Is Parralels faster than Bootcamp for my Imac?

I run mostly High Graphics Games like Minecraft-Bootcamp runs it ok, but would Parralels run faster, with less processor overhead, or emulation? My Imac isnt equipped with the fastest video card on the block...Looking for a better frame rate. Thanks in advance for any info!
Jim

you would need a Mac Pro or PC to use a discreet higher end graphic card..... and natively always always always for 3D, games and performance.
anytime you are running a guest OS and sharing resources is going to be crippled.
Boot Camp isn't something you run or even run under. It is drivers and a way to partition. Not even fully needed to run and install Windows.
An OS runniing directly natively on the hardware trumps any other.

Similar Messages

HT1899 Windows7/Bootcamp for 2008 iMac using Lion

Hi,
I'm trying to work out if I can install Windows 7 under Bootcamp on my older (Feb 2008) iMac (running Lion).
This article (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1899) implies I can, but the link under 'some Macs'
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1846
talks more about hardware and implies I need an iMac newer than Feb 2010.
Can someone clarify?
I'd prefer to use 64-bit.
Thanks.

mende1, thanks for the response.
OK, so I'll go for the 32-bit version.
I was a little confused initially because the only reference to 32-bit in http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1846 is that iMacs later than mid-2011 can use either 32- or 64-bit i.e. the newer machines can use both. Perhaps the post would benefit by clarifying the 32-bit only requirements for older machines like mine.
Thanks again.

Is USB3 a fast enough connection for 2013 iMac and Lacie 500gb 7200rpm drive?

Hi everyone,
I'm brand new here having just bought my first Apple product ever.
I'm planning to do some video editing taking mini DVACM video from from my Sony PD100AP. I do not expect to be doing complex video effects but want nice transitions including colur and sound corrections for approximately 1 to 1.5 hour DVD's.
I am planning to use an external drive to hold video files which seems to be the norm.
My question is, is the USB3 connection as good as some of the hype suggests? Will the data be transferred without loss or problems?
1 of my Mac's thunderbolt ports is currently feeding a second monitor and I am planning to connect the camera via the second thunderbolt port. I am hoping the USB3 will be sufficient to feed video to a Lacie 500GB 7200rpm external drive. I know the Lacie is not big but they are quite reasonably priced and have very good consumer feedback compared with other similar Lacies. I am prepared to buy more drives as new projects come along. I feel that having many drives is safer if something fails.

P Dannenberg wrote:
Will the data be transferred without loss or problems?
USB3 will work fine for your projects and will work fine if you later decide to start cutting HD material.
Russ

SCTL running faster than 40MHz for FPGA

There is possibility of executing SCTL on FPGA with derived clock rates like 80Mhz. But I found no detail information about the limitations and precision of FPGA in such resolutions, does anybody have an experience on this?

What do you mean by timing resolution?
If you create a derived clock at 80 MHz, and do all your design in that clock domain, you either WILL or WON'T successfully compile the design when it goes through the xilinx toolchain. The limiting factor on this is how much work is being done on each iteration of the SCTL. If you put a wildly complex algorithm in an SCTL and expect it to run at 80MHz, it won't do that (see previous post about pipelining a complex design within an SCTL). However, if a design compiles at 80MHz, it will ALWAYS run at 80MHz, and will always provide you sampling at 80MHz, as long as your inputs are in that 80MHz domain. One of the primary draws of FPGA design is that it is deterministic. If 80MHz is sufficient resolution for your application, you design an FPGA that compiles at 80MHz, then you should have high confidence that your application will work.
Please clarify if I'm not answering the right question.

I5 faster than i7 ???

I just visit this url : http://www.apple.com/imac/performance.html
there's down in the 'outstanding performance' tab, there i5 and i7 option to select. In fact it shows i5 faster than i7.
for example modo render can have 1.7x compare to i7 which is only got 1.3x.
I believe they're being compared to the same (baseline) mechine.
Is there something wrong ? anyone can explain ... any idea ???
Thanx

yes, i read the footnote, but still i was confused. You are right, they should have made that info clearer. All they need to do is putting more detail information and also , not all the user know about what is the 'previous system' specification is. Like i don't know how many ram is installed in prev system, or which graphic card and how much vram involved in the previous system. Yeah , i know i can googling it but why don't make my life easier . That's not fair saying it's 1.3x times faster compared to 'X' system. But in fact the 'X' is the black box which we are not sure what inside is. And also the previous generation .... 'previous' didn't indicating first previous or second previous or which previous. I's not stated clearly..... it just says ' previous ' . Apple should also made a footnote about what the 'previous' generation is. Many of apple fans also type of user who cares about the technical information.
Thanx

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

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

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

New iMac faster than my MacPro?

I've recently purchased a new 24" iMac for a 2nd home I have out west. After a few days tinkering with it I'm pretty positive that this new machine is quicker than my 2 year old MacPro that I have at home. I was hoping after looking at the specs below if people could confirm that this should be the case.
The reason I'm wondering is that I even though the iMac is brand new, the Mac Pro was and still is far more expensive than the iMac. The main reason I would like to know for sure is that since I work from home and have fairly advanced needs (two VMWare Fusion vms running on top of OSX 60+ hours a week working with important financial software), if the iMac is indeed faster I may be looking for an upgrade. Before I essentially toss my $2700 MacPro to the side though I want to make sure the lag that I notice that I don't yet see on the iMac couldn't be simply cured with an OS reinstall, which hasn't been done in over 2 years.
I'm also a little unsure of how to compare the Xeon vs the current Pentium processors, as well as how important the 1067mhz vs the 667mhz ram is to my needs. I basically run two Fusion VMs with 1gb dedicated to each one in Unity, Safari, iTunes, Mail, Adium, and Skype occasionally.
Specs for each machine..
24" iMac - 2.93ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB Ram 1067mhz, 600gb ATA HD, NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 256MB
MacPro w 30" Cinema - 2 x 2.66Ghz Dual Core Intel Xeon, 5GB Ram 667mhz, 250GB ATA HD, NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT
All advice greatly appreciated.

I'm also a little unsure of how to compare the Xeon vs the current Pentium processors
No Intel Mac has ever had a "Pentium" inside.
The Mac Pro would be faster for applications that are designed to use multiple processors. It has 4 cores versus 2 in the iMac.
VMware Fusion has a option (in the virtual machine's settings) to use more than one +virtual processor+, but it is not as efficient booting the OS directly. Also, it probable that things like the financial software you are running on the virtual machine is itself not designed to take advantage of multiple cores. Therefore, CPU clock speed becomes the overriding factor for performance in your case. Since the new iMac runs at 2.93 GHz versus 2.66 GHz for the Mac Pro, it is certainly possible that your iMac is faster than the Mac Pro, in your situation. If you were running Final Cut Studio or Logic Studio (or other app that takes advantage of all the cores), the Mac Pro would be faster.
Also, Snow Leopard has a new technology called Grand Central Dispatch
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#grandcentral
which is supposed to make use of multiple cores more efficient under Mac OS X. I don't think it will have too much impact on existing third-party software, but it will be interesting to see what the developers at VMware and other third-parties software firms can do with it. So your Mac Pro with four cores may become more efficient (faster) under Snow Leopard.

Why is my MacBook downloading faster than my new Imac?

I have a two year old Macbook; 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM with about 30GB left of memory. I also just purchased, from apple, a 27" Imac; 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 with 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3. and have just under 850GB left. The Macbook is running on 10.5.8 and the Imac is on 10.6.3.
My issue is that when i download/stream video to my Imac it takes a substantial amount of time. I love to watch movies, tv shows, ect, on my Imac. I was disappointed by how slow the downloads would take. So I set up my macbook right in front of the Imac to compare the speeds. I went to the Movie Trailers section on apple.com and I clicked on The Last Airbender 1080p (149MB) at the same time for both computers (on WiFi of the same network). My macbook finished the download 5 minutes faster than the Imac. I then tried the 42MB version with a minute difference with the Macbook. I then went to youtube and it was almost the same speed. I tried Itunes and it was about the same speed as well. I then did an internet speed test with both and got these results:
Macbook: Download 18.45Mb/s, Upload 2.28Mb/s, Ping 93
IMac: Download 20.88Mb/s, Upload 2.3Mb/s, Ping 89
I don't know if any of this information helps or if anyone will even read this far but the apple store is extremely far from my house and would try almost anything to fix this issue. My questions are:
1) Is this a known issue that has a fix, if so how do i fix it?
2) Is this possibly a faulty computer that i would have to return?
3) Is this the way it's supposed to operate and if I don't like it take it back
Thanks in advance for anyone who even reads this post.

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.

Why is my iMac 450/128 much, much faster than my Powerbook 333/512?

Hey boys and girls,
I'm sort of new to the Mac world, but I'm working hard to become clever.
So, here's the story. I have a Powerbook Bronze 333MHz with 512MB of RAM and the Toshiba 6GB drive it was born with and 10.3.9. I have a Bumbleberry (I think that's the "official" colour) iMac at work with a G3 at 450MHz and only 128MB of RAM also running 10.3.9.
The iMac runs much, much faster than the Powerbook, despite barely meeting the minimum RAM requirements of 10.3. What are some possible reasons for this? I understand that this ain't no speed machine, but the Powerbook is so slow that there is a second or two second typing delay in an Adium chat window for heaven's sake.
OK, so the iMac is technically faster, but I feel as though there is something wrong with the performance of the Powerbook, especially with all the RAM I've thrown at it (the Activity Monitor says that the PB has roughly 140MB of free RAM right now). I have a newer 40GB 5400 RPM drive that I'm tempted to install, to see if the 6GB drive is just old and tired (it whines a bit, so I'm sure it is to some degree) -- am I wasting my time?
Thanks for any help in advance.
Ugli
PB Bronze Mac OS X (10.3.9)

ugli:
Welcome to Apple Discussions.
You are well on the way to becoming clever. Really. Just by logging in and posting here you have started a process of learning that can go on until you are really clever.
There are a number of reasons your iMac seems faster that the Lombard. One is that it has a faster processor. Secondly, even with more RAM your Lombard has a small, slow HDD. I don't know how much free space there is on your HDD, but 6 GB fills up quite quickly these days. I am sure the larger (and faster) HDD will make a difference. I had maxxed out the RAM on my Pismo, but it was when I installed a larger, faster HDD that I noticed the difference. And, of course, when I upgraded the processor I noticed the biggest difference. Still not match for the newer faster machines, but then, I'm not as fast as I used to be either.
Good luck in your quest.
cornelius
PismoG4 550, 100GB 5400 Toshiba internal, 1 GB RAM; Pismo 500 OS X (10.4.5) Mac OS X (10.4.5) Beige G3 OS 8.6

Is an Intel iMac faster than PowerMac G4 1.25 Ghz single proccesor?

Hi, I'm owner of a PowerMac G4 1.25 Ghz single proccesor, working whit Adobe Creative Suite 1. I'm wonderin if the iMac Intel Core Duo is faster than my PowerMac G4? Thanks for your support.

I have a 1.25 G4 Mac Mini and the new intel Mac. The answer to your question is that the iMac will be loads faster for anything that is a native Universal Binary like iLife programs. It will also be faster for games that are not the latest thing, but that are accelerated by its fairly beefy 3d card - so faster for Halo, Call of Duty - Unreal Tournamaent1 etc. (other Unreal tournaments not good under Rosetta - but 2004 now has a UB so that should whizz when you download the patch, if you are into such things).
However it will be slower for power applications running under Rosetta - ie: Photoshop or Dreamweaver. Until the Universal Binary versions come - then it will be much faster for those too.

Air faster than imac

i have a 1.6 ghz 80 gb air and it is faster than my imac 2.0 ghz 250 gb 1 gb ram why? thanks

Your MBA has twice the RAM at 2 GB than your imac at 1 GB. If you exceed your physical RAM, then the disc is utilized more for virtual RAM and is thus slower.
All MBAs have 2 GB RAM standard and the bus is also faster than some older imacs.
Use your MBA happily with the increased memory and speed.
Message was edited by: Rhyd

I am running Snow Leopard 10.6.8 with bootcamp 3.3 on my Imac 2011. I need to updgrade to mountain lion. If I first upgrade to mountain lion, how do I go about upgrading from bootcamp 3.3 to latest bootcamp for mountain lion?

I am running Snow Leopard 10.6.8 with bootcamp 3.3 on my Imac 2011. I need to updgrade to mountain lion. If I first upgrade to mountain lion, how do I go about upgrading from bootcamp 3.3 to latest bootcamp for mountain lion?
I have seen a lot of discussions upgrading from Boot Camp 4 to 5 but no answers upgrading from boot camp 3.3 to 5. My worry is that if I upgrade from snow leopard to mountain lion, that my bootcamp partition will no longer be able to boot up. There seem to be a lot of threads suggesting problems that are possible. Has anyone gone through this upgrade with success?

Before doing any installation restart OSX from your 10.6 Snow Leopard DVD and use Disk Utility to Both Repair The Disk and Repair the Permissions of your Macintosh HD.
Next remove your Snow Leopard DVD and restart your iMac into OSX.
Update to the latest version of OS X Snow Leopard by clicking the Apple icon and choose Software Update to install Snow Leopard v10.6.8, the latest version.
Use Time Machine to make a Full Backup of your Macintosh HD.
Shut down and restart into Windows by holding the Option key at the chime and selecting Windows.
Now use Windows Backup to make a Full Image Backup of your Windows Installation to a removable drive.
Shut Down and Boot back into OSX.
Open the Mac App Store from your Dock to buy and download Mountain Lion. Then follow the onscreen instructions to install it.
Upgrading your OSX to 10.8 should not effect the Windows Partition at all since you are only upgrading the Mac side. You should not have to run the Boot Camp Assitant 5 Utility in OSX at all.
Your Boot Camp 3.3 Windows Support Drivers et. al only effect your Windows installation and should continue to run fine after upgrading.
Which version of Windows do you already have installed on the existing Boot Camp Partition?
Is it 32 bit or 64 bit?

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

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

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

"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

Any Program to sort by keywords faster than CS-PS6-Bridge For Keyword Search?

To sort by keywords in (CS-PS6)-Bridge one has to group all your folders under one overall folder. Then when you search by keywords (CS-PS6)-Bridge opens up all the photos in Bridge which take avery long time. Since Lightroom Smart Previews open up smaller files will it open up all ones pictures faster? and then can it sort by keywords.
I am assuming Lightroom smart preview opens up a larger size file than CS6-PS-6-Bridge and thus is even slower.
So the question becomes are there Any Program to sort by keywords faster than CS-6-Bridge For Keyword Search? i.e A program that doesn't have to open up a file to look at keywords or a way to open smaller thumbnails in Bridge?

Really?
You mean you can't just click on the Magnifying Glass in the Search Box like I can?
Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!
And then Select Rating?
Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!
And then click on the Third Dot and it will become a Star?
Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!
Or even use a Smart Album? File -> new Smart Album: My Rating -> is -> And there's click on the third dot to make it a star trick again?
Regards
TD

Is Parralels faster than Bootcamp for my Imac?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for