impossible on the machine. (too bad the functionality of this program is so limited, else i could finally throw Premiere Elements away!).
    Is there anybody who can help me in my despair?

    nVidia Driver Rollback PreElements-10 http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1317675 may help

  • Which performs better for windows development, bootcamp or parallels?

    I have an imac at home and am using parallels to host a w7 vm, wherein I do some web and db development.  It is quite sluggish at times.  I think i may need to tweak the config to perhaps allocate more ram to it but i'm not sure.  I just picked up a macbook pro gen2 i7 and before I install a w7 vm or parttition i was wondering which is better, parallels or bootcamp?  I do like the interactivity that parallels gives me with respect to files between the w7 vm and lion, but am wondering it that is perhaps the achilles heal when it comes to performance.
    what's the preferred route by other developers out there?
    Thanks!

    that's what i thought.  thanks for confirming.  it sounds like i might be able to use parallels ALSO later on to access the windows bootcamp partition, based on reading another thread.

  • ABAP Trial  performance really SLOW compared with IDES 4.7 (really fast)

    Hi all
    just a quick question
    I'm running on an XP Virtual machine the full IDES V4.7 and performance is really GOOD. Transactions etc etc.
    Now on an identically configfured Virtual machine with similar disks etc  the APAP trial Preview runs FAR WORSE and slower. OK I know it's a newer release but there's no transactional stuff in it. The IDES uses around 45 - 60 GB disk soace BTW
    The only difference I can see that might make a huge difference is the IDES uses the ORACLE DB system wheras the ABAP preview uses MAXDB DB system.
    Incidentally for running VM's ALWAYS allocate the FULL virtual disk size you want  when creating the VM. If you let the disks "grow" as in a normal VM this has horrendous implications for database type of applications.
    Both VM's are running as 2GB RAM XP systems on a Host Windows 7 X-64 4GB machine.
    Any Guru out there who might be able to explain the great IDES performance compared with the ABAP trial preview.
    (Both VM's are run individually -- not at the same time).
    Cheers
    jimbo

    Hi James,
    I have the exact setup as you do (701 V3). Have you run SGEN? I also find that my performance is quite slow at first (presumable while the disk is allocating to memory) but it then speeds up quite quickly. Also, might help if you upgrade your ram if your planning on running both VM's at once. I'm currently allocating 3GB to my VM.
    Transactions ST02 & ST06 may help you to trouble shoot your performance issues. Use RZ10 to alter your system parameters (assume you know this already).
    Edited by: Paul Thomson on Mar 13, 2010 4:20 PM

  • New HP EVA6000 SAN and now bad database performance problems

    Hello,
    we changed our SAN Hardware to a HP EVA6000 and moved all Data to there.
    It is intended that storagesystem is for all Servers (File/Print, Exchange, Oracle Databases and MSSQL Databases).
    According to the best practice papers of HP we created one big discgroup (fata harddiscs) and created virtual discs for our servers.
    After doing this the database performance was terrible bad!
    Especially the multiple random IO is absolutely worse.
    As a first countermeasure we created a second discgroup on faster harddiscs and moved the database contents to there. We analyzed the IO and moved several database file to different virtual discs.
    The performance is better now, but still not like the 4 year old SAN System!
    Of course we questioned HP and even let them do a performance analysis but up to now we have no solution... The performance analysis report will be available on thursday.
    Does anybody had the same experience or how did you configure the Database and EVA SAN to work with an appropiate performance?

    Hi,
    I'm not an Oracle person, but do work with EVA SAN's.
    Your 48 FATA disk, disk group is capable of 4800 I/O operations per second [48 x 100] but the disks are only rated for 30% duty cycle and spin at 7200 rpm.
    The 16 FC drive Disk Group I/O operations rating depends on the speed the disks spin at. 10K rpm disks are rated at 130 I/O per sec [2080 for the group] and if they are 15K rpm disks then 170 I/O per sec [2720 for the group]. Both are rated for 100% duty cycle.
    I seem to recall having have read somewhere that Oracle prefers to have it's logs on separate storage to it's data.
    If your shelves had the spare disk slots I would put in 72 GB 15K rpm disks up to the capacity required {+ overhead } + head room for reasonably predictable growth over the anticpated life of the equipment.
    Here is a link to the HP Best Practice guide for EVA 4/6/8000's
    http://h71028.www7.hp.com/ERC/downloads/4AA0-2787ENW.pdf
    I hope this helps you understand the storage that you are working with a bit better. The old saying of "more heads make for better performance" is still true, however budget can have some affect in performance. ;-)
    Jim

  • Bad Desktop Performance with Dell P2715Q

    Hi everybody,
    I'm using a 15" Mid 2010 Macbook Pro with the following specs:
    - 2.4GHz i5
    - 8GB 1067 MHz DDR3
    - Samsung Evo 850 (250GB) as Startup Disk
    - GeForce GT330M 256 MB
    - External Dell P2715Q with MiniDP to DP cable at 2560x1440
    - Yosemite 10.10.2
    - External Keyboard and Mouse, both wired
    Unfortunately (apart from my Graphics Card being unable to output 4K but I accept that, this machine is almost 5 years old) the performance when using normal desktop operations is really bad on the Dell monitor. Some things like scrolling in Finder and Safari work fluently, but most not. Here's a list:
    - Minimizing and maximizing, moving and opening windows is lagging
    - Horrible video performance when watching Youtube HD videos, especially in fullscreen. Sometimes nothing happens for more than 5 seconds, screen simply freezes
    - Lags when using some third-party apps even when only scrolling through text (for example Matlab)
    When the issues above appear, the process WindowServer has a very high CPU usage, my computer starts to heat up and burn enormous amounts of energy, gets unusable. I googled the issue with the WindowServer and followed the advice, reducing the transparency helped a little but especially the issue with Youtube videos is unchanged. Even when doing nothing, the CPU usage of the WindowServer never drops below 0.5%. In general, the experience when working on the external monitor is kind of slow and really unsatisfying, different then what I'm used to from the Macbook. From the 8 GB of RAM I have, 5.7GB are used when simply typing this text in Safari apart from having Outlook and a terminal open (plus some background apps like Dropbox).
    Things are a little better when working in closed-clamshell mode (mostly the issues with handling windows, HD video in fullscreen still *****).
    The only things I haven't tried is resetting the SMC & PRAM since users reported that doing so doesn't help at all.
    Any help would be highly appreciated.
    Edit: My Yosemite Installation is a fresh and clean installation, nothing was transferred/proted from an older Mac OS installation, apart from some documents of course

    Well it obviously supports the resolution (also according to the datasheet) and playing HD video at lower resolutions works fine.. I just saw this:
    2014 Macbook Pro 15" doesn't work well with 4k @ 60hz, obvious lag due to high WindowServer CPU utilization            
    which makes me think that it's not really a performance thing but more a bug in Yosemite.

  • Bad Game Performance on MacBook Pro Retina

    I've been getting below average performance on my the 15" Retina (2012) with all sorts of games lately. I did the SMC Reset and nothing works. I tested it out on Bootcamp with Windows 8 and Windows 7 and the gaming performance seems to be lower than what it usually was.
    I have a feeling it may be related to the Throttling done on my GPU, I tested it out on windows and it seems that my GPU Clock is usually running at around 500 to 725 it never reaches the 900MHz and the tempratures is always around 95 degrees.
    Any ideas ?

    If you are serious about games, get a PC.  Macs are not good gaming platforms.
    Ciao.

  • Re-install OSX - good or bad for performance?

    Did a re-install on my brand new MacBook because a got some problem during start up (solved it with Safe boot, thanks Ned Snowing) so my question is - was it a bad idea to re-install the system when there was no use for it? Can it slow down performance on a new MacBook?

    The performance should be exactely the same!
    Sometimes your Macbook will perform a little better after a clean install off OSX.
    If you have used your Mac then all the software installations can cause it to begin performing slower. At least here my Mac performs always a little better after a clean install.
    You can re-install OSX just as much you like. This will not damage your system or something like that.
    Hopefully this is helpfull or solved your problem. (see button's above this message)

Maybe you are looking for