Poor graphics performance over time

I've seen an issue ever since upgrading to Lion where after some period of time (haven't nailed down how long, but measured in hours) 3D game performance suffers greatly (60+fps down to 12fps). Rebooting fixes the issue until it sits long enough.
The drop doesn't seem to happen mid-game... only after leaving for a while and returning to the computer. I've run all the usual diagnostics. The iMac does not "sleep" during that time (i have it set to always on). During the performance slow down, all system stats look normal: no spikes in CPU usage, memory usage, etc. All internal temperatures report out normal as well. No other hardware or software changes other than the Lion upgrade. When the FPS slow down is occuring, all system animations also suffer (sliding in Dashboard, Dock magnification, etc). Quit the game and the system animations come back to full speed.
The game I play most often's technical support is worthless (i'm looking at you Blizzard), so I'm hoping someone else has run in to this issue, or that an actual support person can help without telling me to run a permissions check.
Thanks!

FromPC2Mac wrote:
I just bought this MacBook Pro the 26th and it came with Leopard. After installing XP on the system, I can't get over the fact of the poor graphics performance. Even moving windows would result in a bad frame rate. Obviously, this is caused by a lack of "good" drivers for the GeForce 8600M GT. The drivers from Nvidia aren't working, so either this is the best of Windows I'm getting on this system or there's some sort of driver that I haven't heard of. Does anyone have any insight on this?
First off... Congrats on buying a MBP!
You might be interested in this thread:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1200236&tstart=0
Hopefully this will help.
Good luck.

Similar Messages

Poor graphics performance.

Hi.
Include your product name and specs such as processor speed, memory, and storage capacity. Please do not include your Serial Number, IMEI, MEID, or other personal information.
Macbook Pro retina (early 2013)
2.7 GHz Intel Core I7
16GB 1600 MHz DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 1024 MB
512 GB SSD
Provide the version numbers of your operating system and relevant applications, for example "iOS 6.0.3" or "iPhoto 9.1.2".
OS X 10.9.3 (13D65)
Describe the problem, and include any details about what seems to cause it.
My rMBP has poor graphical performance compared to other rMBP. I think there might be something wrong inside it. Appstore or Steam games for Mac (Bioshock Inf and Max Payne 3) at lowest graphical settings will give me between 5-10FPS. I think this might be weird for such a well specced computer.
List any troubleshooting steps you've already tried, or temporary fixes you've discovered.
Formatting, bootcamp with Win7, Updating to mavericks, stopping apps, Reset SMC.
Nothing has worked yet. I don't play games often, but since i first started trying a few times last year, i've noticed that it's almost impossible,

You should be getting more FPS. Do you have switched graphic card option on or off in the energy saving section?

Slow Performance Over time, Drawing Access Forms

we've been using a small access database for almost a year now, written from scratch using only Access 2013
over time drawing of one of the forms slows right down, once the form is draw its fine, but if you switch to a different form at the top then switch back it draws slow, maybe 7-8 seconds compared to the usual 1 second, sometimes it can work all day no problem,
sometimes after an hour it starts drawing the form slow, the only way to cure it is to restart the machine.
Logging off and logging back on doesn't cure it, only restarting it, it does get restarted every night automatically as an attempt to help the problem
this happens on 2 machines, both have intel HD graphics, (previously one was using a NVidia GT 250 which had appalling performance in design mode (even with hardware acceleration disabled) so we switched to the on-board, although this issue happens
with both machines)
Back end gets compacted/and repaired every night on a schedule as I did notice a big slow down if you let that go a couple of weeks, I've decompiled/recompiled the front end, short of re-writing the form I'm not sure what to do, it does have a lot of controls,
around 30 textboxes 1 combo box + 20 or so labels and 4 buttons, one embedded report, it only happens on this one form, I have embedded reports in other forms which don't have the same issue and have the same number of controls.
I'm a bit of a loss, its not a huge issue, but just an annoyance, when I get time I'm tempted to try recreating the form from scratch, but there is a lot of VBA code behind it, before trying that just wondering if there are any suggestions to improve performance?
*edit* the form is loaded from a list of customers, so it gets opened closed a lot, I thought simply hiding the form instead of loading/unloading all the time would speed it up, it does slightly improve the speed after viewing the second lot of details,
however it suffers the safe fate of slowing down over time, it seems to be only drawing the form and not accessing the db

I think you would benefit from a code review by a strong Access developer. What you are describing is not normal and may be caused by systematic programming choices.
-Tom. Microsoft Access MVP
Just wondering, once this does happen going into design mode on any form is slow to draw, but only the one form at runtime once it starts happening.
the only visible difference apart from waiting is seeing the 'property sheet' on the right hand side gets visibly drawn left to right on any form once this happens, switch back to form view you see it get wiped out slowly, fade from left to right as it blanks
the form out
I had this 'slow' behaviour constantly with the NVidia card in one of our machines, even on new blank databases.
I'm not even sure if this is linked to the form I've made or not, its just the only reason I notice it is that it's frustrating to use.
Is this code review idea something that people volunteer to check or is it a paid service?

Fm2-a85xma-e35 A10 5800k poor graphics performance

Hi guys,
Made a new build with fm2-a85xma-e35 and A10 5800k and getting very poor graphics. Windows
WEI aero score of 4.8, wow running at ~25 fps on low, poor Photoshop open gl performance, and choppy Windows performance when dragging Windows around. Feels like no graphics driver is installed. Been tinkering for a week and even rma'ed a new apu and still the same. I know people say get an independent graphics card for good performance, but this is the issue of the apu not working properly on this board and not me trying to get gtx performance from an apu. Anyone have this combo can help? Thanks!
Specs:
A10 5800k
CCC 13.12
Fm2-a85xma-e35 bios v2.2
Gskill ripjawsx 2x4g 2133 9-11-11-31 running properly in dual channel
Antec neo eco 400c psu
Win7 ultimate 64 bit sp1

Quote from: badboy2k on 01-February-14, 14:22:03
try dedicating some more Memory to it in BIOS! (it may be being choked there!)
I dedicated memory to 1gig and still the same results. Stock was at 768mb. others are set at 512mb and still have proper test results. I don't think it's the vram, there's definitely something wrong.
Only thing is I'm using ripjawsx 2133 ram, on MSI's site it states max supported is 1600 ram for ripjawsx. Ram runs fine but wondering if that can be causing a problem?
I really don't want to RMA the board as it'll take 15 days to test and determine if it's faulty before sending me a new one IF it's determined to be faulty. Everything is working on the board except the poor graphics of the APU and the current buzzing sound with cool n quiet on.
I also RMA'd the cpu already, but what are the chances of me getting 2 bad CPU's in a row?

Any WebI reports / graphs for job chain performance over time?

I am trying to get reports over time that contain job and job chain information such as job chain, job description, elapsed time, job status, etc to allow for trend reporting against the job schedules. Thanks for any help. I would have thought that there was some basic reporting that could execute and be saved for reporting and reference.

Hi Robert,
For WebI/Graph report, you need to create the Dashboard but it will not give details which you required. It will be created on basis over day, time and dialer. You can find the option there for Graph/Techno etc.
If you want to create the report, please refer to below thread:
Re: Question on Reporting
CPS Report with Schedule and Job Parameter Information
Regards,
Abhishek Singh

How to actually build a great linux machine? Poor graphics performance

I can't believe I am asking this question myself. I've been using linux since 1996, SuSE version 4.1...And yet I am still not able to put together a well performing machine.
I bought a simple box a few months ago. I am a software developer. I don't need high end graphics nor RAID nor stuff like that. My main goal is to have a fast responsive machine. I installed arch linux on it, and i3 as desktop environment - really it should be quite fast.
And yet...the machine responsiveness is very low, especially graphics lag A LOT. I know I didn't opt for a high end graphics engine - but shouldn't such a modern machine be enough for lag-free youtube and other video watching? Lag-free firefox browsing?
Maybe I just misconfigured my machine, and that's what my question is about. Some hardware info follows below. As you can see, I have a AMD E-350 processor with 8GB-RAM - I should think this would be quite enough for a standard linux installation...
What I also did is, as the MoBo comes with a GPU/processor bundle, I thought that maybe upgrading just the graphics card may have some impact - nope. I bought a AMD HD5450 card with 1GB RAM (!!!) - and still I can't enjoy a fluent video on youtube, nor a sufficient experience web browsing...(maybe it's even better to have the original GPU than the added card I bought?). Of course I know that modern browsers are pretty demanding, but I should think such a machine should be able to handle it?
I read the posts on the arch linux forum about optimizing video, and AMD cards are not very well reviewed really...
There are infinite sites about how to choose your distro, there are hardware compatibility lists - but are there any tutorials or guides which actually help setting up a fast and responsive machine?
* Is my machine maybe badly configured?
* Does it just have a bad hardware set up? Should I maybe replace one or the other piece to cheaply get satisfactory performance?
* Am I just asking too much from my cheap hardware?
I am considering replacing the whole MoBo (I know it was cheap and I shouldn't expect too much from it, but I thought I should be able to tweak it...)
(lshw):
*-memory
description: System memory
physical id: 0
size: 7967MiB
*-cpu
product: AMD E-350 Processor
vendor: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD]
physical id: 1
bus info: cpu@0
size: 800MHz
capacity: 800MHz
width: 64 bits
capabilities: fpu fpu_exception wp vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp x86-64 constant_tsc rep_good nopl nonstop_tsc extd_apicid aperfmperf pni monitor ssse3 cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch ibs skinit wdt arat hw_pstate npt lbrv svm_lock nrip_save pausefilter vmmcall cpufreq
*-pci:0
description: Host bridge
product: Family 14h Processor Root Complex
vendor: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD]
physical id: 100
bus info: pci@0000:00:00.0
version: 00
width: 32 bits
clock: 66MHz
configuration: latency=32
*-pci:0
description: PCI bridge
product: Family 14h Processor Root Port
vendor: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD]
physical id: 4
bus info: pci@0000:00:04.0
version: 00

If I am not mistaken, the E-350 is equivalent to the Intel Atom D525. I have the D525 and use it in my media center. It performs very well at one task at a time, but dies a horrible death under multi tasking situations like a desktop. I blame browsers. I have a top-end laptop with the second fastest mobile i7 I could buy (in Dec 2014), a Geforce GTX 970m, that shares 6GiB VRAM with the intel 3D chip, and on top of all that 32GiB quality RAM with reasonable latencies. I'd really like to brag, because the thing was insanely expensive, but there are no grounds for bragging. When I open a browser, I still feel like it's 2004, everything is sluggish and slow and websites become more full of crap every day, everything is big and blaoted. The desktop, no matter which one, does not feel the least bit snappier than it used to ten years ago, although the processing power has multiplied. Desktops now have more crappy features, more "connectivity", more need to do everything. The immense availability of fast hardware and fast networks in metropolis of metropolis centered countries creates the illusion of an abundance of everything. And now I'm sitting here and all I want is a low power low cost machine to do every day tasks. While the industry is going on and on about the internet of things, I still wait for the day the internet of people happens.
It's not you. It's like interface designers are trying to mock us. Instead of snappy technology on snappy hardware with snappy code and a snappy workflow, we get "our interface is based on common technologies like HTML and CSS" in the ads for a static local operating system. Nothing ever works. We just had arrived at the following points in tech development:
- Gnome probably had every possible feature on the planet, that made a desktop useful, there were plugins for everything, a setting, a switch.
- Web sites on big screens finally became versatile, feature rich and less static.
- Desktops generally performed very well. Click-Action without a delay.
Then the following happened:
- Gnome 3, new desktop concept, rewrite, all the plugins are gone, I have to re-learn everything from the scratch and, since it was new, I have to re-arrange my workflow.
- Now we are supposed to look at the internet through a <5" screen. If feels like 2001 again, browsers suck, where are my addons, my plugins, my customization?
- Desktops use simple languages, that swallow performance like a maniac.
Of course you cannot really buy classic stuff the way it was, because the consumer marked is trend based, not centered around ergonomics. Another five years from now on:
- Gnome 3 has all the good features and works well for everybody, because there are plugins, custom interfaces and whatnot. But it has to be replaced by Gnome 4, because it does not work well with tactile feedback and bowel movement based controls. Adapting the old system is not possible, let's do it again.
- Mobile browsers are finally comfortable, but we are not supposed to look at the internet at all anymore, information has been simplified to the point, where it is sufficient to put small plugs into our orifices to be informed about everything important by short bursts of vibration and temperature change.
- Desktops had a chance to catch up with the inefficiency of a "if it's not interpreted or byte code, then I don't want it" mentality, but now everything has to be in 3D, projected on thin air with a multi trillion cubic voxel resolution. And everything is slow again.

Poor iSCSI Performance over 10GbE connection.

Hi Solaris Folks,
I'v a setup of two SunFire X4540 connected over a 10GbE link (a Cisco Catalyst 4507 in the middle) using Sun's Dual 10 GbE NIC (X1027A-Z) on both machines.
The plan is to provide the 2nd machine a ZFS volume via iSCSI from the 1st machine. The 1st machine has a ZPool wiht 22x 2-way mirror vdevs and a locale
FileBench test shows good results.
I've now configured the 1st machine to share a ZFS volume via iSCSI and on the 2nd machine I used that target as a raw-device for a new ZPool. If I now run
FileBench againt the "iSCSI-ZPool" I get results which are far away from the local benchmarks and far away from really using the 10GbE link (most times the
bandwidth is around 1,5 GBit/s).
Did a couple of performance tuning which I found in the Sun Blogs and Wikis but without any luck to increase the performance significantly.
Anybody out there who tried the same (iSCSI over 10GbE)? Any experience with iSCSI performance? Suggestions?
Here is an overview about the changes I made:
iSCSI Initiator only:
tcp-nodelay=1; in /kernel/drv/iscsi.conf
iSCSI Targer only:
Configured a TPGT so that only the 10GbE connection can be used.
On both machines:
tcp_recv_hiwat 400000, tcp_xmit_hiwat 400000, tcp_max_buf 2097152, tcp_cwnd_max 2097152 on /dev/tcp via ndd
soft-lso-enable = 1; and accept_jumbo=1; within nxge.conf
MTU on both NICs is set to 9194. Jumbo Frames are also configured on the Cisco switch ports.
Regards,
Lemmy

The answer could be .. don't use ZFS volumes
I have an SSD and a simple Seagate disk. Both on SATA. Same capacity of 74.53GB
If I use those disks to create a pool and make volumes on the pool and then
use the shareiscsi property to create a target (and there is plenty of documentation
describing that as the easy way to do it ) the performance
is dreadful.
If on the other hand I use iscsitadm to make a target out of the devices of two disks using commands like this
for example
iscsitadm create target --type raw -b /dev/dsk/c4t0d0
iscsitadm create target --type raw -b /dev/dsk/c4t1d0
and then on the initiator create the pool then the performance is entirely different!
A bit more detail:
For example I built a target out of a zfs volume then on the initiator I wrote to the pool using zfs send/recv with about 3.2GB. It took 26 minutes 24 sec - pathetic.
I almost gave up waiting!
So i exported the these useless zfs pools, removed the static-configs etc and cleared the zfs property etc and started again.
If the target is instead built "manually" using iscsitadm e.g. "iscsitadm create target --type raw -b /dev/dsk/c4t0d0" (dsk or rdsk it doesn't seem to make much difference)
the same write test takes just 3 min 12sec.
So in this example Solaris 10 10/09 (x86) the performance degrades by a factor of 8 if you use zfs volumes. Nice idea ... easy to use but ... terrible overhead.
At least for SATA disks.
Incidentally for a SATA SSD disk the factor is not so bad (5 min vs 3 min) . However an ordinary disk like ST3808110AS .. 8 times slower with zfs volumes.
No idea why .. but easily reproducible.
So .. what do you see if you don't use zfs volumes but instead use the disk device name itself (whole disk remember - not a slice)
For target and initiator I was using Solaris 10 10/09 (x86) on a v20z with 3rd party eSATA card. SunOS kernel patched recently to 5.10 Generic_142901-10 on the target.

Any one else having poor graphics performance in Lion?

I have a three year old MacMini (nVidia chipset and 4GB RAM) driving a Samsung TV/monitor at 1080p. On 10.6.8 everything was beautiful, but on Lion the graphics is noticeably choppy. Even the mosaic screensaver runs poorly. Apple, I was your greatest fan, but this could be your Vista moment. Lets have a driver update asap please.

I reverted to Snow Leopard or I use Windows 7 which is not as pretty but it works much better.
Lion is dreadful, simply horrible to create content. And what I have heard of the next version, well count me out, I'd rather have computer I can upgrade unlike the move towards soldered RAM, SSD and gluing batteries so that repairs that may have taken hours might now take weeks...BUT Lion is the worst. It's like MS took over Apple and made it a mess...I do not want iOS on my Mac Pro! And it's simply the worst OS ever. Snow Leopard is amazing and it works: why did they want to mess with it? They keep their hardware designs for years why mess with OSX it worked but now we have Facebook everywhere..why?
English_Exile wrote:
I have a three year old MacMini (nVidia chipset and 4GB RAM) driving a Samsung TV/monitor at 1080p. On 10.6.8 everything was beautiful, but on Lion the graphics is noticeably choppy. Even the mosaic screensaver runs poorly. Apple, I was your greatest fan, but this could be your Vista moment. Lets have a driver update asap please.

Poor CLOB performance over dblink

These statements take 4 seconds to complete:
drop table t_test purge;
create table t_test as
SELECT CONTENT_ID,SITEID
from sitecontent@remotedb;These statements don't complete after at least 10 minutes of waiting:
drop table t_test purge;
create table t_test as
SELECT CONTENT_ID,SITEID, BODY
from sitecontent@remotedb;The only difference is that the second SQL contains a reference to BODY, which is a CLOB column.
The SITECONTENT table consists of just 2815 records. The CONTENT_ID and SITEID columns are NUMBER. A max(length(body)) returns a result of 29,005. And a count where length(body)>15000 returns just 115. So we are not talking about huge amounts of data for the table, nor large amounts for very many rows. Certainly not enough, I would have thought, to explain a difference in completion times between about 4 seconds and apparently forever.
Is this a known issue with CLOBs over database links? (I have looked, but not found anything relevant). Is there anything I can do to remedy the situation (not asking for quick fixes, just any steps I can plod my way through!). When I look at the local database, it's just constantly waiting on SQL*Net message from dblink.
This is 11.2.0.1 on RHEL5.5 x86_64.
Thanks in advance.

Well, I tried that:
Connected.
SQL> set autotrace traceonly explain statistics;
SQL> create table t_test as select ctext from clobtest@remotedb;
Table created.
SQL>No statistics were displayed, in other words. (Same result when selecting vtext, as it happens). I don't think autotrace works on DDL statements, does it? It's working fine for selects, though. So, ignoring the create table bit for now, here's the Vtext statistics:
SQL> select vtext from clobtest@remotedb;
2831 rows selected.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 1402521094
| Id | Operation              | Name     | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     | Inst   |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT REMOTE|          | 2994 | 5853K|   312   (1)| 00:00:04 |        |
|   1 | TABLE ACCESS FULL     | CLOBTEST | 2994 | 5853K|   312   (1)| 00:00:04 |   RMDB |
Note
   - fully remote statement
   - dynamic sampling used for this statement (level=2)
Statistics
          0 recursive calls
          0 db block gets
          0 consistent gets
          0 physical reads
          0 redo size
    3629480 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
       2428 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
        190 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
          0 sorts (memory)
          0 sorts (disk)
       2831 rows processedI can't produce the equivalent Ctext statistics, of course, since a select from a remote clob simply generates an ORA_22992.
I'm sort-of stumped at this point.

Poor graphics performance on Macbook Pro with windows 7 bootcamp

I have a 13" Non-Retina Machbook Pro with Intel HD 4000 Graphics, purchased around 2 years ago. I installed Bootcamp for certain assignments for school, running Windows 7, and started playing videogames on it. I played Dark Souls and Chivalry, mainly, and both ran reliably at a pretty mediocre framerate but with decent graphics settings. I picked up Dark Souls 2 in the summer, and was able to run it and medium-high graphics with decent framerate. several months later, after not having played on Windows for a while, I came back to Dark Souls 2, but found that the game would run with this strange, pulse-y lag, like everything would animate quickly for a moment before pausing and continue again. the framerate itself was normal, it would just stutter constantly. (about one pause per second) and it wasn't a complete freeze, either. The game would move very slowly for a moment instead of freezing.
Anyway I was surprised and decided to test it with Chivalry. Same Problem. Kingdoms of Amalur, same problem. All of these were windows only so I decided to compare something that could run on both platforms. I tested it with league of legends - Mac side: Medium-high graphics with 60 fps. Windows side: Low graphics with pulsing lag and 30fps.
I read through some articles and found something about SMC reset. Tried that. No effect.
Then I updated my drivers. No effect.
Any idea what's wrong with my windows-side graphics?

I have Windows 7 Pro Boot Camped on my Mac Mini (late 2012) HD 4000 as well. Nvidia driver. On a graphics intense game of mine I have learned to just get by. Unfortunately using Nvidia or other graphics driver updates through Windows Update is the best you can do. I would not attempt or recommend a newer graphics driver from the manufacture website. You may end up rendering your Windows unusable. Windows 7 has great benefits on a Mac, but, limited user options. One of my graphics intense programs had to be found and purchased from the App Store. Windows version just would not run correctly. If you are stuck with the RAM that came with your MBP, you may want to upgrade to 8 or the full 16 GB of RAM which may help. Otherwise I find Windows to run quite well. I use it for DVD playback and Media Center which runs great. I have 4 GB of RAM. Cheers!

Poor graphic performance?

I have MBP 13", 2011 version, core i5 and HD 3000 graphics. I play openGL based game via boot camp on windows 7 64 bit, Counter-Strike 1.6 and I am not able to reach stable 100fps in this 11 or 12 years old game. When I see 4+ players on screen my fps is between 60-90 fps. When HE grenade eplodes in front of me it drops down to 30 fps . I already tried everything, like changing settings ingame, in intel control panel in windows and i've downloaded the newest drivers. Nothing helped. Do you guys have some advice for me? I'm really mad, it's the only game i want to play and i believed this computer can handle it with no problem on stable 100 fps.

It is a driver problem. More about the problem: https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/T400-T500-and-newer-T-series/T550-CPU-Throttle-on-Windows-8-1/td-p/2087644

Internet performance degrades over time with AirPort Extreme

Hello, we have an AirPort Extreme (802.11n) which is about two years old, and I've noticed lately that if I don't reset it for say, a month or so, internet speeds become extremely slow, and there is no way to regain normal speeds without resetting it... I was just wondering if this is normal for an AirPort Extreme, and also, could this be due to the age of the unit (i.e. do AirPort Extremes slowly lose performance over time, and is buying a new one the only answer)? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

U have to find a good channel.
on 2.4ghz this is 6 unless other routers in the area are using it. if so use another channel.
Other things that can interfere: Microwave oven, frige - any thing that emits em fields
5ghz is better.
vicinity of your laptop makes a big difference - i get up to 57Mbps on speedtest net in vicinity of time capsule @ 5ghz.
Best performance is on ethernet cable.
Hope this helps

Improving graphics performance in DIAdem 11.0 Report?

Dear Forum,
when working on a Report layout, the poor graphic performance of DIAdem is a real problem for me.
For example, many diagrams with lots of data are on one page. One opens the proficiencies of one of the diagrams and changes e.g. the curves color or whatever and closes the dialog window. After this, the whole Report page is refreshed - wich takes up to one minute, depending on the amount of data displayed.
The strange thing is, when I close the given dialog window, and while the report page is being refreshed sent DIAdem to the taskbar and open any other application window, the process of refreshing the screen takes only 1 second instead of 30 seconds.
The question is: Is there a tweak to improve the speed how DIAdem refreshes the report page? Or is there any workaround other than switching applications during refreshing?
Thanks a lot.
Greetings from Germany
Oliver

Hello Oliver,
The easiest way to speed up the graphics performance in Report with large data files (or 3D graphs with lots of nodes) is to turn off the "Data Layer" (German: "Datenebene") in the "View" menu (German: "Ansicht").
That function basically turns off the display of all data in Report, but retains the axis systems, texts, etc., so you can still move them, place them and edit them without having to guess sizes. Once you're done with the report, simply turn the data layer back on and you're ready to create a PDF, print or save the result as an image file (JPG, BMB, etc.).
I think the performance difference you described (1 vs. 30 seconds) is due to the fact that once DIAdem has drawn a page, it retains an image in memory and will simply draw that image when you bring DIAdem to the foreground (or maximize it). After any edits you make to the report (e.g. change the color of a graph), DIAdem redraws the complete page from scratch, which takes much longer then just re-displaying an image that has already been drawn previously. Someone from the DIAdem R&D team could probably do a better job explaining this, but I think this is the explanation for the time difference in drawing.
Anyway, the "Data Layer" trick should hopefully solve your problem, let us know if that works for you.
Greeting from Austin, TX.
Otmar D. Foehner
Business Development Manager
DIAdem and Test Data Management
National Instruments
Austin, TX - USA
"For an optimist the glass is half full, for a pessimist it's half empty, and for an engineer is twice bigger than necessary."

CPU Damage Over Time

I took my Pro in to the apple store because both iStat and smcFanControl told me my computer was at 220 F and my fans were still running at 1997rpm. They reset the SMC and PRAM and ran diagnostics and stress tests and told me everything was fine. It seemed to be fixed for a few days but now my fans aren't kicking in until the CPU has reached 200 F. The fans take about 5 minutes till they hit 6200rpm and they still keep the computer running at 180-190 F. I'm not noticing any performance issues when it is running at those temps, but will that slowly damage my CPU and graphics card over time if I don't do anything about it?

There are a few people having this problem. You might want to see my post here: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2069785&tstart=0
Also yes, really high temperatures over time will cause damage to any computer.

Is ther a way to speed up a Mac? Mine has gotten slower and slower over time. When memory comes close to full would that have an effect on performance? Is there a way to determine unused programs/software to remove and free space?

Is there a way to speed up a Mac (similar to de-fragging on a PC)? Mine has gotten slower and slower over time.
When memory/disc comes close to full would that have an effect on performance? How should I determine what programs/software to remove and free space?

Things You Can Do To Resolve Slow Downs
If your computer seems to be running slower here are some things you can do:
Start with visits to:     OS X Maintenance - MacAttorney;
                                  The X Lab: The X-FAQs;
                                  The Safe Mac » Mac Performance Guide;
                                  The Safe Mac » The myth of the dirty Mac;
                                  Mac maintenance Quick Assist.
Boot into Safe Mode then repair your hard drive and permissions:
Repair the Hard Drive and Permissions Pre-Lion
Boot from your OS X Installer disc. After the installer loads select your language and click on the Continue button. When the menu bar appears select Disk Utility from the Utilities menu. After DU loads select your hard drive entry (mfgr.'s ID and drive size) from the the left side list. In the DU status area you will see an entry for the S.M.A.R.T. status of the hard drive. If it does not say "Verified" then the hard drive is failing or failed. (SMART status is not reported on external Firewire or USB drives.) If the drive is "Verified" then select your OS X volume from the list on the left (sub-entry below the drive entry,) click on the First Aid tab, then click on the Repair Disk button. If DU reports any errors that have been fixed, then re-run Repair Disk until no errors are reported. If no errors are reported click on the Repair Permissions button. Wait until the operation completes, then quit DU and return to the installer.
Repair the Hard Drive - Lion/Mountain Lion/Mavericks
Boot to the Recovery HD:
Restart the computer and after the chime press and hold down the COMMAND and R keys until the Utilites Menu screen appears. Alternatively, restart the computer and after the chime press and hold down the OPTION key until the boot manager screen appears. Select the Recovery HD disk icon and click on the arrow button below.
When the recovery menu appears select Disk Utility. After DU loads select your hard drive entry (mfgr.'s ID and drive size) from the the left side list. In the DU status area you will see an entry for the S.M.A.R.T. status of the hard drive. If it does not say "Verified" then the hard drive is failing or failed. (SMART status is not reported on external Firewire or USB drives.) If the drive is "Verified" then select your OS X volume from the list on the left (sub-entry below the drive entry,) click on the First Aid tab, then click on the Repair Disk button. If DU reports any errors that have been fixed, then re-run Repair Disk until no errors are reported. If no errors are reported, then click on the Repair Permissions button. Wait until the operation completes, then quit DU and return to the main menu. Select Restart from the Apple menu.
Restart your computer normally and see if this has helped any. Next do some maintenance:
For situations Disk Utility cannot handle the best third-party utility is Disk Warrior; DW only fixes problems with the disk directory, but most disk problems are caused by directory corruption; Disk Warrior 4.x is now Intel Mac compatible.
Note: Alsoft ships DW on a bootable DVD that will startup Macs running Snow Leopard or earlier. It cannot start Macs that came with Lion or later pre-installed, however, DW will work on those models.
Suggestions for OS X Maintenance
OS X performs certain maintenance functions that are scheduled to occur on a daily, weekly, or monthly period. The maintenance scripts run in the early AM only if the computer is turned on 24/7 (no sleep.) If this isn't the case, then an excellent solution is to download and install a shareware utility such as Macaroni, JAW PseudoAnacron, or Anacron that will automate the maintenance activity regardless of whether the computer is turned off or asleep. Dependence upon third-party utilities to run the periodic maintenance scripts was significantly reduced since Tiger. These utilities have limited or no functionality with Snow Leopard or later and should not be installed.
OS X automatically defragments files less than 20 MBs in size, so unless you have a disk full of very large files there's little need for defragmenting the hard drive.
Helpful Links Regarding Malware Protection
An excellent link to read is Tom Reed's Mac Malware Guide.
Also, visit The XLab FAQs and read Detecting and avoiding malware and spyware.
See these Apple articles:
          Mac OS X Snow Leopard and malware detection
          OS X Lion- Protect your Mac from malware
          OS X Mountain Lion- Protect your Mac from malware
          About file quarantine in OS X
If you require anti-virus protection I recommend using VirusBarrier Express 1.1.6 or Dr.Web Light both from the App Store. They're both free, and since they're from the App Store, they won't destabilize the system. (Thank you to Thomas Reed for these recommendations.)
Troubleshooting Applications
I recommend downloading a utility such as TinkerTool System, OnyX, Mavericks Cache Cleaner, or Cocktail that you can use for removing old log files and archives, clearing caches, etc. Corrupted cache, log, or temporary files can cause application or OS X crashes as well as kernel panics.
If you have Snow Leopard or Leopard, then for similar repairs install the freeware utility Applejack. If you cannot start up in OS X, you may be able to start in single-user mode from which you can run Applejack to do a whole set of repair and maintenance routines from the command line. Note that AppleJack 1.5 is required for Leopard. AppleJack 1.6 is compatible with Snow Leopard. Applejack does not work with Lion and later.
Basic Backup
For some people Time Machine will be more than adequate. Time Machine is part of OS X. There are two components:
1. A Time Machine preferences panel as part of System Preferences;
2. A Time Machine application located in the Applications folder. It is
    used to manage backups and to restore backups. Time Machine
    requires a backup drive that is at least twice the capacity of the
    drive being backed up.
Alternatively, get an external drive at least equal in size to the internal hard drive and make (and maintain) a bootable clone/backup. You can make a bootable clone using the Restore option of Disk Utility. You can also make and maintain clones with good backup software. My personal recommendations are (order is not significant):
1. Carbon Copy Cloner
2. Get Backup
3. Deja Vu
4. SuperDuper!
5. Synk Pro
6. Tri-Backup
Visit The XLab FAQs and read the FAQ on backup and restore. Also read How to Back Up and Restore Your Files. For help with using Time Machine visit Pondini's Time Machine FAQ for help with all things Time Machine.
Referenced software can be found at MacUpdate.
Additional Hints
Be sure you have an adequate amount of RAM installed for the number of applications you run concurrently. Be sure you leave a minimum of 10% of the hard drive's capacity as free space.
Add more RAM. If your computer has less than 2 GBs of RAM and you are using OS X Leopard or later, then you can do with more RAM. Snow Leopard and Lion work much better with 4 GBs of RAM than their system minimums. The more concurrent applications you tend to use the more RAM you should have.
Always maintain at least 15 GBs or 10% of your hard drive's capacity as free space, whichever is greater. OS X is frequently accessing your hard drive, so providing adequate free space will keep things from slowing down.
Check for applications that may be hogging the CPU:
Pre-Mavericks
Open Activity Monitor in the Utilities folder. Select All Processes from the Processes dropdown menu. Click twice on the CPU% column header to display in descending order. If you find a process using a large amount of CPU time (>=70,) then select the process and click on the Quit icon in the toolbar. Click on the Force Quit button to kill the process. See if that helps. Be sure to note the name of the runaway process so you can track down the cause of the problem.
Mavericks and later
Open Activity Monitor in the Utilities folder. Select All Processes from the View menu. Click on the CPU tab in the toolbar. Click twice on the CPU% column header to display in descending order. If you find a process using a large amount of CPU time (>=70,) then select the process and click on the Quit icon in the toolbar. Click on the Force Quit button to kill the process. See if that helps. Be sure to note the name of the runaway process so you can track down the cause of the problem.
Often this problem occurs because of a corrupted cache or preferences file or an attempt to write to a corrupted log file.

Poor graphics performance over time

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for