Geekbench score - Why so low?

Hello,
I have a Mac Pro 3,1 running at 3.0 ghz which isn't that much slower than the 3.2 2008 model. Why is my geekbench score so much lower than most of the 3.0 mac pros and 3.2 mac pros? Here are my specs:
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro3,1
Processor Name: Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 3 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 8
L2 Cache (per processor): 12 MB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 1,6 GHz
Boot ROM Version: MP31.006C.B05
SMC Version (system): 1.25f4
I am also using the 64 bit version of Snow Leopard, and 32 bit kernel. In addition, I have a 4870 Radeon card.

Ok, another question.. Its amazing u don't have a intel mac but yet u know so much
I want to run Paralells or VM Fusion. How much memory is enough, or where do I want to be? Last nite, for instance, i was getting spinning beach balls while both emulators were loading. Remember, my 2008 mac pro which is the 3.0 model(not clovertown!!!!!!) has 2GB of memory.
Also, by seeing the benchmarks, the 3.2 version of the 2008 mac pro doesn't seem all that much faster than mine, except in cases with memory.

Similar Messages

Low geekbench score

Single-Core Score: 1147
Multi-Core Score: 2049
Does anyone know why geekbench score is so low?

[Solved] A friend of my had the same problem on his iPhone 6 Plus 64gb IOS 8.1.2. He had scores 35% lower than what geekbench 3 said they should be.
Then he uninstalled IAPCrazy and the scores became even higher then what geekbench expected
Problem solved.

Upgraded Memory, much lower Geekbench Score

Yesterday I upgraded my memory from the factory-installed 4GB to 6GB by replacing one of the original 2GB sticks with a G.Skill 4GB stick. Having the extra memory is great, but my Geekbench score went down from 5401 to 5180. Specifically, my Memory score went down 498 points and my Stream went down 818 points.
Is this drop due to the fact that I now have two unmatched sticks? Or is there something specific to the G.Skill memory that caused the drop?
You can see the detailed scores on my Geekbench profile (http://browse.geekbench.ca/user/football751/profile).
And yes, teh new memory I bought is DDR3 1066, P/N: F3-8500CL7S-4GBSQ.

Probably dropped because you are using unmatched RAM. Matching RAM increases memory speed several percent because the hardware can take advantage of the dual channel architecture.

3DMark03 scores on the low side?

hello everyone,
I just replaced my problematic 6800le with a 6800. The card runs fine and games are faster etc. I checked with RivaTuner and its actually 12x1pp, 6vp which means 1 more vp than it's supposed to be. Anyway, with stock clock speed settings (325/700) and without unlocking anything with RT I proceeded to run 3DMark03 (unregistered version) with the default values. The score I got was 7,025 or something like that... I checked online what others with similar specs got and I was stunned to find out that I had the second lowest score reported!!
I'm running the 66.93 drivers for the card and the 5.03 for the mobo. Is there something I'm doing wrong? why so low?
I o/clocked the card with the msi tabs to 350mhz for 2d/3d and 750mhz for memory and got up to 9750 or something like it, which is still pretty low compared to some 11,000 and 12,000 scores I saw online... (keep in mind I'm running my pc at stock speeds)
Do these scores seem normal?
Truth is I've overloaded my pc with various heavy software but how should this affect 3dmark scores... I'll be running later this evening 3dmark05 but I ain't keeping my hopes up...
btw in Game4 (nature scene) at points I see fps as low as 13 or 16 does everyone get so low fps in that part? it makes my card look helpless... and this software was designed back in 2002? hell...

66.70 and 66.72 drivwrs on average the quickest
66.93 futuremark aproved but slightly slower
fast writes will make a small diference if enabled but some games prefer them off farcry etc. to remain stable ( enable is faster )
same with side band adressing ( setings to be found in bios )
if you cant see it try this key combo while in bios to open hidden features shift+f2 then alt+f3 and search your bios fr extra settings that appear, side band addressing being one of them.
look for ati/nvid speed up also ... set higher gcard clock rates from start up..
in gcard settings under advanced. slide slider for performance not quality ..
diferent gcard bioses will help sometimes but your taking a cance w/ that as always .. i tried 5 different and had no probs up to you but i guess if your modding the pipeline etc on your card a bios modd wont be much problem ...
Quote
do you think if I unlock the remaining pipelines scores will rise? will I still be able to o/c a bit? which is better? 4 more pipes or o/cing to say 375/800 or higher when needed?
dont know

Geekbench score should be higher (new Mac vs older Mac)

Hello, I have a Mac Pro 2006 1,1 model that has been upgraded to an 8-core x5355 cpu, a 280x gpu, an ssd drive, etc. its geekbench score went from about 4,800 to about 9,500 (after these additions). After that, i ran a geekbench test on another, newer Mac, and the score was at about 10,500, but it performed VASTLY superior to the older Mac. For example, when using Open Broadcast to stream a video game running on the mac to Twitch.tv, the cpu usage would be at around 50 percent (so all 8 cores would show about 50 percent usage each(, and if i tried to view my broadcast simultaneously on google chrome, it would just to about 80 percent usage. On the newer Mac, I ran the same test, and it was only at about 5-10 percent usage for each of the 8 cores when simply streaming, and about 10-20 usage when streaming AND viewing the stream on google chrome. I even added more window captures to the feed, and it wouldnt tax the CPU. The GPUs were the same in the comparisons. So does that mean that geekbench isn't really testing CPU performance, or something?

The next upgrade for your 1,1:
Lycom DT-120 M.2 PCIe to PCIe 3.0 x4 Adapter (Support M.2 PCIe 2280, 2260, 2242)
Samsung XP941 256GB PCIe 2.0 x4 M.2 SSD MZHPU256HCGL at Amazon
XP941 bootable in the '09 MacPro - Bootable NGFF PCIE SSD - Page 9
* XP941 are bootable in all Mac Pro models and are of the same design as the blade SSD used in nMPs

Mac Mini GeekBench score for 2.26, 4GB and 320 HD

I just got my new Mac mini.
People have been asking about "is it worth it to get the upgrades", I won't comment on that as its really a personal perspective thing, but here is the score for my machine (all factory upgrades).
Proc Int Perf: 2483
Proc Float Perf: 4331
Memory Perf: 2448
Memory Bandw: 1840
Geekbench score : 3058
My decision was based on wanting a replacement for my Dual G5 1.8, 3GB Power Mac. This new mac mini is very fast (in my opinion) even with the "slow" 5400 RPM disk. The idea is that I'm waiting for Leopard to come out to replace the Power Mac fully, this Mac Mini will then replace my AppleTV for Media Center using Plex. I wanted as much flexibility so I went 2.26 and 4GB memory. I also think this thing is an incredible piece of art, I couldn't bring myself to crack the case
Platform: Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
Compiler: GCC 4.0.1 (Apple Inc. build 5484)
Operating System: Mac OS X 10.5.6 (Build 9G2030)
Model: Macmini3,1
Motherboard: Apple Inc. Mac-F22C86C8
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8400 @ 2.26GHz
Processor ID: GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10
Logical Processors: 2
Physical Processors: 1
Processor Frequency: 2.26 GHz
L1 Instruction Cache: 32.0 KB
L1 Data Cache: 32.0 KB
L2 Cache: 3.00 MB
L3 Cache: 0.00 B
Bus Frequency: 1.06 GHz
Memory: 4.00 GB
Memory Type: 1067 MHz DDR3
SIMD: 1
BIOS: Apple Inc. MM31.88Z.0081.B00.0812030802
Processor Model: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8400 @ 2.26GHz
Processor Cores: 2
Integer (Score: 2483)
Blowfish single-threaded scalar -- 1477, , 64.9 MB/sec
Blowfish multi-threaded scalar -- 3254, , 133.4 MB/sec
Text Compress single-threaded scalar -- 1575, , 5.04 MB/sec
Text Compress multi-threaded scalar -- 3204, , 10.5 MB/sec
Text Decompress single-threaded scalar -- 1426, , 5.86 MB/sec
Text Decompress multi-threaded scalar -- 3070, , 12.2 MB/sec
Image Compress single-threaded scalar -- 1607, , 13.3 Mpixels/sec
Image Compress multi-threaded scalar -- 3081, , 25.9 Mpixels/sec
Image Decompress single-threaded scalar -- 1322, , 22.2 Mpixels/sec
Image Decompress multi-threaded scalar -- 2579, , 42.1 Mpixels/sec
Lua single-threaded scalar -- 2382, , 917.2 Knodes/sec
Lua multi-threaded scalar -- 4822, , 1.85 Mnodes/sec
Floating Point (Score: 4331)
Mandelbrot single-threaded scalar -- 1546, , 1.03 Gflops
Mandelbrot multi-threaded scalar -- 3259, , 2.13 Gflops
Dot Product single-threaded scalar -- 2889, , 1.40 Gflops
Dot Product multi-threaded scalar -- 6285, , 2.86 Gflops
Dot Product single-threaded vector -- 2313, , 2.77 Gflops
Dot Product multi-threaded vector -- 5399, , 5.61 Gflops
LU Decomposition single-threaded scalar -- 645, , 573.9 Mflops
LU Decomposition multi-threaded scalar -- 1307, , 1.15 Gflops
Primality Test single-threaded scalar -- 2932, , 438.0 Mflops
Primality Test multi-threaded scalar -- 4739, , 879.6 Mflops
Sharpen Image single-threaded scalar -- 4158, , 9.70 Mpixels/sec
Sharpen Image multi-threaded scalar -- 8603, , 19.8 Mpixels/sec
Blur Image single-threaded scalar -- 5454, , 4.32 Mpixels/sec
Blur Image multi-threaded scalar -- 11114, , 8.74 Mpixels/sec
Memory (Score: 2448)
Read Sequential single-threaded scalar -- 2967, , 3.63 GB/sec
Write Sequential single-threaded scalar -- 2587, , 1.77 GB/sec
Stdlib Allocate single-threaded scalar -- 1833, , 6.84 Mallocs/sec
Stdlib Write single-threaded scalar -- 2493, , 5.16 GB/sec
Stdlib Copy single-threaded scalar -- 2364, , 2.44 GB/sec
Stream (Score: 1840)
Stream Copy single-threaded scalar -- 1785, , 2.44 GB/sec
Stream Copy single-threaded vector -- 1995, , 2.59 GB/sec
Stream Scale single-threaded scalar -- 1934, , 2.51 GB/sec
Stream Scale single-threaded vector -- 1922, , 2.59 GB/sec
Stream Add single-threaded scalar -- 1619, , 2.44 GB/sec
Stream Add single-threaded vector -- 2127, , 2.96 GB/sec
Stream Triad single-threaded scalar -- 1748, , 2.42 GB/sec
Stream Triad single-threaded vector -- 1597, , 2.99 GB/sec

Just to compare... a Mac Mini 2007 with 2.0GHz and 667 DDR2 memory:
Proc Int Perf: 2189
Proc Float Perf: 3879
Memory Perf: 1786
Memory Bandw: 1479
Geekbench score : 2628

Is this a healthy Geekbench score?

What say you?
Benchmark Summary Single-core   Multi-core
Integer Score              3037 38110
Floating Point Score       2939 39373
Memory Score               1973   4071
Geekbench Score            2785 31807
System Information
Operating System      Mac OS X 10.9.5 (Build 13F34)
Model                 MacPro5,1
Model ID              MacPro5,1
Motherboard           Apple Inc. Mac-F221BEC8
Processor             Intel Xeon X5690 @ 3.46 GHz
                        2 Processors, 12 Cores, 24 Threads
Processor ID          GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 44 Stepping 2
L1 Instruction Cache 32.0 KB x 6
L1 Data Cache         32.0 KB x 6
L2 Cache              256 KB x 6
L3 Cache              12.0 MB
Memory                64.0 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
BIOS                  Apple Inc.     MP51.88Z.007F.B03.1010071432
Compiler              Clang 5.0 (clang-500.2.76)
Thanks for looking,
f

See:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

Does anyone know the geekbench score of the 2011 2.0GHz Macbook Pro?

Does anyone know the geekbench score of the 2011 2.0GHz Macbook Pro? I have heard different numbers and it all seems way exaggerated. I believe it is between 8800+... Help.

I found this online, but I was wondering if this is a real list of actual scores, or if someone made these up... I will have the:
MacBook Pro 15" 2.0GHz, 8GB Ram, 750GB (7200rpm) HDD... Not sure if this info is helpful at all?

Really low PowerMac G5 Quad Geekbench score, what gives?

My lovely Power Mac G5 Quad 2.5 GHz has done me proud over the last few years and I wanted to see how it was comparing to all these new intel macs using Geekbench.
I was surprised to see that I scored an insulting 1663 while, I think, everyone else was in the 3000's or more. What's going wrong? I have 7gb RAM and quit as many apps as possible, can I do any more?
Here's my link: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/64558
Does anyone have an tips for me? is my mac just too old? help me increase it's score.
I have also just created a new, blank user (all apps quitted and nothing running in background) and tried it again on that to no avail, here's my result: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/64976
You can also compare my results with the other Power Mac G5 Quad 2.5GHz's here: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/performance/64976/4
My results are all the bottom ones on the far right hand column, this is most disconcerting.
It turns out that it's my lowest score yet, what do think the problem could be?
I have the processor prefpane and it shows all four processors going through the motions when the tests are being done... Is this a major problem or something a fresh Leopard install could fix? I'm hoping not, but this may be the answer.
Might I have not been using my mac to it's full potential?
I need help please.

This could all be related to the bit rating , which relates to how and how much RAM is utilized...
The system has 64 bit memory addressing, which allows support for up to 4 terabytes of system memory. Of course, we aren't able to go there yet.
Memtest (and Rember) support 64 bit memory addressing.
"Memtest executes in 64-bit mode on PPC G5, Intel Xeon-based Mac Pros, and the latest Macbook Pro Core 2 Dual systems running MacOS 10.4 or later, allowing virtually any amount of installed ram to be tested. On all other systems, memtest executes in 32-bit mode with a maximum testable limit of 2 GB."
Your inability to test the entirety of the installed RAM may indicate a problem, or it may indicate some impatience.
Or, it may just be a result of the fact that 64 bit implimentation results in an actual net loss of performance due to the architectural requirements of 64 bit memory addressing..... You might take a look at this article and check the section on "32 bit vs. 64 bit, and "Pros and Cons".
But, I wander off point (possibly).....
Generally accepted principles of testing RAM allow for the memory to be tested in loops, which tests various sizes of memory allocation. Testing all RAM, especially with over 2-4GB, will take some time. Allowing the test to run is important.
The Memtest of 130MB has no meaning what so ever.....
Note the instruction in Rember to choose "All" memory for best results.
Again, did you pose the question regarding your test results to support at GeekBench? They may have some experience with these types of issues......
Now that I've gone through this "disertation", it dawns on me, *Did you use the 32 bit or 64 bit version of Geekbench?*
Message was edited by: japamac

Why does low resolution warning show when I used a high resolution camera

Hi,
I am just learning about iphoto, and have been uploading photos I took with a 4 mega-pixel camera. I have printed out photos at Kodak printers directly from the camera, and they came out great. However, when I upload the photos to the Mac, then burn them to a CD, and try to print them they come out blurry and have the low resolution warning. Does anyone know why that is happening? Is there a setting that decides the photo quality when pictures are uploaded?
Are the photos I have now "doomed" to be at low resolution?
Thanks

The "share" function actually places a mini-library on the CD so that it can be loaded into another Mac that has iPhoto. Just like in your library, the CD will contain, for each photo, the original "out of the camera" version AND the most recently modified version AND a thumbnail for viewing within iPhoto. Apparently the thumbnail was the one that was inadvertently selected for printing and, of course, the resolution is minimal.
If you want to burn a CD for use on a PC or to give to your favorite photo-finisher, create a folder on the desktop and "File/Export" the contents of the album to that folder. Then, EXIT iPhoto and burn the CD with the contents of the desktop folder. After checking the CD and confirming that all is OK, you can trash that folder.

Why is LOWER function producing a cartesian merge join, when UPPER doesn't?

Hi there,
I have an odd scenario that I would like to understand correctly...
We have a query that is taking a long time to run on one of our databases, further investigation of the explain plan showed that the query was in fact producing a Cartesian merge join even though there is clearly join criteria specified. I know that the optimiser can and will do this if it is a more efficient way of producing the results, however in this scenario it is producing the Cartesian merge on two unrelated tables and seemingly ignoring the Join condition...
*** ORIGINAL QUERY ***
SELECT count(*)
FROM    srs_sce sce,
            srs_scj scj,
            men_mre mre,
            srs_mst mst,
            cam_smo cam,
            ins_spr spr,
            men_mua mua,
           temp_webct_users u
WHERE sce.sce_scjc = scj.scj_code
AND sce.sce_stuc = mre.mre_code
AND mst.mst_code = mre.mre_mstc
AND mre.mre_mrcc = 'STU'
AND mst.mst_code = mua.mua_mstc
AND cam.ayr_code = sce.sce_ayrc
AND cam.spr_code = scj.scj_sprc
AND spr.spr_code = scj.scj_sprc
-- Ignored Join Condition
AND LOWER(mua.mua_extu) = LOWER(u.login)
AND SUBSTR (sce.sce_ayrc, 1, 4) = '2008'
AND sce.sce_stac IN ('RCE', 'RLL', 'RPD', 'RIN', 'RSAS', 'RHL_R', 'RCO', 'RCI', 'RCA');
*** CARTESIAN EXPLAIN PLAN ***
SELECT STATEMENT CHOOSECost: 83
     20 NESTED LOOPS Cost: 83 Bytes: 176 Cardinality: 1
          18 NESTED LOOPS Cost: 82 Bytes: 148 Cardinality: 1
               15 NESTED LOOPS Cost: 80 Bytes: 134 Cardinality: 1
                    13 NESTED LOOPS Cost: 79 Bytes: 123 Cardinality: 1
                         10 NESTED LOOPS Cost: 78 Bytes: 98 Cardinality: 1
                              7 NESTED LOOPS Cost: 77 Bytes: 74 Cardinality: 1
NOTE: The Cartesian product is performed on the men_mre & temp_webct_users tables not the men_mua mua & temp_webct_users tables specified in the join condition.
                                   4 MERGE JOIN CARTESIAN Cost: 74 Bytes: 32 Cardinality: 1
                                        1 TABLE ACCESS FULL EXETER.TEMP_WEBCT_USERS Cost: 3 Bytes: 6 Cardinality: 1
                                        3 BUFFER SORT Cost: 71 Bytes: 1,340,508 Cardinality: 51,558
                                             2 TABLE ACCESS FULL SIPR.MEN_MRE Cost: 71 Bytes: 1,340,508 Cardinality: 51,558
                                   6 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID SIPR.SRS_SCE Cost: 3 Bytes: 42 Cardinality: 1
                                        5 INDEX RANGE SCAN SIPR.SRS_SCEI3 Cost: 2 Cardinality: 3
                              9 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID SIPR.SRS_SCJ Cost: 1 Bytes: 24 Cardinality: 1
                                   8 INDEX UNIQUE SCAN SIPR.SRS_SCJP1 Cardinality: 1
                         12 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID SIPR.INS_SPR Cost: 1 Bytes: 25 Cardinality: 1
                              11 INDEX UNIQUE SCAN SIPR.INS_SPRP1 Cardinality: 1
                    14 INDEX UNIQUE SCAN SIPR.SRS_MSTP1 Cost: 1 Bytes: 11 Cardinality: 1
               17 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID SIPR.MEN_MUA Cost: 2 Bytes: 14 Cardinality: 1
                    16 INDEX RANGE SCAN SIPR.MEN_MUAI3 Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
          19 INDEX RANGE SCAN SIPR.CAM_SMOP1 Cost: 2 Bytes: 28 Cardinality: 1                                    After speaking with data experts I realised one of the fields being LOWERed for the join condition generally always had uppercase values so I tried modifying the query to use the UPPER function rather than the LOWER one originally used, in this scenario the query executed in seconds and the Cartesian merge had been eradicated which by all accounts is a good result.
*** WORKING QUERY ***
SELECT count(*)
FROM srs_sce sce,
       srs_scj scj,
       men_mre mre,
       srs_mst mst,
       cam_smo cam,
       ins_spr spr,
       men_mua mua,
       temp_webct_users u
WHERE sce.sce_scjc = scj.scj_code
   AND sce.sce_stuc = mre.mre_code
   AND mst.mst_code = mre.mre_mstc
   AND mre.mre_mrcc = 'STU'
   AND mst.mst_code = mua.mua_mstc
   AND cam.ayr_code = sce.sce_ayrc
   AND cam.spr_code = scj.scj_sprc
   AND spr.spr_code = scj.scj_sprc
-- Working Join Condition
   AND UPPER(mua.mua_extu) = UPPER(u.login)
   AND SUBSTR (sce.sce_ayrc, 1, 4) = '2008'
   AND sce.sce_stac IN ('RCE', 'RLL', 'RPD', 'RIN', 'RSAS', 'RHL_R', 'RCO', 'RCI', 'RCA');
*** WORKING EXPLAIN PLAN ***
SELECT STATEMENT CHOOSECost: 13
     20 SORT AGGREGATE Bytes: 146 Cardinality: 1
          19 NESTED LOOPS Cost: 13 Bytes: 146 Cardinality: 1
               17 NESTED LOOPS Cost: 12 Bytes: 134 Cardinality: 1
                    15 NESTED LOOPS Cost: 11 Bytes: 115 Cardinality: 1
                         12 NESTED LOOPS Cost: 10 Bytes: 91 Cardinality: 1
                              9 NESTED LOOPS Cost: 7 Bytes: 57 Cardinality: 1
                                   6 NESTED LOOPS Cost: 6 Bytes: 31 Cardinality: 1
                                        4 NESTED LOOPS Cost: 5 Bytes: 20 Cardinality: 1
                                             1 TABLE ACCESS FULL EXETER.TEMP_WEBCT_USERS Cost: 3 Bytes: 6 Cardinality: 1
                                             3 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID SIPR.MEN_MUA Cost: 2 Bytes: 42 Cardinality: 3
                                                  2 INDEX RANGE SCAN EXETER.TEST Cost: 1 Cardinality: 1
                                        5 INDEX UNIQUE SCAN SIPR.SRS_MSTP1 Cost: 1 Bytes: 11 Cardinality: 1
                                   8 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID SIPR.MEN_MRE Cost: 2 Bytes: 26 Cardinality: 1
                                        7 INDEX RANGE SCAN SIPR.MEN_MREI2 Cost: 2 Cardinality: 1
                              11 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID SIPR.SRS_SCE Cost: 3 Bytes: 34 Cardinality: 1
                                   10 INDEX RANGE SCAN SIPR.SRS_SCEI3 Cost: 2 Cardinality: 3
                         14 TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID SIPR.SRS_SCJ Cost: 1 Bytes: 24 Cardinality: 1
                              13 INDEX UNIQUE SCAN SIPR.SRS_SCJP1 Cardinality: 1
                    16 INDEX RANGE SCAN SIPR.CAM_SMOP1 Cost: 2 Bytes: 19 Cardinality: 1
               18 INDEX UNIQUE SCAN SIPR.INS_SPRP1 Bytes: 12 Cardinality: 1                                    *** RESULT ***
COUNT(*)
83299I am still struggling to understand why this would have worked as to my knowledge the LOWER & UPPER functions are similar enough in function and regardless of that why would one version cause the optimiser to effectively ignore a join condition.
If anyone can shed any light on this for me it would be very much appreciated.
Regards,
Kieron
Edited by: Kieron_Bird on Nov 19, 2008 6:09 AM
Edited by: Kieron_Bird on Nov 19, 2008 6:41 AM

My mistake on the predicate information, was in a rush to run off to a meeting when I posted the entry...
*** UPPER Version of the Explain Plan ***
| Id | Operation                     | Name             | Rows | Bytes | Cost | TQ    |IN-OUT| PQ Distrib |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT              |                   |     1 |   146 |   736 |        |      |            |
|   1 | SORT AGGREGATE               |                   |     1 |   146 |       |        |      |            |
|   2 |   SORT AGGREGATE              |                   |     1 |   146 |       | 86,10 | P->S | QC (RAND) |
|* 3 |    HASH JOIN                  |                   |   241 | 35186 |   736 | 86,10 | PCWP |            |
|* 4 |     HASH JOIN                 |                   |   774 |   105K|   733 | 86,09 | P->P | HASH       |
|* 5 |      HASH JOIN                |                   | 12608 | 1489K|   642 | 86,08 | P->P | BROADCAST |
|   6 |       NESTED LOOPS            |                   | 14657 | 1531K|   491 | 86,07 | P->P | HASH       |
|* 7 |        HASH JOIN              |                   | 14657 | 1359K|   490 | 86,07 | PCWP |            |
|* 8 |         HASH JOIN             |                   | 14371 |   996K|   418 | 86,06 | P->P | HASH       |
|* 9 |          TABLE ACCESS FULL    | SRS_SCE           | 3211 |   106K|   317 | 86,00 | S->P | BROADCAST |
|* 10 |          HASH JOIN            |                   | 52025 | 1879K|   101 | 86,06 | PCWP |            |
|* 11 |           TABLE ACCESS FULL   | MEN_MRE           | 51622 | 1310K|    71 | 86,01 | S->P | HASH       |
| 12 |           INDEX FAST FULL SCAN| SRS_MSTP1         |   383K| 4119K|    30 | 86,05 | P->P | HASH       |
| 13 |         TABLE ACCESS FULL     | SRS_SCJ           |   114K| 2672K|    72 | 86,02 | S->P | HASH       |
|* 14 |        INDEX UNIQUE SCAN      | INS_SPRP1         |     1 |    12 |       | 86,07 | PCWP |            |
| 15 |       TABLE ACCESS FULL       | MEN_MUA           |   312K| 4268K|   151 | 86,03 | S->P | HASH       |
| 16 |      INDEX FAST FULL SCAN     | CAM_SMOP1         |   527K| 9796K|    91 | 86,09 | PCWP |            |
| 17 |     TABLE ACCESS FULL         | TEMP_WEBCT_USERS | 33276 |   194K|     3 | 86,04 | S->P | HASH       |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   3 - access(UPPER("MUA"."MUA_EXTU")=UPPER("U"."LOGIN"))
   4 - access("CAM"."AYR_CODE"="SCE"."SCE_AYRC" AND "CAM"."SPR_CODE"="SCJ"."SCJ_SPRC")
   5 - access("MST"."MST_CODE"="MUA"."MUA_MSTC")
   7 - access("SCE"."SCE_SCJC"="SCJ"."SCJ_CODE")
   8 - access("SCE"."SCE_STUC"="MRE"."MRE_CODE")
   9 - filter(SUBSTR("SCE"."SCE_AYRC",1,4)='2008' AND ("SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RCA' OR "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RCE' OR
              "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RCI' OR "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RCO' OR "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RHL_R' OR "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RIN' OR
              "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RLL' OR "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RPD' OR "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RSAS'))
10 - access("MST"."MST_CODE"="MRE"."MRE_MSTC")
11 - filter("MRE"."MRE_MRCC"='STU')
14 - access("SPR"."SPR_CODE"="SCJ"."SCJ_SPRC")
Note: cpu costing is off
40 rows selected.*** LOWER Version of the Explain Plan ***
| Id | Operation                     | Name             | Rows | Bytes | Cost | TQ    |IN-OUT| PQ Distrib |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT              |                   |     1 |   146 |   736 |        |      |            |
|   1 | SORT AGGREGATE               |                   |     1 |   146 |       |        |      |            |
|   2 |   SORT AGGREGATE              |                   |     1 |   146 |       | 88,10 | P->S | QC (RAND) |
|* 3 |    HASH JOIN                  |                   |   257K|    35M|   736 | 88,10 | PCWP |            |
|* 4 |     HASH JOIN                 |                   |   774 |   105K|   733 | 88,09 | P->P | HASH       |
|* 5 |      HASH JOIN                |                   | 12608 | 1489K|   642 | 88,08 | P->P | BROADCAST |
|   6 |       NESTED LOOPS            |                   | 14657 | 1531K|   491 | 88,07 | P->P | HASH       |
|* 7 |        HASH JOIN              |                   | 14657 | 1359K|   490 | 88,07 | PCWP |            |
|* 8 |         HASH JOIN             |                   | 14371 |   996K|   418 | 88,06 | P->P | HASH       |
|* 9 |          TABLE ACCESS FULL    | SRS_SCE           | 3211 |   106K|   317 | 88,00 | S->P | BROADCAST |
|* 10 |          HASH JOIN            |                   | 52025 | 1879K|   101 | 88,06 | PCWP |            |
|* 11 |           TABLE ACCESS FULL   | MEN_MRE           | 51622 | 1310K|    71 | 88,01 | S->P | HASH       |
| 12 |           INDEX FAST FULL SCAN| SRS_MSTP1         |   383K| 4119K|    30 | 88,05 | P->P | HASH       |
| 13 |         TABLE ACCESS FULL     | SRS_SCJ           |   114K| 2672K|    72 | 88,02 | S->P | HASH       |
|* 14 |        INDEX UNIQUE SCAN      | INS_SPRP1         |     1 |    12 |       | 88,07 | PCWP |            |
| 15 |       TABLE ACCESS FULL       | MEN_MUA           |   312K| 4268K|   151 | 88,03 | S->P | HASH       |
| 16 |      INDEX FAST FULL SCAN     | CAM_SMOP1         |   527K| 9796K|    91 | 88,09 | PCWP |            |
| 17 |     TABLE ACCESS FULL         | TEMP_WEBCT_USERS | 33276 |   194K|     3 | 88,04 | S->P | HASH       |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   3 - access(LOWER("MUA"."MUA_EXTU")=LOWER("U"."LOGIN"))
   4 - access("CAM"."AYR_CODE"="SCE"."SCE_AYRC" AND "CAM"."SPR_CODE"="SCJ"."SCJ_SPRC")
   5 - access("MST"."MST_CODE"="MUA"."MUA_MSTC")
   7 - access("SCE"."SCE_SCJC"="SCJ"."SCJ_CODE")
   8 - access("SCE"."SCE_STUC"="MRE"."MRE_CODE")
   9 - filter(SUBSTR("SCE"."SCE_AYRC",1,4)='2008' AND ("SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RCA' OR "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RCE' OR
              "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RCI' OR "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RCO' OR "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RHL_R' OR "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RIN' OR
              "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RLL' OR "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RPD' OR "SCE"."SCE_STAC"='RSAS'))
10 - access("MST"."MST_CODE"="MRE"."MRE_MSTC")
11 - filter("MRE"."MRE_MRCC"='STU')
14 - access("SPR"."SPR_CODE"="SCJ"."SCJ_SPRC")
Note: cpu costing is off
40 rows selected.As you state something has obviously changed, but nothing obvious has been changed.
We gather statistics via...
exec dbms_stats.gather_schema_stats(ownname => 'USERNAME', estimate_percent => DBMS_STATS.AUTO_SAMPLE_SIZE , degree => 4, granularity => ''ALL'', cascade => TRUE);
We run a script nightly which works out which indexes require a rebuild and rebuild those only it doesn;t just rebuild all indexes.
It would be nice to be able to use the 10g statistics history, but on this instance we aren't yet at that version, hopefully we will be there soon though.
Hope this helps,
Kieron

Why a low memory error when the iPhone 4 still has plenty of storage?

In diagnostics I had a low memory error. This is just a little of some of what I think is called a snap shot?
LArgest process: meddiaserverd
EscrowSecurityAI<298081b.......
MobileMail<f262d66a......
FaceTime<5796d685.......
also camera, identity services, CVMServer...and many more but I am confused most with the line that said itunesstored. I can provide more info if necessary. There's 8.4 available on the phones internal storage so I'm concerned about this error. I appreciate any info at all. Thanks

I will need to read up on this before I have more discussions. I better make this short if you don't mind one more inquiry. I work almost soley from my phone. I have a store on the Internet. My husband however uses his phone very little but his is the one saying low memory and some areas he has way more data and we can't figure it out. I have 4000 and more emails he has 300 but he has over 300mb more in use. Same with home screen, security, messaging service. His google browser also three times more data than mine and I'm sure my phone has became a part of my hand cause I am always working and I never had low memory and I would think I'd have way more data. He has 7 apps I have 47. Any ideas why. Could someone have hacked his phone

Windows Experience Score - Primary Disk Low...

Hey Gang,
My i7 rig runs just grand for editing, no complaints. I peeked at the WE score and I got 7.3 or better in all categories except Primary Hard Drive (screenshot attached). I'm not looking to fix it (it ain't broke!) but I'm curious why Windows hates my hard drive. My guess is because I'm not running RAID for my OS disk. I'm running a 300GB Raptor, and all I have installed is Win 7 64bit, Production Premium CS4 and some plugins, and NeoScene. MS Office does NOT reside on this PC! It's got 219GB of 279GB free, so it's fairly lean, and I defrag regularly with O&O Defrag. Anyway, my guess is that 5.9 is tops for a single disk... am I pretty much on about that?
Paulie
(for the curious, I do run assets off of another disk, project files on another, and a third for scratch disks and miscellaneous junk... everything is 7200RPM Caviar Black except for the junk drive, I went cheap with a 7200 WD Blue. If it dies, no problem. Anyway, I have no RAID subsystems yet, but that wouldn't affect Primary HD score anyhow)

Shrinking and moving that page file is the task for tonight! Thanks for noticing my hard drive space and saying something, that default Hiberfil file would have sat there unnoticed... Microsoft defaults are aggravating at times. And I've been wondering about the best way to configure the swap file when you have 12GB of ram, but just haven't had time to pursue it. If 8GB on a separate drive works for you, that works for me!
Thanks.
Paulie
PS: Hey, I'm still running my i7 920 stock (and my 1600mhz ram too, which defaults at 1066)... I suppose if I OC things up a bit it'll be even sweeter...

Loan payoff drops score why? See details..

I had a high debt ratio which gave me a low score, about 640. Paid down a couple small credit cards but not to zero. Got it up a little, to 676. Still a high ratio though, with a couple other high cards maxed out. Owed couple brand on car loan, paid it in full, thinking this will really help get me over 700. I received a FICO alert on it stating my score changed she to a change in the car loan account status. Change retorted was zero balance, paid as agreed, paid in full, and my score was dropped 47 points for that. FORTY-SEVEN, for paying off a car loan when I have too much debt to begin with. I filed an immediate dispute, to simply have the score fixed immediately. Absolutely unacceptable. Does this credit world have ANY common sense? So ridiculous. Could it be temporary?

I had a high debt ratio which gave me a low score, about 640. Paid down a couple small credit cards but not to zero. Got it up a little, to 676. Still a high ratio though, with a couple other high cards maxed out. Owed couple brand on car loan, paid it in full, thinking this will really help get me over 700. I received a FICO alert on it stating my score changed she to a change in the car loan account status. Change retorted was zero balance, paid as agreed, paid in full, and my score was dropped 47 points for that. FORTY-SEVEN, for paying off a car loan when I have too much debt to begin with. I filed an immediate dispute, to simply have the score fixed immediately. Absolutely unacceptable. Does this credit world have ANY common sense? So ridiculous. Could it be temporary?

15" MBPr (2012) getting Geekbench Score of 6500, Should be 10,000. HELP!?

Hi,
I always felt that my MBPr was under performing, and after about 10 months of it, I got fed up and started running benchmark tests... GB2 put this machine at <7,000 while other machines with the exact same spects are getting 11,000+. Could somebody please point in the right direction to get this corrected? I'm ready to run any tests or programs you guys recommond. Please help, as I have only 1 month left of warranty, and if this machine really is faulty, I'd like to get it fixed by then.
Thanks.

Here's the link to my model of MBPr. The low scores are my uploads... it's quite disheartening.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?q=model:%22MacBook%20Pro%20(Ret ina)%22%20platform:%22Mac%22%20processor:%22Intel%20Core%20i7-3615QM%22%20freque ncy:2300%20bits:32
Here's the output you guys wanted:
Hardware Information:
          MacBook Pro - model: MacBookPro10,1
          1 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7 CPU: 4 cores
          8 GB RAM
Video Information:
          Intel HD Graphics 4000 - VRAM: 512 MB
          NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M - VRAM: 1024 MB
System Software:
          OS X 10.8.3 (12D78) - Uptime: 0 days 0:8
Disk Information:
          APPLE SSD SM256E disk0 : (251 GB)
                    disk0s1 (disk0s1) <not mounted>: 209.7 MB
                    Macintosh HD (disk0s2) /: 215 GB (145.46 GB free)
                    Recovery HD (disk0s3) <not mounted>: 650 MB
                    BOOTCAMP (disk0s4) /Volumes/BOOTCAMP: 35.14 GB (3.22 GB free)
USB Information:
          Apple Inc. FaceTime HD Camera (Built-in)
          Apple Inc. Apple Internal Keyboard / Trackpad
          Apple Inc. BRCM20702 Hub
                    Apple Inc. Bluetooth USB Host Controller
FireWire Information:
Kernel Extensions:
          com.logmein.driver.LogMeInSoundDriver          Version: 1.0.0
          com.github.osxfuse.filesystems.osxfusefs          Version: 2.4.2
          com.bresink.driver.BRESINKx86Monitoring          Version: 9.0
Problem System Launch Daemons:
Problem System Launch Agents:
                 [failed] com.apple.mrt.uiagent.plist
Launch Daemons:
                 [loaded] com.adobe.fpsaud.plist
                 [loaded] com.ea.origin.ESHelper.plist
                 [loaded] com.google.keystone.daemon.plist
             [not loaded] com.logmein.logmeinserver.plist
                 [loaded] com.microsoft.office.licensing.helper.plist
Launch Agents:
                 [loaded] com.bumblebee.mousefixer.plist
                 [loaded] com.google.keystone.agent.plist
                 [failed] com.logmein.logmeingui.plist
             [not loaded] com.logmein.logmeinguiagent.plist
             [not loaded] com.logmein.logmeinguiagentatlogin.plist
User Launch Agents:
                 [failed] com.apple.CSConfigDotMacCert-(REMOVED, PERSONAL)-SharedServices.Agent.plist
                 [loaded] com.spotify.webhelper.plist
                 [loaded] com.valvesoftware.steamclean.plist
User Login Items:
          gfxCardStatus
          uTorrent
          USBOverdriveHelper
          BetterTouchTool
3rd Party Preference Panes:
          Flash Player
          Java
          USB Overdrive
Internet Plug-ins:
          Flash Player.plugin
          FlashPlayer-10.6.plugin
          googletalkbrowserplugin.plugin
          JavaAppletPlugin.plugin
          npgtpo3dautoplugin.plugin
          o1dbrowserplugin.plugin
          QuickTime Plugin.plugin
          SharePointBrowserPlugin.plugin
          Silverlight.plugin
          SlingPlayer.plugin
User Internet Plug-ins:
Bad Fonts:
          None
Top Processes by CPU:
              23%          ntfs-3g
               9%          mds
               2%          fontd
               1%          EtreCheck
               1%          WindowServer
               1%          activitymonitord
               0%          Activity
               0%          coreservicesd
               0%          Finder
               0%          SystemUIServer
Top Processes by Memory:
          205 MB          Messages
          128 MB          Google
          123 MB          WindowServer
          102 MB          mds
          74 MB          Dock
          33 MB          Activity
          33 MB          Finder
          25 MB          loginwindow
          25 MB          SystemUIServer
          25 MB          NotificationCenter
Message was edited by: delslow (added link to GB results)

Geekbench score - Why so low?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for