Compiz is 12 times faster than kwin on KDE. Is it normal?

Hello. Just tried compiz on kde, and I'm impressed: it consumes just 1% of cpu, while kwin was consuming 12% on Core2Duo E6550 with NVidia 8600.
Is it normal, that kwin is so slow?

Thank you for the answer.
If it is not normal, I will try to dig something on this. Maybe I need some xorg extension.
Worth to mention, that kwin with XRender consumes just 3%. The problem appears, when using OpenGL.
2karol
It is not big deal with those 10%, but sometimes animation isn't smooth. Also there are some misterious speaks in cpu load, while playing 720p in mplayer with VDPAU in window mode. Mplayer can consume up to 30% with kwin, but only 3% with compiz. Moreover, video always flickers, when control bar appears in fullscreen.
There are no such issues with compiz.
I thought, that this is normal, but now I see, that I need to search for bug reports on this.
Last edited by eDio (2010-09-12 08:35:45)

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?

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.

Web Report - ABAP Vs JAVA engine - ABAP 10 times faster than JAVA

Guys,
I want to share what we found in our project and see if any of you have insights
into our findings.We are on NW2004S SP14 and we are moving to SP15 in a couple of weeks.We created query, developed WAD for it and executing the WAD takes for this query takes 22 secs (Vs 2 secs using ABAP) the query output has 1 million records and most of the actions we take from that point on like right click on account takes 20 secs (Vs 0 secs/instant using ABAP) , drilldown to level 4 of account hierarchy takes 58 secs (Vs 5 secs using ABAP), drilldown on cost center level 6 takes 42 secs (Vs 4 secs using ABAP), , right click on cost center takes 32 secs (Vs 3 secs using ABAP), ..etc.
Basically every action we take in the JAVA report takes an average of 28 secs.There are 9 aggregates built on the cube that are barely hit by this query but the same query performing same actions with same selections hit the aggregates many many times.The questions I have is why is ABAP so fast compared to JAVA ? What is true explanation behind this behavior ? What are the dis-advantages by using ABAP engine ? Users are loving the performance and features of ABAP while they weren't really on board with the original JAVA report (as it was slow). ABAP is sure enough 10 times faster than JAVA. Query/Query Properties are exactly the same in ABAP and JAVA.Please explain.
Cheers
RT

Hi All,
Thanks to all you for your responses. I appreciate your time for going through my questions and coming forward to express your views.
However, I was looking for more specific "factual" answers. My question is "What does a client miss if they opt to install only ABAP based BI 7.0, as against JAVA Based BI 7.0"
thanks again.
Naga

"tp import all" runs 24 times faster than "tp import TR " for long queue?

After a test upgrade to ECC 6.0, I processed 1200 individual transports in 12 hours. When I rebuilt the queue of 1200 transports and processed "tp import all", it completed in 30 minutes.
Should I expect "tp import all" to process 24 times faster than individual imports?
800 transports were client independent (code) and 400 transports were client-specific (configuration).
What run times have you seen?
What problems with "tp import all" have you seen?
Best regards,
Gary Sherwood

Hi Gary
You don't know the 800 transports which are wating for the import, what could be render your system in case of import all. so, that's why , i will prefer to you import individual request instead of import all.
offcourse, Import all are faster than the individual because it prepare all steps once to start import,
Regards
Anwer Waseem

[Solved] ADF BC - PL/SQL block 6 times faster than CreateRow/InsertRow

THE ENVIRONMENT:
- JDeveloper 10.1.2.0.0
- Oracle 9.2.0.8.0
THE PROBLEM:
I found one of my pages in an ADF BC Web Application to be quite slow. After some profiling, I found a significant bottleneck in a loop which inserts approximately 270 rows in a table (only inserts into the table using insertRow). Would there be an improvement if we rewrite the transaction in PL/SQL code? To find out, I came up with the following simple test case:
1) Table
create table TES_FSOLICFONDO
ID_SOLICITUD NUMBER not null,
A_PAIS VARCHAR2(2),
C_IDEMPRESA NUMBER,
A_CODMONEDA VARCHAR2(3),
C_LOCAL NUMBER,
D_FECSOLICIT DATE,
C_IDBILLMONE NUMBER not null,
M_MONTO NUMBER,
A_CREADOPOR VARCHAR2(30),
D_CREACION DATE,
A_MODIFPOR VARCHAR2(30),
D_MODIF DATE);
alter table TES_FSOLICFONDO
add primary key (ID_SOLICITUD);
create index IND_TES_FSOLICFONDO_01 on TES_FSOLICFONDO (C_IDBILLMONE, C_LOCAL, D_FECSOLICIT);
create index IND_TES_FSOLICFONDO_02 on TES_FSOLICFONDO (C_IDEMPRESA, A_CODMONEDA, C_LOCAL, D_FECSOLICIT,C_IDBILLMONE);
2) Sequence
create sequence SEQ_TES_FSOLICFONDO
minvalue 1
maxvalue 999999999999999999999999999
start with 1
increment by 1
cache 2;
3) ADF BC
- Create a Business Components Project with a BC package
- Create new Entity Object based on the previous table, with standard wizard settings (this will be named TesFsolicfondo)
- Create new View Object linked to previous Entity Object, with standard wizard settings (this will be named TesFsolicfondoVO).
- Create an Application Module named AMTESAsignaSuperAvance, and include the previous View Object in the Data Model
4) The test case
- Create a test() method in the AMTESAsignaSuperAvanceImpl class as follows:
public void test() throws Exception
TesFsolicfondoVOImpl solVO = getTesFsolicfondoVO1();
TesFsolicfondoVORowImpl r = null;
for (int i = 0; i < 270; i++)
r = (TesFsolicfondoVORowImpl) solVO.createRow();
Sequence seq = new Sequence("SEQ_TES_FSOLICFONDO",this);
r.setIdSolicitud(new Number(seq.getData().toString()));
r.setAPais("PE");
r.setCIdempresa(new Number(637292));
r.setACodmoneda("USD");
r.setCLocal(new Number(388));
r.setDFecsolicit(new Date("2006-04-07"));
r.setCIdbillmone(new Number(116));
r.setMMonto(new Number(0));
r.setACreadopor("10000003480");
r.setDCreacion(new Date("2006-04-03"));
solVO.insertRow(r);
getTransaction().commit();
- Create a test.jsp page including the following code within a scriptlet:
AMTESAsignaSuperAvanceImpl am = null;
try
am = (AMTESAsignaSuperAvanceImpl) Configuration.createRootApplicationModule("cl.falabella.fpi.tes.bc.AMTESAsignaSuperAvance","AMTESAsignaSuperAvanceLocal");
am.test();
catch (Exception e)
am.getTransaction().rollback();
finally
Configuration.releaseRootApplicationModule(am,true);
- Create an equivalent PL/SQL block as follows:
BEGIN
FOR I IN 1..270
LOOP
INSERT INTO TES_FSOLICFONDO (ID_SOLICITUD, A_PAIS, C_IDEMPRESA, A_CODMONEDA, C_LOCAL,
D_FECSOLICIT, C_IDBILLMONE, M_MONTO, A_CREADOPOR, D_CREACION)
VALUES (SEQ_TES_FSOLICFONDO.NEXTVAL, 'PE', 637292, 'USD', 388, TO_DATE('07-04-2006', 'DD-MM-YYYY'), 116, 0,
'10000003480', TO_DATE('03-04-2006', 'DD-MM-YYYY'));
END LOOP;
COMMIT;
END;
THE RESULTS:
The PL/SQL block was executed on a standard SQL* Plus window, and the test() method within the AM was called from the test.jsp page.
The PL/SQL block takes 1125 milliseconds in my setup, the test() method within the AM takes 6017 milliseconds, so PL/SQL is about 6 times faster in this test.
THE QUESTION:
Is this supposed to be this way? I want to avoid creating a PL/SQL package, I would rather use the ADF BC framework throughout the application. Would someone kindly point out any configuration issues I may have missed that will improve the BC performance?

Hello Jan,
Thanks for the tip, good to be born again as a name instead of a number.
I omitted the code used for timing, but here goes:
test.jsp:
java.util.Date d1 = new java.util.Date();
AMTESAsignaSuperAvanceImpl am = null;
try
am = (AMTESAsignaSuperAvanceImpl) Configuration.createRootApplicationModule("cl.falabella.fpi.tes.bc.AMTESAsignaSuperAvance","AMTESAsignaSuperAvanceLocal");
am.test();
catch (Exception e)
am.getTransaction().rollback();
finally
Configuration.releaseRootApplicationModule(am,true);
java.util.Date d2 = new java.util.Date();
System.out.println("Time (ms) = " + Double.toString(d2.getTime()-d1.getTime()));
PL/SQL:
I use a tool called "PL/SQL Developer". It has a "Command Window" with a user interface which is extremely similar to SQL* Plus. After running the PL/SQL code, it reported "PL/SQL procedure successfully completed in 1.125 seconds".
From the tool documentation:
The Command Window
The Command Window allows you to execute SQL scripts in a way that is very much similar to Oracle's SQL*Plus. To create a Command Window press the New button on the toolbar or select the New item in the File menu. A Command Window is created and you can type SQL and SQL*Plus commands like you are used to, without leaving PL/SQL Developer’s IDE.
Regards
Rodrigo

Why won't my 802.11 N work 5 times faster than my old Airport Extreme?

I called Apple Care to get assistance in setting up my new "n". No problems. Works like a charm, but was told by their wireless guru Richard that with my new MacBook Pro purchased in May with the 2ghz Intel Core Duo would not reach those fast speeds because you must have a different wireless chip that was installed this fall on the new Intel Core II Duo. I'm dissappointed and feel ripped off.
MacBook Pro 2GHZ Intel Core Duo Mac OS X (10.4.8)

He can't NOT use this becuase it does not have a
wireless n adapter, he can't use this because the
chipset was changed. That is why he should feel
ripped off, no pc would suffer this problem, he is
stuck. Apple should, based on their reputation, not
freeze out people who spend thousands of dollars on
their product.
Yes he can use this product (it is backwards compatible to 802.11 a/b/g). Excuse me, a PC is in the same condition, if Dell comes out with a newer version of their laptop with and n card in it, why would any previous version owner feel ripped off? You knew what you were buying when you bought it. I just bought a new truck last year, this year they came out with some improvements to that truck, am I supposed to feel ripped off because the added some new features? No I bought it knowing what it came with and the next years model will most likely have new features that I don't have. Come on. I guess companies should never improve their product and we should be stuck with same technology so we don't "feel ripped off" when they get improved. What kind of logic is that? I guess it must be PC logic. . .

Since I have Firefox 4 on my minilapatop, I type two or three times faster than the text in the browswer can keep up with. It results in parts of texts lost, when I am typing.

It's what I wrote above. I am not a fast typer, but when writing texts or composing e-mails, the texts cannot follow me and I loose texts. I have a small eee-PC with Windows 7 running. It worked great, until I upgraded to Firefox 4.

Sorry this is a user to user technical forum. There is NO APPLE here as stated in the term of use when you signed up for this forum.
here are some battery tips
http://osxdaily.com/2013/09/19/ios-7-battery-life-fix/
http://www.apple.com/batteries/iphone.html

BTWifi hotspot 4 times faster than my home hub

Was having trouble with my connection so decided to try using a hotspot and was suprised at the speed it gets, i was lucky to get 3mb through my hub but can get just under 12mb with the hotspot by my house. Do hotspot speeds vary daily or would i be better off just using the hotspot from now on?

Keep trying to use this speed tester then carry out the further diagnostics and post back a screen shot of all the results including your IP profile for up and down. This test must be done with a wired connection.
http://speedtest.btwholesale.com/
If you have a Homehub 5 can you also post the stats from 1-12 by logging onto the homehub management pages then troubleshooting > helpdesk. http://bthomehub.home/

Why is iMovie 5 x faster than AP3?

I noticed that slideshow exports in AP3 seemed to take a long time and did a test with iMoive 09. I exported the exact same slideshow of 60 pictures and 1 song from both iMoive and AP3. The iMovie export was 5 times faster than the AP3 export.
Why is this and can anything be done to speedup AP3 slideshow exports?
I have a fairly quick Mac, 2 x 2.26 Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon, 16 meg of ram, ATI Radeon HD 4870.
Any thoughts?
Ken

You may also want to check your router. Some routers use a priority bandwidth feature that will dedicate more bandwidth to one machine. If for some reason the macbook's download was started earlier than the imac's, then this might be part of the discrepancy. There are a lot of factors to think about when it comes to wifi bandwidth.
I do agree with the one comment about testing one computer at a time instead of simultaneously.
Also, when you said you have the movies from the Macbook on your iMac, can you elaborate? If you are using a shared library, then your iMac is going to be using part of your download speed for updates to your shared itunes library, where your Macbook is only going to be uploading the list. If I am incorrect in my understanding of the sharing of iTunes library, someone please let me know.

CTAS is over x10 faster than it's select statement, why?

Hi gurus -
Oracle 11gR2
Exadata
CREATE TABLE AS SELECT .......................... FROM................. runs over 10 times faster than just the SELECT stmt from the CTAS.
Why and how CTAS is faster than it's SELECT stmt?
Thanks,
Prakash

No it's not guessing game. Here is my query with elapsed time,
SELECT CURRENT_CONTRACT,
JOB_TITLE,
EXPENDITURE_ITEM_DATE_WEEK_END,
HIRING_MANAGER,
RATE_TYPE,
OT_PAY_RATE,
DT_PAY_RATE,
SUM (CONT_OT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ) AS CONT_OT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ,
SUM (CONT_DT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ) AS CONT_DT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ,
SUM (CONT_DT_HOURS_SPEND) AS CONT_DT_HOURS_SPEND,
SUM (CONT_OT_HOURS_SPEND) AS CONT_OT_HOURS_SPEND
FROM CONTRACTOR_TIME V -- Contractor view
WHERE ORG IN (23245,33456)
GROUP BY
CURRENT_CONTRACT,
JOB_TITLE,
EXPENDITURE_ITEM_DATE_WEEK_END,
HIRING_MANAGER,
RATE_TYPE,
OT_PAY_RATE,
DT_PAY_RATE;
--Elapsed : 30 minutes
CREATE TABLE rslt AS
SELECT CURRENT_CONTRACT,
JOB_TITLE,
EXPENDITURE_ITEM_DATE_WEEK_END,
HIRING_MANAGER,
RATE_TYPE,
OT_PAY_RATE,
DT_PAY_RATE,
SUM (CONT_OT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ) AS CONT_OT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ,
SUM (CONT_DT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ) AS CONT_DT_SPEND_AMOUNT_ADJ,
SUM (CONT_DT_HOURS_SPEND) AS CONT_DT_HOURS_SPEND,
SUM (CONT_OT_HOURS_SPEND) AS CONT_OT_HOURS_SPEND
FROM CONTRACTOR_TIME V -- Contractor view
WHERE ORG IN (23245,33456)
GROUP BY
CURRENT_CONTRACT,
JOB_TITLE,
EXPENDITURE_ITEM_DATE_WEEK_END,
HIRING_MANAGER,
RATE_TYPE,
OT_PAY_RATE,
DT_PAY_RATE;
--Elapsed: 3 mins

Jboss faster than Weblogic?

I've been testing app servers to choose for the next project and I implemented a simple webservice based on session bean.
I test the service with soapui load test. The results are surprising, while jboss performs MUCH better with the same application (1200 tps vs 300 tps). Why the huge difference? Can I tune weblogic somewhere, somehow?

Weblogic is four times faster than JBoss.Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
four times faster for what? Everything? I always laugh when people post such unqualified performance claims, no matter what the two products being compared are.
John

PowerMac faster than intel Mac when running video programs?

Hello everyone! Having a question now so wonder if any of you have the same experience?
Recently i have many video works to do. I have a powerbook, which is the lasted 17inch powerbook and an intel imac (early 2008, 2.66GHz). I run the same version of finalcut pro and compressor. But thing become very strange, which is that when i run compressor to make final video files, my powerbook is much faster (about 2 times faster) than intel iMac. When i run XDCAM program to import video clips to finalcut from Sony XDCAM blueray reader, powerbook is also much more faster than intel iMac, and which is about 10time more faster than intel iMac. So it become very strange. I list my configurations below, and any of you can help me to solve the 'problem' or explain the strange fenominal.
Maybe theres anything wrong with software configurations, any one can also help me with that?
Thank you very much!
Powerbook G4 17inch:
CPU: powerpc G4 1,67GHz
RAM: 2GB (two 1GB module)
HDD: 120GB IDE
System: Mac OS X Leopard 10.5.8
Program: Final Cut Studio 2
iMac 20inch Early 2008
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 2,66GHz
RAM: 4GB (two 2GB module)
HDD: Cosair 256GB SSD
System: Mac OS X Lion 10.7 (tried also on Snow Leopard)
Program: Final Cut Studio 2 (tried also Final Cut Studio 3 on friends imac with the same configuration)
Camera:
Sony XDCAM PDW530 Broadcast Camcorder.
Media:
Sony XDCAM blueray disk
Reader:
Sony XDCAM blueray disc drive
Program:
XDCAM transfer for Final Cut Pro 2.12
XDCAM browser software 1.20

Of course it depends on what you're doing and how well you know how to use available resources... the general rule for Logic is:
>>>Fastest machine with the most RAM you can afford.<<<
That said, someone who knows what they're doing can get an amazing amount of effects and virtual instruments on an old PPC G5 computer running Logic 8.
So, while fast machines will allow more plugins/VI with less overloads... knowing what you're doing will take you further so that the difference between machines would not make a difference in the music.
pancenter-

Why is my batch process four times faster on battery vs. plugged in?

Hi-
I have an illustrator file with dynamic text / variables.
I load an xml file with the dynamic data and batch save as copy the variations.
I am using Ai CS6 on Windows 7 Dell laptop with 16gb RAM.
When I batch save as copy and my laptop is on battery power, the batch is 4 times faster than when the laptop is plugged in.
For those familiar with batch, when I am on battery power, no dialog pops up showing the "save as copy" left to right progress bar. When I plug in the save as copy dialog does show up, and the batch slows down dramat i c a l l y.
To further the confusion, when my laptop is in a docking station, it's about 25% slower than just battery, but three times faster than plugged into power brick.
I thought maybe it was the power brick, but I used another power brick - same thing. Even tried different outlets! Same behavior.
I would think the batch would go faster plugged in. But it absolutely is faster on battery. Inside the same batch, if I start the batch on battery, it will go smoking fast, and if I plug in the power source, it slows down to a crawl, and then it will rocket back to full speed when I unplug the power cord!
Any advice / solution would be appreciated. Obviously super fast on battery can only last as long as the battery.
Thanks!
-Michael

I have no way of knowing what the performance controls are on your laptop. Since the performance issue has to do with your laptop's power source, my suggestion was to just try some things to see if it makes a difference. Try EVERYTHING. Maybe including calling your laptop maker's tech support and asking them to explain the performance difference.

Can this class run fast than Hotspot ?

My case in Sun hotspot is almost 2 times fast than jRockit. It's very strange.
package com.telegram;
public class byteutils {
     public final static byte[] bytea = { 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57,
               58, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 };
     public byteutils() {
          super();
     * convert length = 2L letters Hexadecimal String to length = L bytes
     * Examples: [01][23][45][67][89][AB][CD][EF]
     public static byte[] convertBytes(String hexStr) {
          byte[] a = null;
          try {
               a = hexStr.getBytes("ASCII");
          } catch (java.io.UnsupportedEncodingException e) {
               e.printStackTrace();
          final int len = a.length / 2;
          byte[] b = new byte[len];
          int idx = 0;
          int h = 0;
          int l = 0;
          for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
               h = a[idx++];
               l = a[idx++];
               h = (h < 65) ? (h - 48) : (h - 55);
               l = (l < 65) ? (l - 48) : (l - 55);
               // if ((h < 0) || (l < 0)) return null;
               b[i] = (byte) ((h << 4) | l);
          a = null;
          return b;
     public static String convertHex(byte[] arr_b) {
          if (arr_b == null)
               return null;
          final int len = arr_b.length;
          byte[] byteArray = new byte[len * 2];
          int idx = 0;
          int h = 0;
          int l = 0;
          int v = 0;
          for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
               v = arr_b[i] & 0xff;
               l = v & 0xf;
               h = v >> 4;
               byteArray[idx++] = bytea[h];
               byteArray[idx++] = bytea[l];
          String r = null;
          try {
               r = new String(byteArray, "ASCII");
          } catch (java.io.UnsupportedEncodingException e) {
               e.printStackTrace();
          } finally {
               byteArray = null;
          return r;
     public static void main(String[] argv) {
          byte[] a = new byte[0x10000];
          for (int c = 0; c < 0x10000; c++) {
               a[c] = (byte) (c % 256);
          String s = "";
          int LOOP = 10000;
          long l = System.currentTimeMillis();
          for (int i = 0; i < LOOP; i++) {
               s = convertHex(a);
               a = convertBytes(s);
          l = System.currentTimeMillis() - l;
          double d = l / (double) LOOP;
          System.out.println("" + d + "ms.");
}

Thanks! Your code is essentially a microbenchmark testing the performance of sun.nio.cs.US_ASCII.Decoder.decodeLoop() and encodeLoop(), with ~35% and ~30% spent in those two methods respectively. I have verified the behavior (i.e. Sun is faster than JRockit). Due to the microbenchmark nature, it may not affect a larger running program, but it may merit a closer look regardless. I have forwarded to the JRockit perf team for analysis.
-- Henrik

Compiz is 12 times faster than kwin on KDE. Is it normal?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for