Benchmarking

Hi,
I'm new into .NET+Oracle developping, and I have to choose between the different possibilities for linking my ASP.net pages to an Oracle9i DB.
For performance, what is probably the best choice between :
- Oracle provider for OLEDB
- MS provider for OLEDB
- OO4O
- Oracle .NET data provider (the beta)
- MS .NET data provider (which I currently can't get working)
Thanks
Pascal

I am looking fwd to get some performance benchmarking on the same too. From what we have heard and experienced, the OraOLEDB.Oracle.1 is the fastest of the lot. The MSDAORA is the slowest and MSDAORA.1 is somewhere in between the two.
Let me know if you find some data around this.

Similar Messages

Best Practice of DMS in Auto-Industry & benchmarks

Hi Experts,
what is the best practice in DMS for auto-induastry?
Also we need centralized server and cache servers at plant level. what will be the best practice? and archiving solutions?
what is benchmark for defining content and cache server size?
Regards,
Ravindra

answered outside sdn

Problem with my MSI 290x gaming 4g performance in unigine valley benchmark.

First im dutch(netherlands) so sorry for my maybe bad english.
My system is:
Asus p8z77 v deluxe mb
intel 3770k cpu
16gb ram 1866 Corsair
2x ssd 256 gb OCZ
MSI 290x gaming
win7 64bit ultimate.
When i came home with my card i removed my old 7970 and replaced it with my new card.
Put some programs up like gpu-z cpu-z realtemp ext.
Then run Unigine-valley Benchmark with OC tool MSI at 1040 option.
My cpu at 4.2ghz OC
Score Unigine valley v1.0: 61.1 fps-score2558-min fps 30.3/max fps 112.8
Custom settings at 1920-1080 and ultra 8x aa windowed.
Seems ok result.
Now to problem i have.
So next i did (dumb me hehe) i try OC my CPU with All-suit II from ASUS to OC cpu extreme mode which stress test untill stable clock is found.
Got a crash bluescreen and then after few attemps stable 4.3.
Then did new benchmark and my score was alot lower and nomatter what i try my 290x did not pass 60fps any more and score dropped to 2100?
3dmark firestrike gave first time score of 9655 and after my disaster with cpu failed attemp 9200.
My card is stuck at 60fps max it won't get any higher?
The GPU-Z also show PCI-E 3.0 X16@ X1 1.1and when i activate render i see it only change to x16 1.1 i never see gen 3.0.
CPU-Z info motherboard also only pci-express link with x1 and x16
My questions is how can o solve this problem it seems my motherbaord don't reconize my videocard anymore?
Also posible that something with the OC attemp CPU broke something?
I also try change from AUTO to GEN3 in bios but then i get a blackscreen when i boot up it stays backscreen, have to change it switch videocards so i can see my boot again and go into BIOS.
Im at a lost here, hope one of you know a solution or whats my problem?
Hope ive supply enough info im bit of a newbie at this sorry for that.
Thanks in advance.

>>Clear CMOS<< of your board and retry.

GT70 2PC: 870M does not activate, benchmarks and performance ingame confirm this

I bought myself a GT70 2PC Dominator (the SSD version) with an 870M inside, and after starting several games, checking benchmarks and comparing framerates to my current desktop machine (which has an i5 2500K and a GTX 770), I find that, even after configuring the machine to prefer the "powerful Nvidia processor", and setting all games to use the Nvidia processor, it still uses the 4600 processor. I'm getting rather low framerates, I'm not hearing any fan speed increase, Benchmarks ingame like the one from Sleeping Dogs still report the 4600 GPU and some games won't even boot up properly (like Just Cause 2). I did configure all the games to use the Nvidia GPU in my Nvidia Control panel, I updated my drivers, Device manager is finding both cards.
Is there a way to tell my laptop "Look, I don't care about saving my battery, I don't care about noise, I don't care about heat (as long as it does not damage anything), just ALWAYS use the Nvidia GPU, even when it's not needed, so I can actually have some enjoyment out of the 1600 EUR I spent on this machine"?

Check your power button light and see if it lights red(red=dgpu, white=igpu) and make sure you've attached battery with AC plugged while playing games.
Fan speed is changing by different cpu/gpu temperature, so check the temperature and the fan speed in Dragon Gaming Center and compare the temperature and the fan speed under different situation.
Can you tell the graphics driver version you're using? (both Intel and NVIDIA one)
Sadly for the Optimus structure, you can't disable the single graphics but you should be able to use the dGPU to run the game. Except the settings in NVIDIA Control Panel, you can also try to right click on the shortcut of the game and choose "run with graphics processor"> "High-performance NVIDIA processor"

Poor performance by Matlab and Windows benchmark tests

Hello
I have a Lenovo Thinkpad W520 with Windows 7 64bit installed. Compared to other Notebooks with comparable hardware, my Lenovo is very slow. To prove my thought, I carried through a Matlab (64bit) benchmark test and the Windows 7 benchmark test. In both tests, my Lenovo was worse than the other notebooks. During the tests I set the Power Manager to performance and activated the Lenovo turbo boost.
Now I want to ask, if there are any settings, perhaps in the bios, to speed the laptop up? Or why result such a bad performance although the hardware is very good?
Thanks for your help
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Thank you very much for your reply!
I dated up the BIOS from version 1.27 to 1.32. Now the benchmark tests all look great!!
Thanks

VMWare Fusion and Parallels Desktop Benchmark Comparison

This is a quickie benchmark of VMWare Fusion and Parallels Desktop using Super PI, PC Mark 05, and Passmark.
VMWare Fusion 36932
Parallels Desktop 3094 Beta 2
Notes:
Both virtual machines were allocated with large 10+ GB virtual disks and 640MB of RAM. The VMWare CPU was configured with two processors. The Parallels CPU was configured with 1 (two is not available). VMWare reported the CPU as 1 physical, 2 logical processors running at 2.66 GHz while Parallels reported 1 physical, 1 logical processor running at 9.6 GHz (the combined speed of all four cores on the Mac Pro). The max observed CPU utilization in activity monitor when running under VMWare was 200% and max under Parallels was 173%.
I chose not to compare 1 VMWare CPU vs. 1 Parallels CPU. While Parallels does not support SMP or multithreaded processes on multiple processors the CPU utilization on the Mac went well above 1 core (173%). For this comparison, I wanted to see results of max processing based on what the two vendors have delivered, as opposed to benchmarking the underlying "virtual or hypervisor cpu" on a 1:1 basis. This explains why VMWare was 2x faster than Parallels on some CPU tests.
Both of these products are beta. VMWare is running in debug mode (can not be turned off in this beta).
Caveat emptor on these stats. This was an unscientific exercise to satisfy my curiosity. Some of the extraordinary differences are highlighted with <--.
Platform:
Mac Pro 2.66 GHz, 2GB RAM, Nvidia 7300GT
Disk 1 - OS X, 73GB Raptor
Disk 2 - dedicated disk where each virtual machine image was created separate from the OS or any OS-related virtual memory files.
VMWare and Parallels guest OS: Windows XP Professional, SP 2
Comparison Benchmrk
VMWare Fusion 36932 and Parallels Desktop 3094 Beta 2
Super PI Parallels VMWare
512K 8s 9s
1M 20s 21s
4M 1m 57s 2m 03s
PC Mark 05 Parallels VMWare
CPU Test Suite N/A N/A
Memory Test Suite N/A N/A
Graphics Test Suite N/A N/A
HDD Test Suite N/A N/A
HDD - XP Startup 5.0 MB/s 19.54 MB/s <--
Physics and 3D Test failed Test failed
Transparent Windows Test failed 69.99 Windows/s
3D - Pixel Shader Test failed Test failed
Web Page Rendering 3.58 Pages/s 2.34 Pages/s
File Decrypt 71.73 MB/s 67.05 MB/s
Graphics Memory - 64 Lines 179.92 FPS 111.73 FPS
HDD - General Usage 4.82 MB/s 42.01 MB/s <--
Multithread Test 1 / Audio Comp N/A N/A
Multithread Test 1 / Video Encoding Test failed Test failed
Multithread Test 2 / Text Edit 152.85 Pages/s 138.48 Pages/s
Multithread Test 2 / Image DeComp 5.91 MPixels/s 35.4 MPixels/s <--
Multithread Test 3 / File Comp 3.22 MB/s 6.03 MB/s
Multithread Test 3 / File Encrypt 19.0 MB/s 33.26 MB/s <--
Multithread Test 3 / HDD - Virus Scan 27.91 MB/s 25.49 MB/s
Multithread Test 3 / Mem Lat - Rnd 16MB 5.34 MAcc/s 6.63 MAcc/s
File Comp N/A N/A
File DeComp N/A N/A
File Encrypt N/A N/A
File Decrypt N/A N/A
Image DeComp N/A N/A
Audio Comp N/A N/A
Multithread Test 1 / File Comp N/A N/A
Multithread Test 1 / File Encrypt N/A N/A
Multithread Test 2 / File DeComp N/A N/A
Multithread Test 2 / File Decrypt N/A N/A
Multithread Test 2 / Audio DeComp N/A N/A
Multithread Test 2 / Image DeComp N/A N/A
Memory Read - 16 MB N/A N/A
Memory Read - 8 MB N/A N/A
Memory Read - 192 kB N/A N/A
Memory Read - 4 kB N/A N/A
Memory Write - 16 MB N/A N/A
Memory Write - 8 MB N/A N/A
Memory Write - 192 kB N/A N/A
Memory Write - 4 kB N/A N/A
Memory Copy - 16 MB N/A N/A
Memory Copy - 8 MB N/A N/A
Memory Copy - 192 kB N/A N/A
Memory Copy - 4 kB N/A N/A
Memory Lat - Rnd 16 MB N/A N/A
Memory Lat - Rnd 8 MB N/A N/A
Memory Lat - Rnd 192 kB N/A N/A
Memory Lat - Rnd 4 kB N/A N/A
Transparent Windows N/A N/A
Graphics Memory - 64 Lines N/A N/A
Graphics Memory - 128 Lines N/A N/A
WMV Video Playback N/A N/A
3D - Fill Rate Multi Texturing N/A N/A
3D - Polygon Throughput Multiple Lights N/A N/A
3D - Pixel Shader N/A N/A
3D - Vertex Shader N/A N/A
HDD - XP Startup N/A N/A
HDD - Application Loading N/A N/A
HDD - General Usage N/A N/A
HDD - Virus Scan N/A N/A
HDD - File Write N/A N/A
Processor Intel Core 2 9653 MHz Processor Unknown 2661 MHz
Physical / Logical CPUs "1 Physical, 1 Logical" "1 Physical, 2 Logical"
MultiCore 1 Processor Core Multicore 2 Processor Cores
HyperThreading N/A N/A
Graphics Card Generic VGA Generic VGA
Graphics Driver Parallels Video Driver VMWare SVGA II
Co-operative adapters No No
DirectX Version 9.0c 9.0c
System Memory 640 MB 640MB
Motherboard Manufacturer N/A Intel Corporation
Motherboard Model N/A 440BX Desktop Reference Platform
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Microsoft Windows XP
Passmark Parallels VMWare
CPU - Integer Math (MOPS) 112.35 230.31 <--
CPU - Floating Point Math (MOPS) 280.46 588.33 <--
CPU - Find Prime Numbers (OPS) 446.37 676.99 <--
CPU - SSE/3DNow! (MMPS) 2118.56 4737.13 <--
CPU - Comp (KB/s) 2994.16 5952.34 <--
CPU - Encrypt (MB/s) 18.09 36.27 <--
CPU - Image Rotation (IRPS) 598.21 1184.41 <--
CPU - String Sorting (TPS) 2118.81 3672.59 <--
Graphics 2D - Lines (TPS) 220.71 25.15 <--
Graphics 2D - Rectangles (TPS) 189.74 61.8 <--
Graphics 2D - Shapes (TPS) 39.54 13.71 <--
Graphics 2D - Fonts and Text (OPS) 190.39 75.88 <--
Graphics 2D - GUI (OPS) 439.77 63.72 <--
Memory - Allocate Small Block (MB/s) 2533.83 2526.21
Memory - Read Cached (MB/s) 1960.5 1906.27
Memory - Read Uncached (MB/s) 1871.79 1826.08
Memory - Write (MB/s) 1687.81 1545.43
Memory - Large RAM (OPS) 60.99 46.37
Disk - Sequential Read (MB/s) 102.11 76.45 <--
Disk - Sequential Write (MB/s) 58.33 50.9
Disk - Rnd Seek + RW (MB/s) 51.4 40.4
CPU Mark 711.08 1432.72 <--
2D Graphics Mark 743.31 176.5 <--
Memory Mark 599.94 580.38
Disk Mark 766.11 606.7
PassMark Rating 557.27 637.35 

Thanks for posting these numbers - it's an interesting comparison.
I would expect the final VMWare fusion performance numbers to be quite a bit better than that of Parallels - they have almost a decade's worth of experience more than the Parallels folks in this arena, and a much larger development team to boot.
Once VMWare Fusion is released to the public, I think that you'll see a clearer distinction between the two products. VMWare will continue to appeal to the professional customer, with a more robust feature set and corporate-friendly features (and a correspondingly higher price tag); Parallels will fall more into the consumer/VirtualPC-replacement market. It will be interesting to see how Parallels will be affected when (and if) VMWare player is ported to OS X.
Interesting about the Parallels performance stats on a native partition - looks like almost enough reason to avoid the bootcamp partition approach altogether. Sharing a native windows installation with a VM in parallels is a pretty scary situation in any case, as the two environments have entirely different hardware configurations. Do-able, but there is some black magic involved (if you want to see an example of what I mean, try to move a windows installation from one machine to another w/different hardware sometime - it ain't pretty); I wouldn't try this in a production scheme unless I had REALLY good backups.

Performance benchmark

Hi,
I would like to do some performance benchmarking using Xmath and SystemBuild. Matlab has a tic/toc function, and for Simulink there's model callback.
Is there a similar function in both Xmath and SystemBuild?
Thanks

pkad,
Another thing you might want to take a look at is the Hyperbuild manual. As part of its tutorial it describes a way to time the run-time of a simulation.
Have a great weekend,
NathanT

Nvidia 180.22: mrxvt transparency and reasonable benchmarks

I just got a 9800GT a few days ago. Just now I upgraded from 173.X nVidia drivers to the newest 180 in the repositories. Two questions:
1) The tabbar transparency in MRXVT has been messed up with the driver upgrade. When I was using 173, it was fine, but using 180 breaks it. Now the tabbar has an odd semi-transparent hue to it, although other mrxvt transparency is fine. IIRC when I tried 177.X I had the same problem. Here's my xorg.conf, do I need to enable anything new with the latest driver? The only transparent-ish thing that has broken is the mrxvt tabbar. I'm not even using real transparency, just pseudo.
Section "ServerLayout"
Identifier "X.org Configured"
Screen 0 "Screen0" 0 0
InputDevice "Mouse0" "CorePointer"
# InputDevice "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard"
EndSection
Section "Files"
# RgbPath "/usr/share/X11/rgb"
ModulePath "/usr/lib/xorg/modules"
FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/misc"
FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/100dpi:unscaled"
FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/75dpi:unscaled"
FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/TTF"
FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/Type1"
EndSection
Section "Module"
Load "GLcore"
Load "dbe"
Load "xtrap"
Load "record"
Load "extmod"
Load "dri"
Load "glx"
Load "freetype"
EndSection
#Section "InputDevice"
# Identifier "Keyboard0"
#Driver "kbd"
# Driver "evdev"
#EndSection
Section "InputDevice"
Identifier "Mouse0"
Driver "mouse"
Option "Protocol" "auto"
Option "Device" "/dev/input/mice"
Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5 6 7"
EndSection
Section "Monitor"
#DisplaySize 340 270 # mm
Identifier "Monitor0"
VendorName "SAM"
ModelName "SyncMaster"
### Comment all HorizSync and VertRefresh values to use DDC:
HorizSync 30.0 - 81.0
VertRefresh 56.0 - 75.0
Option "DPMS"
EndSection
Section "Device"
### Available Driver options are:-
### Values: : integer, <f>: float, <bool>: "True"/"False",
### <string>: "String", <freq>: "<f> Hz/kHz/MHz"
### [arg]: arg optional
#Option "SWcursor" # [<bool>]
#Option "HWcursor" # [<bool>]
#Option "NoAccel" # [<bool>]
#Option "ShadowFB" # [<bool>]
#Option "UseFBDev" # [<bool>]
#Option "Rotate" # [<str>]
#Option "VideoKey" # 
#Option "FlatPanel" # [<bool>]
#Option "FPDither" # [<bool>]
#Option "CrtcNumber" # 
#Option "FPScale" # [<bool>]
#Option "FPTweak" # 
#Option "DualHead" # [<bool>]
Identifier "Card0"
Driver "nvidia"
VendorName "nVidia Corporation"
BoardName "GeForce 9800GT"
BusID "PCI:1:0:0"
EndSection
Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen0"
Device "Card0"
Monitor "Monitor0"
DefaultDepth 24
Option "NoLogo" "True"
Option "RenderAccel" "True"
Option "AllowGLXWithComposite" "True"
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 1
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 4
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 8
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 15
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 16
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 24
EndSubSection
EndSection
Section "ServerFlags"
Option "AutoAddDevices" "False"
EndSection
2) I ran glxgears on the old and new drivers. The old ones yielded about 6800 - 6900 FPS on average. The new ones yield about 6900 - 7000 FPS on average. So, about a ~50FPS improvement, not much to write home about. I've looked through other threads and this seems to be about on par for the graphics card I have (but I hear that on other distros nVidia cards can get much better benchmarks). Just want to check, does that sound about right? I'm unexperienced with tweaking Xorg for graphics performance and I basically just have what nvidia-config spit out.
Thanks.

Pseudo transparency works by placing a copy of your background in the background of your window. (like behind the words in your terminal)
True Transparency will do that, and add an image of your other windows that are behind the transparent window.
If you enable composite, (have a graphics card that can handle it), install xcompmgr and transset-df, then add
xcompmgr -C & # The & keeps it from waiting for the program to stop before doing anything else.
to you autostart, it will enable transparency. I'm using openbox and it works beautifully.
Here is my .Xdefaults (by the way if it doesn't exist, you can create it in your user folder, just don't miss the' . ' !
URxvt*foreground: #A8A8A8
URxvt*scrollBar_right: false
URxvt*scrollBar: true
URxvt*scrollstyle: plain
URxvt*borderLess: false
URxvt*inheritPixmap: true
URxvt*geometry: 124x24
URxvt*tint: white
URxvt*font: xft:monofur:size=8
#URxvt*font: xft:terminus-font:
#URxvt*font: xft:anorexia
URxvt*color0: #000000
URxvt*color1: #A80000
URxvt*color2: #00A800
URxvt*color3: #A85400
URxvt*color4: #0000A8
URxvt*color5: #A800A8
URxvt*color6: #00A8A8
URxvt*color7: #A8A8A8
URxvt*color8: #545054
URxvt*color9: #F85450
URxvt*color10: #50FC50
URxvt*color11: #F2FC50
URxvt*color12: #5054F8
URxvt*color13: #F854F8
URxvt*color14: #50FCF8
URxvt*color15: #F8FCF8
## xterm config
xterm*termName: xterm
xterm*background: #000000
xterm*foreground: #A8A8A8
urxvt*depth: 32
urxvt*background: rgba:0000/0000/0000/dddd #the transparent magic happens here!
URxvt.perl-ext-common: default,matcher
URxvt.urlLauncher: firefox
URxvt.matcher.button: 2
URxvt*matcher.pattern.1: \\b(mailto|http|https|ftp|file):[/]*[\\w-]\\.[\\w./?&@#-]*[\\w/-]
URxvt*matcher.pattern.2: \\bwww\\.[\\w-]\\.[\\w./?&@#-]*[\\w/-
I use urxvt, but if you just change the u to an m, it 'should' work.
Last edited by LeoSolaris (2009-01-29 18:28:15)

Are there any performance benchmark tools for Flash?

I am looking to benchmark Flash on various computers that I use. I was surprised that the performance of Adobe Flash on my Intel i5 computer running Windows 7 Pro 64-bit OS and IE 10 was MUCH WORSE than running on a Windows 7 Pro 32-bit on an Intel i3 computer running the same browser.
I have tried running both 32-bit IE and 64-bit IE and get the same general bad performance on the 64-bit Windows OS. I would like to find a tool to benchmark these various computers so that I can establish baseline performance while I explore finding a fix Adobe Flash on a 64-bit OS.
Can someone suggest some tools for Flash performance benchmarking? Thank you.

The best advise we can really give you is that both companies offer free trials and you should download them both and see which works best for you. I own Parallels Desktop v6, and VMWare Fusion v3. For me, VMWare s better for some things, but Parallels is better for most. Depending on what you do and how you use your applications your milage may vary.
One other note to keep in mind. Since Apple is looking to release a new OS version in the very near future, you might want to hold-off a bit on our vitualization choice just yet. I would exect that both companies will be working on a new release for support/compatibilty of the new MacOS, so you might want to wait to see if there are any other changes that make you want to lean towards one or the other...

After Effects Multi-Core Benchmarks

I have been doing some testing trying to figure out how fast after effects renders and how to
help it render faster. So far i have been very dissapointed with the results. no matter how
much money we spend buying the fastest systems we can i cant seem to get much of a speed
increase. we have 8 computers with 8 cores each now. but i cant seem to get after effects to
use the extra cores even when i have 20Gb ram and enable multi frames with 2GB per frame. i see
it load all the extra copies in task manager but when i render each time 1 core has "some"
usage and the other 7 are always around 10-15% usage.
so i wanted to try a simple benchmark that everyone could try and post their results.
so i made a ntsc dv composition default at 30 seconds and just render it. NOTHING, just blank
frames of nothing. how fast can afx output data like this? i tried tests with multiple frames
enabled and disabled and output to tiff files (no compression) or the microsoft DV 48khz
preset, both with the default BEST setting.
Now i understand that after effects and premiere have 2 completely different rendering methods
but still it is worth pointing out that premiere will output 30 seconds of blank video or
actual real dv video footage to a DV AVI file in about 3-4 seconds. so why is it the same
machine takes 10 times longer to render from after effects?
I know in premiere i can simple drop in a dv avi file and export to mpeg2 and i can watch all 8
cores almost max out as it renders about 6X faster then realtime.
How can i do something in after effects to see my 8 cores max out?
Please give any tips or tricks to speed up after effects. We must use vista64 as we have a 30TB fibrechannel array.
Dell Laptop M6300 - Core 2 Extreme x9000 @2.8ghz (2 cores)
Adobe CS4 Windows XP 64 bit - 8GB ram
Multiple OFF     Tiff=1:24
                       DV=1:24
Multiple ON      Tiff=1:32
                       DV=1:30
Dell Precision 690 - Dual Quad Core Xeon E5320 @1.86ghz (8 cores)
Adobe CS4 - Windows Vista 64 bit - 4GB ram - Matrox Axio LE
Multiple OFF     Tiff= :47
                       DV= :43
Multiple ON      Tiff= :56
                       DV= :52
Dell Precision T7400 - Dual Quad Core Xeon X5482 @3.2ghz (8 cores)
Adobe CS3 - Windows XP 32 bit - 4GB ram - Matrox Axio LE
Multiple OFF     Tiff= :30
                        DV= :30
Multiple ON      Tiff= :31
                       DV= :30
Dell Precision T7400 - Dual Quad Core Xeon X5482 @3.2ghz (8 cores)
Adobe CS4 - Windows Vista 64 bit - 20GB ram - Matrox Axio LE
Multiple OFF     Tiff= :30
                       DV= :31
Multiple ON      Tiff= :35
                      DV= :35

Well we can toss around reasons for AE not using a processors full potental on a comp, but all I know is that all of the truly multithreaded and multi-processor enable applications I use are much better at using resources to their fullest than AE, or for that mater, most of the programs in the MC.
When I run those programs my system is pushed to the limit- which is why I bought a quad core system in the first place. Mental ray, Fusion, 3D Coat, Zbrush...the list is long of programs that have no problem using all my cores for 90%-100% of opperations.
In the end it just adds up to the fact that Adobe owns a large corner of the market- and since there is no competition, sees no reason NOT to be 5-10 years behind the curve when it comes to resource managment in their software.
Making maters worse is how a lot of the user base is oblivious to the technological changes in processors over the last five years. These people don't know that all but one of their cores sit idle most of the time, and they buy the corp. speak put out by Adobe about "...how complex every thing is- so you don't understand...". Sorry- I may not be a programer or a processor engineer for Intel or AMD, but I know when a program is using resources or not and I know quite a few of the things Adobe has said are "...just too complicated to do..." are really covers for lack luster R and D. Either your programers need to get up to speed, or Adobe needs to actually do the right thing and set more money aside for development. I'm betting it's the later.
Softimage 7.x is fully multithreaded and 64bit (yes all the way through not just with mr). This is a complicated program- and the development team is probably 1/10th the size of that working on PS. So why after all of these years are we still waiting for even a half baked attempt at such things on the Adobe front?
The way AE handles RAM compared to programs like Fusion and the like is pathetic.
Don't get me wrong- I love the program for motion graphics and simple comp work, but again, the resource management with AE feels like I'm back in OS8.
-Gideon

Where can I find a downloadable benchmark for the MacBook Pro?

I have a 2013 MacBook Pro and a 2006 Mac Pro. I am thinking of dumping the Mac Pro and make my MacBook my one and only computer. I want to run a benchmark on each system to see what I am trading off with this plan. Where can I find a downloadable benchmark for a Mac running OS X?

Geekbench -> http://www.primatelabs.com/geekbench/.
Clinton
MacBook Pro (15-inch Late 2011), OS X Mavericks 10.9.5, 16GB Crucial RAM, Crucial M500 960GB SSD, 27” Apple Thunderbolt Display

Full length feature on FCP from mini-DV... benchmarking comparable DVD's

After over a year of post production, we just completed a full length kids’ feature film shot on a DVX-100A and edited in FCP. The title is "The Bracelet of Bordeaux", and the movie info is on IMDb and our website. This was a large scale project, with almost 300 actors, 50 crew members and 18 interior/exterior locations. There were over 60 shooting days. It was shot on mini-DV due to budgetary considerations.
The movie’s look-feel is exceptional, especially when viewed on a Mac HD screen and Sony NTSC monitor. However, when we first tested the movie in a theatre, playing a DVD through a high-end projection system, the quality was terrible. Ultimately, we achieved outstanding results by playing directly off the uncompressed FCP timeline through a Barco Hi Def projector and onto a 40-ft screen. We held a major theatrical test screening (3,000 people attended 10 shows), and the movie’s visual quality was stunningly good, receiving acclaim from audiences and critics. The results looked particularly film-like in the mid to back rows of the theatre (even numerous professional viewers thought that it was film). You can view audience comments and media reviews on IMDb.
Now we are creating a DVD to send to film festivals and prospective distributors. Of course, we will not be able to determine the projection system used at the festivals and the movie will mostly be exhibited from a DVD. I would like to know what full length feature films are out there, which were shot on mini-DV (especially the DVX100 or 100A), and edited on FCP, so I can use them to benchmark our DVD results. I have been living in the edit dungeon for over 14 months and have not kept track of movies shot in mini-DV and editing on Macs. Also, please provide any observations about the cinematic quality of these films
G5 Mac OS X (10.4.8) FCP, DVDSP

https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/sales_o/04reports/2004webWW/WorldWideWW/ stuffsingaporeWW/stuffsingaporeWW.html
this film was shot DV
However I can't help feel you are about to embark on a wild goose chase.
If you are going to distribute a movie on DVD for projection in multiple theatres with different equipment for screenings you will not attend I don't see what you hope to achieve.
DVD is by nature a "standard" without too much room for manoeuvre if you are supplying what must effectively be labelled a consumer market. You will have to conform your movie to a bitrate which is sympathetic to all DVD players and not for example use a DVD9 and a higher bitrate for a DVD player you own and know will work.
Cinematic quality is subjective also, which has a true film look The Sound of Music or The Matrix ? There are plenty of filters out there to give a film look and feel but to be honest the defining factor between film and video is often the quality of lighting, acting and camera work and not so much a blatant "look". It's audience acceptance of a piece in a theatre environment, which is a big help in the first place since we all associate the cinema with film (oh and adverts for the local tandoori).
Your film will look inherently different to the competition and so it should . . don't compare it!

What are Quake 4, Motion 3 and call of Duty 4 with respect to benchmarks?

I am trying to decide which new iMac to buy and don't really understand exactly what the benchmark results mean. What are these three tests and how should I interpret them with regard to the type of use my iMac will be for, i.e video and photo editing, Logic Express for music, internet, and maybe iWork?
I do not play computer games at all, nor will I be doing 3-D graphic work.
My partner has just bought the new 20" iMac which is gorgeous but I want the 24" screen.

+"Does a better frame rate equal better video and photo viewing performance in general, i.e, not just for gaming?"+
No it doesn't, gaming is the most popular application for upgrading graphics cards however if you are into any type of 3D graphics such as CAD/CAM software or rendering graphics then it makes sense.
The only other reason for upgrading the video is for possible future needs. If you are pretty certain you won't be doing anything that is 3D intensive the base graphics should be fine. For your needs today I would recommend either the 2.93 GHz model with either the NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 256MB or the NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 512MB.
Regards,
Roger

Benchmarks of mac mini and imac

hello
i'm looking for buy imac or mac mini !
its hard for me to chose one of them ,
i wana know how much cpu performances are differend between 800$ mac mini and 1300$ imac .
is there any benchmarkes to clear it for me ?
thanks in advance

You can find tons of benchmarks at http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks.

Servlets/JDBC vs. servlets/EJB performance comparison/benchmark

I have a PHB who believes that EJB has no ___performance___ benefit
against straightforward servlets/JSP/JDBC. Personally, I believe that
using EJB is more scalable instead of using servlets/JDBC with
connection pooling.
However, I am at a lost on how to prove it. There is all the theory, but
I would appreciate it if anyone has benchmarks or comparison of
servlets/JSP/JDBC and servlets/JSP/EJB performance, assuming that they
were tasked to do the same thing ( e.g. performance the same SQL
statement, on the same set of tables, etc. ).
Or some guide on how to setup such a benchmark and prove it internally.
In other words, the PHB needs numbers, showing performance and
scalability. In particular, I would like this to be in WLS 6.0.
Any help appreciated.

First off, whether you use servlets + JDBC or servlets + EJB, you'll
most likely spend much of your time in the database.
I would strongly suggest that you avoid the servlets + JDBC
architecture. If you want to do straight JDBC code, then it's
preferable to use a stateless session EJB between the presentation layer
and the persistence layer.
So, you should definitely consider an architecture where you have:
servlets/jsp --> stateless session ejb --> JDBC code
Your servlet / jsp layer handles presentation.
The stateless session EJB layer abstracts the persistence layer and
handles transaction demarcation.
Modularity is important here. There's no reason that your presentation
layer should be concerned with your persistence logic. Your application
might be re-used or later enhanced with an Entity EJB, or JCA Connector,
or a JMS queue providing the persistence layer.
Also, you will usually have web or graphic designers who are modifying
the web pages. Generally, they should not be exposed to transactions
and jdbc code.
We optimize the RMI calls so they are just local method calls. The
stateless session ejb instances are pooled. You won't see much if any
performance overhead.
-- Rob
jms wrote:
>
I have a PHB who believes that EJB has no ___performance___ benefit
against straightforward servlets/JSP/JDBC. Personally, I believe that
using EJB is more scalable instead of using servlets/JDBC with
connection pooling.
However, I am at a lost on how to prove it. There is all the theory, but
I would appreciate it if anyone has benchmarks or comparison of
servlets/JSP/JDBC and servlets/JSP/EJB performance, assuming that they
were tasked to do the same thing ( e.g. performance the same SQL
statement, on the same set of tables, etc. ).
Or some guide on how to setup such a benchmark and prove it internally.
In other words, the PHB needs numbers, showing performance and
scalability. In particular, I would like this to be in WLS 6.0.
Any help appreciated.--
Coming Soon: Building J2EE Applications & BEA WebLogic Server
by Michael Girdley, Rob Woollen, and Sandra Emerson
http://learnweblogic.com

How do I add a benchmark time to a scatter plot in Numbers

I am working with a data set that includes a group of people that arrive at a location in a time range. I have these plotted on a scatter chart but I want to show a benchmark line and then how far off we are on that benchmark.
How d I do this?

If you want to plot another line on the chart, create two X,Y data points for the line in another set of columns in your table and plot it as a second series. For example, if your original X data is in column B and Y data in column C, use column D and E for these other two points. After you have those two points, click on your chart. A blue box will surround the data you have plotted in columns B&C. At the bottom right corner is a little circle. Drag it to the right until the box covers your new data in columns D&E. The default is X-Y pairs so the box should have an X over columns B and D and a Y over columns C and E. Your chart should show a second series.
If you want to get sophisticated, you can use formulas to make the data points for the benchmark. For instance, you could use MIN(B) and MAX(B) to generate the min and max X values so the benchmark line dynamically adjusts to your other X data.

Benchmarking

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for