MOVED: Re: MSI: Making cards faster than Nvidia Allows

This topic has been moved to MSI Video Cards.
https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=167054.0

Similar Messages

The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than the error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine.

The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine. why does it register so many yellow, pink & blue warnings, errors, etc. ???
This happens no matter where I am browsing, yahoo, google, mail or news. Clearing the console seems to help with the speed of FF after an hour or so of browsing, it slows down terribly and if not cleared and or shut down and relaunching FF, both actually, it is painfully slow, like dial-up.

Hi Mac Attack,
My computer will not disconnect from the internet. It seems to find a clone router and continues even when I shut down and unplug my my own home iy
Your main question was 'chopped' in the title. Please reply in the body of a reply box with the full question and anything you have tried. And no, the long report was not helpful .
If the same website is opening each time you launch a browser (Safari?) hold down the shift key as you launch to prevent previous pages from opening.
Have a look at your settings in Safari > Preferences. Especially General and Privacy.
Reset Safari to remove cookies and other stored data.
System Preferences > General
Have a look at your settings in System Preferences > Security & Privacy.
Call back with more questions.
Regards,
Ian

We're working on getting drivers out - faster than most of our add-on sound card competito

"We're working on getting drivers out as fast as we can, and faster than most of our add-on sound card competitors."?Yes, that was?a direct quote from Dale on another thread?and we appreciate his input. Unfortunately, there are very few "add-on sound card" competitors to Creative. Though I do remember one post on this forum which had mentioned something about a competitor who had FULLY WORKING drivers for Vista including DD and DTS decoding . . . . hmmmm, where is that post . . . Oh yes, it was DELETED. :smileytongue:

I told you why your post was deleted in the Private Message I sent you, and I see you read it, so I am confused as to why you still do not understand. Your post was deleted because you REPOSTED SOMETHING A MOD ALREADY DELETED. If the post was deleted once, don't you think it'll get deleted again? This should be obvious. In addition to this the post was nothing but an attack on CL and an advertisement, and this is not allowed. If you have any further issues with my moderation, please feel free to PM it to me, but do not post about it on the open forum again, even as sly little remarks like in your other post, or it will be locked and you banned, ok?
Dale

MOVED: MSI Video Card

This topic has been moved to VGA products.
MSI Video Card

Please read and comply with the Forum Rules.
this is a user-to-user forum. no-one from MSI visits here.
maybe you will get better help if you give full details of your PC system, and try to explain in more detail your problem
PS you've also posted in the wrong forum, this one is for MSI's TV tuner cards. i'll move it to the right area.

NVidia GTX 780 Ti faster than GTX Titan

Today the GTX 780 Ti GPU is available starting at $699 and it is faster than the $1000 GTX Titan. We do not have any test results but all specifications point to it being faster. It has faster memory and more CUDA cores. The only difference is that the GTX Titan has 6 GB of video RAM while the GTX 780 Ti has 3 GB. Unless the media you are editing is higher than 4K, 3 GB of video RAM should be enough (see Harms data).
Will someone please move this to the hardware forum, I must have been dozing off Bill

The 3770k will be a great match for a single 780ti.
Maybe on an absolute scale. But in my previous post in this thread I compared to the PPBM6 results Harm's Monster achieved. (And granted, Harm's Monster was equipped with a GTX 680 when he tested it.) Thus, if my i7-3770K was 2.5x slower than Harm's Monster in the H.264 Blu-ray portion of the PPBM6 test suite (259 seconds versus 115 seconds), then the MPEG-2 DVD result should also be about 2.5x slower than Harm's Monster (in other words, a result of about 52 seconds compared to the 23-second result of Harm's Monster). However, since Harm's Monster used a GTX 680 to achieve those results at the time he tested it, it follows that the recommended GPU for my system to achieve that particular balance would have been a plain, non-Boost GTX 650 Ti.
That said, I tested a 2GB GTX 660 from eVGA (a GTX 660 SC) in both my auxiliary i5-2400 system and my main i7-3770K system, and while I do agree that the GTX 660 was a bit overkill with an i5 with only 16GB of RAM {its MPEG-2 DVD result of 40 seconds was 2 seconds slower than the same card did in my main rig although I cannot confirm whether the slower result was CPU-limited or RAM-limited (UPDATE: I investigated further, and the 2-second slower result was due to the auxiliary system's PCI-e x16 slot running at only PCI-e 2.0 instead of PCI-e 3.0 bandwidth)}, the GTX 660 would be a good match for an i7-3770K with a moderately overclocked CPU, 32GB of RAM and a two-disk RAID 0 with the latest-generation 7200 RPM disks (such as the 1TB to 3TB models in the Seagate 7200.14 line). In fact, the GTX 660 scored the same (38 seconds) as my old GTX 560 Ti 448 (which should really have been named a GTX 570 LE instead of its released name) in the MPEG-2 DVD portion of the PPBM6 test suite.
Message was edited by: RjL190365

Issues with MSI FX5600 cards

In my part time i build computers from a small buisiness i started while in university.
I have several issues concerning the new MSI FX5600 Cards, that have not been completely answered in any post that i have read here in the forums or in the poor FAQ section of the MSI website.
These cards have been around long enough now that MSI should start taking Customer service into consideration and start answering some of these issues that many have mentioned and have yet to get an answer to.
The first Set are Hardware related. Second are Software.
HARDWARE#1 First off is the poor construction of the heatsink/fan assembly on these cards, the one im using now, along with pretty much every one i have seen has large gaps between the RAM chips and the heatsink ( well its not really a heatsink more like a heat spreader plate).
The solution given in this forum is for the consumer to do the work of assembler himself (thats pathetic). So i guess MSI should stamp "some assembly required on their boxes and drop the price some $50 for the time it takes a user to repair this problem.
MSI should hire some good assembly people at your factories! I have installed many cards over the years and by far this is the worst heatsink assembly i have seen, which is quite obviously due to MSI using cheap labour done at a rapid rate.
Or just abandon this one heat spreader plate idea and paste individual passive heatsinks on each ram chip, like Asus and many others do.
And best idea yet is to Recall all your cards and offer everyone a decent heatsink solution to replace this poor design.
HARDWARE#2 Why is there no temperature monitoring on these FX cards? Simple question however i have yet to see an answer. Will there be in the future, or is there no temperature monitoring due to lack of a hardware, or do we all have to go buy thermocouples and connect them to our heatsinks, if we want to know the temp of our cards. Given the above #1 it would also be good to know the temp of the RAM given that many of the chips have no heatsink at all connected to them.
HARDWARE#3 The unit that plugs into the back of the VIVO cards never quite stay plugged in well and are so short that due to a lack of slack in the cable weight put on it by pluging in other cables tends to cause the whole unit to become unplugged. Why not just make that cable a litle bit longer?
HARDWARE#4 (related to above vivo connector unit) why use a (infra red )IR reciever connected to the video card? Why not just supply a seperate ir reciever and have that connected to a USB port or somthing else. Does it really make sense to have IR using the AGP resources? Also the quality of the ir reciever is absolutely the cheapest i have ever seen, and is awkward to place in any usefull position without using tape to stick it it to somthing.
Hardware#5 Cheap Remote control. Lots of buttons on it however most are really useless, and dont work anyways.
Instead of providing these remotes free with the cards, make a good remote remote control that uses RF (radio frequencies) instead of the awfull IR, and that can actually controll common software that people would normally use, or that ships with operating systems like media player etc.. Also why not have it also act as a second mouse like other manufacturers do?
SOFTWARE #1 Lets start off with the IR software or driver, I have used several other IR recievers/software that work perfect within windows. HOWEVER MSI has the absolute worst i have ever seen. The memory leaks everyone has is a perfect example of how poor their IR hardware/software work together. Will you be providing some new drivers to fix this? Or was providing a remote control just a gimmick to try and capture a few early customers?
SOFTWARE #2 the media center is so awfull, due to many reasons here are some.
a) for many people it wont even work to begin with
b) the resolution and more importantly Refresh rate ( 60hz ) is just plain stupid. ( i dont know anyone who can stand looking at a 60hz refresh rate for more then a few min without getting a headache).
c) use of remote control is full of bugs and is limited to this software alone.
d) i have yet to find any way of even adding pictures or other media files to the lists (not that i really care) this just points out the poor user interface.
I could go on about how bad it is, but i wont.
I recommend that MSI re-think their media centre and just get rid of it all together and start from scratch on somthing new. Try looking at what competitors such as ati's software and even Nvidia have as thier media centres. Also just dont use Intervideo's WinDVD and do like Asus and go with Cyberlinks PowerDVD.
c) lack of any monitoring software for video chip or ram heat status. This is related to the hardware comment #2
d) 11 cd's software bundell. Who cares why do you guys hype this if its basically 11 cds of old games that dont even use direct x9 capabilites of the card, or apps that i would question if anyone would even use. Most would prefer a drop in price versus having this large cd set.
Well that is it for now. Normally i would get paid for my ideas and suggestions where i work full time as a product development technologist, But this short list I provide freely hoping that MSI get their act together and make a better product. There is lots of potential there however it would require much more in terms of fixing these bugs that really reduce customer satisfaction and thus reduce sales especially in the customer recommendation sales.
Two last comments not related to the cards:
i) The packaging. is it really necessary to pay for the extra ink to put colorfull images within the inside of the box? could you not use that extra money saved and put it into either hiring better assemblers or making wires a little longer etc..?
ii) There is nothing mentioned in the manual concerning the Remote control its use or that of the media center.
It would now be nice if MSI would plese answer some of the above questions and sittuations and create a new FAQ for this card and have it available within the FAQ section of their website.
Thank you for reading this post.
hope for some improvements soon

I echo these words too. :O

Will my duel 800 G4 work with Leopard? Its fast than the 867 G4?

My duel 800 G4 was the top of the line when I purchased it, much faster than the 867 G4, which seems to be the limit on the new Leopard operating system. Will I still be able to upgrade? I have seen on other Apple forums many people asking the same question? I would appreciate any help.

Well, the minimum system requirements that Apple tells us really aren't always totally truthful. For example, they say OS 10.4 needs a minimum 256 MB Ram, and a DVD drive. That isn't true. I have tested this on a few different machines and found that the true minimum requirements are 192 MB for installation, 128 MB for running. On an ibook G3 500 mhz with 128 MB RAM, 10.4 ran surprisingly well. It was a little laggy of course, but it was stable and reliable. Also, you do not need a DVD drive, as you can use target disk mode to install the system from another computer (yes, the other computer needs a dvd drive...but I am speaking in specifics). What they say in their requirements is for the general public, but most of the time they aren't entirely dogmatic on those requirements.
If it were my guess, I would say 10.5 will probably run on your system. If they entirely cutoff installation based on clockspeed, I'm guessing some mac-hacker will figure it out.
Also, as far as your computer being top of the line "when you bought it"-that's the issue. Basically everyone's mac was top of line or near top of the line at it's release. But we all know the computer industry is not a slow moving market. Your computer can be outdated in a few months or a year. I helped a guy buy his first mac a few months ago (imac). 2 days later Apple released the new imac. That's the nature of computers. And you really can't expect Apple to keep supporting machines approaching 7 years old (my ol' Gigabit). They want to be at the head of the market, and pushing the old out is some times the only way to do it.
You always have the option to upgrade your system. Go and look at some cpu upgrade cards. They aren't all that expensive. For $400 I turned my dual 450 to a dual 1.4 Ghz (and don't forget the level 3 cache). Third party upgrades are what keep us old timers goin.

Problems running basic text in aftereffects faster than 19fps... what exactly do I need?

OK, so I finaly upgraded my computer into the mild 21st century, and to my disapointment, I cannot seem to run anything as smoothly as I had thought.
These are the specs for my computer...
ASUS m5a99x EVO motherboard
8 gigs ddr3 1600 ram
NVIDIA 9800gt 1 gig ddr3 gpu
AMD Phenom II x4 B50 Processor at 3.2ghz (IE its an AMD athlon II 450 X3 3.2ghz with its fourth core unlocked (of which i have had no problems with thus far, as it seems to be very stable)
150 gig 7200 sata 2 harddrive (OLD)
200 gig 5400 sata 2 hard drive (OLD AS SH*T)
300ghz portable usb2 hd (7200) (2 years old)
Basicly, I cant seem to run even basic text in after effects faster than 19 FPS.
I've tried to change the resolution to half, and even a fourth, and that didnt work at all, infact it made it run about 1 frame worse.
I tried changing the Open gl texture memory, raising and lowering, but to no avail, Ive changed the ram usage in after effects to use 2 gigs per core, then one gig, then turned off multiframe rendering alltogether, and nothing.
I feel like ive tried everything in my power.
Now the Imacs at my school, they run the program smooth as hell... and they arent that much better, spec wise than my computer.
Even my friends Imac can run it smooth, and he only has an I5 cpu at 2.4ghz, which is fine and my understanding of cpus is that those are better proccessors, but its not that much better, and even still, why would that be neccesary just to run text scrolling accross the screen?
Even more so, why would changing the resolution not have any effect?
What exactly do I need to run after effects smoothly for a basic text scroll at say, 720P?
I need to know what to upgrade, soon I plan to get cs6 and I would like to have a computer that can edit basic HD properly.
What I realy dont get is that I know people with laptops that are running AE smoothly and these are much worse than the specs on my machine, some even with only 4 gigs of ram...
Is there something wrong, do I have some sort of frame limiter thats capping at 19 fps? is there some sort of memory leak?
Any help would be much apreciated.
Now the only thing I can think of thats holding me back is the crappy hard drives, every thing else seems like it should at least run text on after effects at 30 fps.

thanks, that at least is enough to get me started, lol I have a deadline tomorrow and have been burning a lot of time on just trying to get this to run smooth.
BTW, I am running the project off of the portable, I switched from the old, but faster harddrive that was sata2 to the portable given I thought that might increase the speed, which it didnt.
what I might do is crack the case and just plug it straight into the computer, though I am hesitant to do so as if I were going to do that, I might as well just purchase a usb 3.0 one and do that so i can get sata 3 out of it, since those cases dont exactly just snap back together.
When I say basic text, I mean layered text, just word after word in order. I honestly dont have any plugins that I know of, (if I had the money for them I would have spent it on a better computer probably) so what I have is what came with the master collection.
And when I say 19 FPS I mean spacebar...
NOW I KNOW, that Im not garunteed 30 fps when running the preview, but when I use the mac, it previews fine... and i just looked up my CPU in comparison to the I5 in the IMAC that I was refering to, and mine is actualy faster according to some benchmarks, granted its not faster than the vast majority of I5s and I7s, but the particular ones in the computers I was refering to, mine is actualy faster over all, so I figure its not a CPU thing (unless its a -our software only works right on INTEL- thing).
Now as far as the 3d camera, yes I am using it, but even when I run the text without a camera function (ie the thing that you have in your comp) or any sort of 3d layering it runs just as slow.
The Audio might be a problem, I used to have a soundcard, but that died about a year ago so I have been using onboard sound (realtek HD something) which truly sucks in comparison to a proper sound card, but I cant imagine the IMACs have anything better, I mean the sound from the Imac kinda sucks alltogether, dosent even have any sort of virtual surround... But a driver issue it could be, realtek is kind of ghetto in that regard.
I will try some of the tips above (the open gl and the preview output and such), and thank you very much.
*EDIT*
OK, so with the preview output, I have computer monitor only? is that what you ment?
*EDIT*
OK, so I did the OpenGL thing, removed it, and for a brief few secconds, it started to run at a mix of 25 to 30 fps, then, when I went to play it again, it was back at 19.

Could it be that a 5 year old Sun T3 is 2x faster than a new Sun 3320?

We just purchased a brand new system to replace a system that has been in production for over 5 years and I am finding very disappointing performance results.
The old system is a SunBlade 2000( 2x 900 MHz, 4 GB RAM, Solaris 9) with a Sun T3 fiber array (9 x 36 GB 10K RPM drives, RAID 5 with a hot spare).
The new system is a Sun T2000 ( 8-Core 1.2 GHz, 16 GB RAM, Solaris 10) with a Sun 3320 SCSI array (12 x 300 GB 10K RPM drives, RAID 5 with a hot spare) + Ultra 320 SCSI card.
I first moved over our applications and ran a few tests and found that jobs were taking about 50% longer to complete. So I decided to take the application out of the equation and just run some basic test to compare the 2 systems.
Using some basic dd tests, I could push about 90 MB/s through the T3 and only about 40 MB/s through the 3320. I also tried running IOZone and it showed the same results. The T3 was 40%-50% faster on all reads, writes and combination operations. I tried all sorts of configurations with the 3320 including single bus and split bus as well as different RAID levels. Nothing seems to help the 3320.
I've opened a support case with Sun but they are bouncing me around support from group to group, from hardware to storage to kernel and back again. My VAR is doesn�t seem too interested in helping either. I'm still hoping for the best because my upper management is not happy that we spent over $65K for new equipment and our applications are going to be slower.
Could it be that a 5 year old Sun T3 is 2x faster than a new Sun 3320?

Not sure if any of this will help. but it doesn't hurt to cover the basics. You might want to start by double checking the SCSI negotiation between the server and the array. Below is an example from our 3310 that we've deliberately misconfigured.
sccli> show channels
Ch Type Media Speed Width PID / SID
0 Drive SCSI 80M Wide 6 / 7
*1 Host SCSI ASYNC Narrow 1 / N/A*
2 Drive SCSI 80M Wide 6 / 7
*3 Host SCSI ASYNC Narrow N/A / 1*
6 Drive FC(L) 1G Narrow N/A / N/A
7 Host LAN N/A Serial N/A / N/A
sccli>
What we have here are host channels that have not negotiated UP to desired parameters. Please keep in mind that we've set this up purposely in our lab for training. As you can see the host connections never go into synchronous transfer and they also never negotiate to a wide bus width. This effectively throttles down the connection between the server and array. There are several causes for these types of symptoms.
- Faulty or incorrect termination.
- Mismatched hardware.
- Faulty cable
- HBA drivers
- Incorrect SCSI settings.
Since you mentioned that you have Ultra 320 HBAs and the array is capable of negotiating up to these speeds, I'd suggest you check the negotiated link speed between your array and server. If you find that the SCSI channel is not negotiating up to the desired value, one place you can check would be the "SCSI Options" in the /etc/system file.
Below is a bit mask for the various setting options
* SCSI subsystem options
* Following are applicable to all interconnects
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_LINK 0x10 /* Global linked commands */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_TAG 0x80 /* Global tagged command support */
* Following are for parallel SCSI only
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_DR 0x8 /* Global disconnect/reconnect */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_SYNC 0x20 /* Global synchronous xfer capability */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_PARITY 0x40 /* Global parity support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST 0x100 /* Global FAST scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_WIDE 0x200 /* Global WIDE scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST20 0x400 /* Global FAST20 scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST40 0x800 /* Global FAST40 scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST80 0x1000 /* Global FAST80 scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST160 0x2000 /* Global FAST160 scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST320 0x4000 /* Global FAST320 scsi support */
Most systems have a setting of 7f8 which would only bring you to Ultra Fast Wide at 40MB per sec. Factor in the wide bus and your effective through put would be 80MB. If you find that the SCSI Options on your system are not set to support the Ultra 320 HBAs, you may want to bump up the settings here.
On the array side, you could also check to see if write cache is turned on and working.
sccli> show cache-parameters
mode: write-back
optimization: sequential
sync-period: disabled
current-global-write-policy: write-through
sccli>
In this array, the global cache setting is correctly set for write-back, but because of a fault in the array, the cache policy has defaulted to write-through. This is most common in single controller arrays (which this is). The array requires two operational controllers for write cache to be in effect.
Hopefully there is something here that you can use....

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!

Faster than realtime transferes..?

I have a new iMac, and I am using iMovie.
Is there a palmcamera that I can use that would let me transfer video as files instead of uploading them at realtime..?

Yes you want a camera that records to disc, HDD or SD card but not to tape. However they aren't always necessarily faster than real time, and your imac will play a great part in whether that's possible or not

Why is JVM faster than CLR?

hi
i wrote a N-body algorithm in both Java and C# (shown below). i executed it using .NET CLR and JDK1.4.1. in JDK it is twice as fast as .NET (on win2000). now i am trying to find out why is it so??
the interesting thing is that i ran some other algorithms like FFT and graph alogrithms, and they are faster in .NET. so i want to find is there some operation in the below algorithm that is making it run faster in JDK.
in general, what can the possible reasons be for JVM to run faster than CLR?
thanks
double G = 6.6726E-11;
double difference = 0.0;
for(int i=0; i<numBodies; i++)
     accelarations[i] = 0.0;
     for(int j=0; j<numBodies; j++)
          if(i != j)
          difference = radii[i] - radii[j];
          if(difference != 0)
          accelarations[i] += masses/(Math.pow(difference, 2));
     accelarations[i] *= G;

Interesting N-Body problem that treats accelerations as scalars.
Anyway, if there is no optimisation for small integer powers in the Math.pow() method, then I'd expect almost all the time is used there or in its equivalent in .NET. Hardly a meaningful test of relative performance.
Try using (difference * difference) instead.
Sylvia.

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

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.

Is the new release cycle really making Firefox faster?

The new release cycle of Firefox may help in increasing the overall speed and stability of Firefox and shorten the time, we have to wait for new features. However, at the moment this causes a lack in add-on support. If we gain speed and new features, but therefore abandon old features, that made us faster not by performance, but through a different style of using Firefox, then what have we won?
For example, with FF 5.0 - 7.0 the "Site Launcher" is not working anymore. Maybe Firefox is now loading pages faster, but I am at least twice as slow in navigating, because "Site Launcher" was - together with "All-in-one Gestures" - my most used Add-On.

Hi Patrice,
Within Apple’s slim new 21.5- and 27-inch iMacs are NVIDIA GeForce GPUs, based on our new Kepler-class architecture, which helps make them up to 60 percent faster than last year’s models. This follows news in June that Apple’s 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display uses Kepler GeForce GPUs.
The new 27-inch iMac offers the GeForce GTX 660M as its base GPU, with even faster GeForce GTX 675MX or GeForce GTX 680MX GPUs available. The 21.5-inch model comes with the GeForce GT 640M GPU, with an available upgrade to the GeForce GT 650M GPU.
http://blogs.nvidia.com/2012/10/big-imac-news-less-heft-more-kepler/
So, any Apps that use the GPU to assist GPU should be much faster.
Though I don't see it listed here, it may be too new, I suspect it may be supported...
http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/tech-specs.html

MOVED: Re: MSI: Making cards faster than Nvidia Allows

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for