Processor won't go faster than .79Ghz

I have a Pavilion 23 g010 all-in-one. It has an AMD E2-3800 APU quad core with a 1.3Ghz max speed. The processor runs at .78Ghz and sometimes bumps up to .79Ghz, but never higher. Programs are slow to respond and so are web pages. I've adjusted the processor min state between 50% to 100% and it doesn't change anything. Thank you.

You are welcome. Thank you for the additional information.
The CPU section of the Performance tab is giving you a view of what is happening at that moment in time. It is not necessarily telling you the full speed of the processor. For instance, my Split x2 has a 1.6 GHz processor. At this moment it shows "Utilization" 3% , "Speed" 0.58 GHz. The speed never goes above 1.01. I have 94 Processes running. I hope this gives you a better understanding of this section of the Task Manager. If you want more information about the Task Manager, there are numerous guides online. A Google search will find many of them.
Please click the "Thumbs up + button" if I have helped you and click "Accept as Solution" if your problem is solved.
Signature:
HP TouchPad - 1.2 GHz; 1 GB memory; 32 GB storage; WebOS/CyanogenMod 11(Kit Kat)
HP 10 Plus; Android-Kit Kat; 1.0 GHz Allwinner A31 ARM Cortex A7 Quad Core Processor ; 2GB RAM Memory Long: 2 GB DDR3L SDRAM (1600MHz); 16GB disable eMMC 16GB v4.51
HP Omen; i7-4710QH; 8 GB memory; 256 GB San Disk SSD; Win 8.1
HP Photosmart 7520 AIO
++++++++++++++++++
**Click the Thumbs Up+ to say 'Thanks' and the 'Accept as Solution' if I have solved your problem.**
Intelligence is God given; Wisdom is the sum of our mistakes!
I am not an HP employee.

Similar Messages

Can the WD Raptor make my 2.0 Dual faster than my new 2.3 Dualcore?

A few weeks ago I had asked what would make my machine at work - 2.3 Dualcore w/2GB of RAM - slower than my home machine; 2.0 DP w/2.5GB of RAM.
The new Dualcore was unreasonably slow and I followed the few suggestions to wipe the drive, which brought it up to snuff... but I still find it slower than my 2.0 at home. At simple tasks (contextual menu pop-ups, software loading, etc...) as well as more complex Photoshop and 3D tasks.
It's not the very last generation 2.0, but the one prior, e.g. 8GB of RAM capable, PCI-Express, and liquid cooling, etc...
I doubt the .5 of RAM can make that much difference, is the WD Raptor the difference and am I just spoiled by it?
Thanks for any suggestions.
-Vincent

So you have a Raptor as boot in your home based Dual Processor and it seems faster than the faster Dual Core you have at work.
That's understandable, especially since the Dual Core most likely has a 7,200 RPM 250 GB slow drive (and more filled being at work, using more fonts?), plus the Dual Core shares a fronside bus, unlike the Dual Processor which has one for each. Photoshop pre-CS2 swaps memory to disk, so a faster boot drive will help. (Tiger overrides CS2's RAM limit, so more RAM will give better performance)
At home you have the Raptor as boot and most of your user files on the second drive I'm assuming, allowing you to access two drives at once using two busses.
Of course CPU intensive tasks the Dual Core 2.3 should beat the Dual 2, but since Mac OS X is heavy boot drive speed dependant (caches, swaps etc) the "User Interface feel" should be more responsive on your Dual 2, giving you the impression it's faster.
Big fat filled slow boot drives really cripple Mac OS X performance (NAND RAM coming?)
I've written a better explaination here
click for text doc

Is the Core i7 processor comparable, much slower, or faster than the 2.8 Ghz core 2 duo from 2009?

I am looking to get a new MacBook Air, but when looking at the prices I am seeing the MacBook Pro 13" for the same price and a lot more guts (RAM and Processor). I am ok with spending the amount of money on the air if it means I get a computer that is like my iPad, which i love (flash based, snappy), but don't want it to be super slow.
I am coming off of a 17" 2.8Ghz MacBook Pro from 2009. I was happy with the speed and power of that machine. The most taxing thing I did was make a complilation of family movies in iMovie and burned them with iDVD once in the 2 years of ownership.
I mostly browse the internet and compose written documents, and keynote presentations.
I know my questions may seem stupid, but I don't know how significant the changes between i7 and Core 2 Duo are, so I ask the question:
I am wondering if the processing power in the core i7 will be somewhat comparable, much slower, or faster than the 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo I had in my 2009 computer?
Thanks for any help!!

Hi brosephb,
Like you I went through a similar comparison process. I bought the MacBook air 13" and up specced the processor and memory. I don't do anything taxing enough or frequently enough to NEED the extra power of the MacBook pro.
I am overjoyed at my air. It's gorgeous, the way it wakes instantly, it's speed and it's portableness is so endearing that I just don't use my iPad anymore. I read numerous reviews on it and the overwhelming opinion was it's addictive ease of use because of it's slim, light and rapid waking. At work I can hold the air with one hand, open it rapidly at will. It's just great but it's made my iPad redundant (for me anyway).
I see the new airs are even faster and I'm tempted to consider selling my 6 month old air and getting the new one, but, it runs a dream so I am happy to just be envious of the new one.
In short, unless you need the power (for your work) go for the air. I'm looking at a new iMac to use as a home work station. For the price of a new air I can get an iMac that will swallow any task for a good few years to come. And my air will suffice as my mobile companion. However, that's just me spoiling myself as, at the moment, I have no teal need for another mac. I may get the cinema display for any long winded tasks, as the screen size will help with multiple tasking.
A bit of a ramble, hope this is useful.

Imac 20" won't burn CDR faster than 8x

I have a new imac 20" that i purchased last friday. The superdrive won't burn CDRs faster than 8X. I have tried disk utility and toast. The drive was also not reporting that it supports DL DVD burning but resetting the "pram" seems to have fixed that. The disc I'm using worked find in my old machine at 32X. The last thing that I have to try is a different brand of CDR. Any other suggestions before I take it in to be serviced??
Thanks
Drew

The new iMac's drive is only speced to burn CD-Rs up to 24X. So you won't see 32X.
The iMac is probably burning the discs as fast as it can without creating coasters.

Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word.

Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word. Sample Editor playback sounds like Alvin on a meth binge. Spoken phrase is generated from Textspeech. Textspeech can export files as WAV files or MP3 files. Perhaps a clue?: When exported Textspeech WAV file is dragged and dropped into track in arrange area of new project, it exhibits same supersonic speed. When Textspeech file is exported as MP3 file and dragged and dropped in arrange area track, it plays at correct speed.

Thanks Erik,
If nothing else, this huge list of updates and fixes, shows clearly that the Logic Dev team is working hard on fixing and improving LPX to a major degree.... and from the list of fixes done.. show they do read the bug reports submitted!
As an aside....
I recall how all the 'naysayers' prior to LPX (and in some cases, since...) were proclaiming how Logic was dead, the team was being disbanded, we won't see any further development, the Dev team doesn't listen or care... and so on....... I wonder where those people are now?

Mencoder H.264 20 times faster than Compressor 2

I tested mencoder with compressor running with 5 G5s. the H.264 implementation of mencoder was four times faster than the 5 dual core quads clustered with compressor two and queermaster . my single computer alone with just a dual 2 ghz processor encoded a movie 20 times faster than compressor with Queerrmaster on this same machine.
compressor costs more than mencoder(free in DVision). to get compressor you have to get an expensive Pro app.
What's wrong with this picture?

Well, I have heard this lament before with the G5s, and all I can say is that I guess Apple is slowly starting to drop support for the PowerPC generation (it was inevitable). I assume you've upgraded to 3.0.1?
As for Motion 3 (and someone correct me here if I am wrong), I believe it's slower because of the full 3D integration. Whether or not you have a lot of 3D aspects, I think it still calculates for it, causing your response and render time to decrease.

My macbook had a weird behavior on the display, now it won't go further than gray loading screen with the apple logo

My macbook had a weird behavior on the display, now it won't go further than gray loading screen with the apple logo. It's a macbook pro early 2011. I've read that those are having issues, if there's someone i can contact for further information, report the issue since it's getting common or any temporal solution available. Thanks

Reinstall Lion, Mountain Lion, or Mavericks without erasing drive
Boot to the Recovery HD:
Restart the computer and after the chime press and hold down the COMMAND and R keys until the 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 and click on the downward pointing arrow button.
Repair
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. When the process is completed, then quit DU and return to the main menu. Select Restart from the Apple menu.
Reinstall Mountain Lion or Mavericks
OS X Mavericks- Reinstall OS X
OS X Mountain Lion- Reinstall OS X
Note: You will need an active Internet connection. I suggest using Ethernet
if possible because it is three times faster than wireless.

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.

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 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

Why is kernel-2.6.9 (OEL-4) faster than kernel-2.6.18 (OEL-5) ?

Hi,
as long as RHEL-5 and then OEL-5 have been released, I have been wondering why my own programs, compiled and run on RHEL-5/OEL-5, are slower than the same programs compiled and run on RHEL-4/OEL-4 on the same machine. This is really barmy since gcc-4.1, shipped with RHEL-5/OEL-5, is very aggressive compiler and produces faster binary code than gcc-3.4.6, shipped with RHEL-4/OEL-4. I verified this hundred times testing both compilers on RHEL-4/OEL-4 and RHEL-5/OEL-5. The 4.1 compiler always produces faster executable on the same OS.
The problem is obviously in kernel-2.6.18. There is something in the kernel (maybe scheduler?) that slows down the execution of programs. But what? I experimented with changing various kernel boot parameters (eg "acpi=off" etc), even tried to recompile the kernel many times with various combinations of config parameters, and nothing helps. Thus, I'm still wondering whether the problem is solvable by disabling one or more config parameters and recompiling the kernel, or is deeply embedded in the main kernel code.
Is there anybody in this forum who experienced the same, say running OEL-4 before migrating to OEL-5?
Here are two examples showing different execution times on OEL-4.5 (kernel-2.6.9-55.0.5.0.1.EL.i686, gcc-3.4.6-8.0.1) and OEL-5 (kernel-2.6.18-8.1.10.0.1.el5, gcc-4.1.1-52.el5.2). The first example is trivial but very sensitive to overal system load and kernel version. The second example is "Sieve of Eratosthenes" - the program for finding prime numbers (CPU bound).
EXAMPLE 1.
/* Simle program for text screen console */
/* very sensitive to overall system load */
/* and kernel version                     */
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
    register int i;
    for(i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
     printf(" %d ", i);
    return 0;
/* end of program */
$ gcc -O2 -o example1 -s example1.c
$ time ./example1The average execution times on OEL-4.5 and OEL-5 are as follow:
Mode      OEL-4.5         OEL-5
real      0m3.141s        0m4.931s
user      0m0.394s        0m0.366s
sys       0m2.747s        0m4.563s
----------------------------------As we can see, the program on the same machine, compiled and run on OEL-4.5 (gcc-3.4.6 and kernel-2.6.9) is 57% faster than the same program compiled and run on OEL-5 (gcc-4.1.1 and kernel-2.6.18), although gcc-4.1.1 produces much faster binary code. Since the times the process spent in user mode are almost equal on both OS, the whole difference is due to the time the process spent in kernel mode. Note that kernel mode (sys) is taking 66% more time on OEL-5. It tells me that "something" in the kernel-2.6.18 slows down the execution of the program.
In the second example OEL-4.5 is also faster than OEL-5, but the differences in execution times are not so drastic as in the first example.
EXAMPLE 2.
/*           Sieve of Eratosthenes           */
#define GNUSOURCE
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define MAX_PRIME_AREA 100000
#define REPEAT_LOOP 10000
int main(void)
    int prime, composite, count;
    char *sieve_array;
    if ((sieve_array = (char *) malloc( (size_t) (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1))) == NULL)
     fprintf(stderr,"Memory block too big!\nMemory allocation failed!\a\n");
     exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
    for(count = 0; count < REPEAT_LOOP; count++)
     for(prime = 0; prime < (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1); prime++)
             *(sieve_array + prime) = (char) '\0';
     for(prime = 3; prime < (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1); prime += 2)
         if (! *(sieve_array + prime) )
          *(sieve_array + prime) = (char) 'P'; /* offset prime is a prime */
             for(composite = (2 * prime); composite < (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1); composite += prime)
              *(sieve_array + composite) = (char) 'X'; /* offset composite is a composite */
        /* DO NOT COMPILE FOR TEST !!!
        fprintf(stdout, "\n%d\n", 2);
        for(prime = 3; prime < (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1); prime += 2)
            if ( *(sieve_array + prime) == 'P' )
                fprintf(stdout, "%d\n", prime);
    free(sieve_array);
    return 0;
/* End of Sieve of Eratosthenes */The average execution times on the same machine on OEL-4.5 and OEL-5 are:
MAX_PRIME_AREA     Mode         OEL-4.5         OEL-5
                   real         0m9.196s        0m10.531s
   100000          user         0m9.189s        0m10.478s
                   sys          0m0.002s        0m0.010s
                   real         0m20.264s       0m21.532s
   200000          user         0m20.233s       0m21.490s
                   sys          0m0.020s        0m0.025s
                   real         0m30.722s       0m33.502s
   300000          user         0m30.684s       0m33.456s
                   sys          0m0.024s        0m0.032s
                   real         1m10.163s       1m15.215s
   400000          user         1m10.087s       1m14.704s
                   sys          0m0.075s        0m0.079s
---------------------------------------------------------Does this ring a bell with anyone? Any clue why?
N.J.

An hour? Hard to believe or is your hardware that
old?An hour? That's a super good time for 3 kernel
packages (i686, xen and PAE) with all modules, plus 3
kernel-devel packages, plus debuginfo package of
150-580 MB where smart people at Red Hat decided to
put uncompressed vmlinux image which is necessary for
kernel profiling and debugging. Ah, I had a different kernel make process in mind.
Oracle doesn't ship
debuginfo package. Of course, this is when I build a
"complete suite" of kernel rpm packages using
unmodified spec file. And, to be honest, it takes
much more than an hour, maybe even two hours. Another
thing is compiling single i686 kernel without
building a package. But it also takes at least half
an hour. Anyway the time significantly depends on how
many modules are selected to be built in.That what I was looking for.
What's your time to build a single kernel (which
version?) with default set of modules ? On which
hardware ? I've only access to a root server right now, which is
cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep "model name"
model name      : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+with about 2GB of RAM
free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          2024       1957         67          0        368       1291
-/+ buffers/cache:        297       1727
Swap:         3827         24       3803under
uname -a
Linux base 2.6.22-gentoo-r5 #5 PREEMPT Mon Sep 10 22:32:37 CEST 2007 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+ AuthenticAMD GNU/LinuxThis is what i did
cd /usr/src/linux
make clean
time nice -n 19 genkernel --lvm2 --makeopts="-j2" --oldconfig all
* Running with options: --lvm2 --makeopts=-j2 --oldconfig all
* Linux Kernel 2.6.22-gentoo-r5 for x86...*
mount: /boot mounted successfully!
* config: >> Running oldconfig...
* config: --no-clean is enabled; leaving the .config alone.
*         >> Compiling 2.6.22-gentoo-r5 bzImage...
*         >> Compiling 2.6.22-gentoo-r5 modules......
real    17m30.582s
user    16m8.480s
sys     1m9.000sWhat could helped here was that I've switched off some modules and (maybe) the use of ccache.
C.

Mac faster than PC's?

Hi everybody.
I already have a iMac 21,5" but i'm considering to buy the next Macbook Apple publish.
I hope they make a Macbook Pro inside a Air body, but thats not what this threat is about.
I often her that people say that if a Mac and a PC had the same specs, the Mac would still be faster?
That is also my experience, but why is that? I thougt that a PC that had better specs would run faster than a Mac?
Is specifications all that matters when you buy a computer?
Of course it's individually what you like best when it comes to software, but do the software make you computer run faster?
I think my Mac run a lot faster than my PC, and they have someway the same specs.
That was a lot of questions

Mac's can be faster than PC's and PC's can be faster than Mac's.
It all depends upon the processors, graphics capability and other factors, age of each machine, data on the drive, etc.
If you put Windows and OS X on the very same type hardware, freshly installed on each hard drive, everything matches. Likely OS X would be a hair slower than Windows.
It's because OS X renders the UI with a finer degree of detail.
However when it comes to hardware, PC's outstrip Mac's in that department not mainly in the processors, which they both share the same Intel ones (Mac's sometimes gets theirs before PC users) but rather the video card upgrade choices and tweaking ability Windows towers users enjoy and Mac owners do not.
http://www.cbscores.com/index.php?sort=ogl&order=desc
So if your considering a 3D gaming machine, your choices are simply a Win 7 tower.
Generic PC's also have another advantage, one can replace Windows with the lighter Linux, I've done that with HP XP netbooks that were going for a song, slapped Linux on them and they make great portable use machines for the basics. I even use a UI that looks like OS X so I feel at home.

Does JMF support RTP packets being sent "Faster than real time"?

I have a situation where some stored audio is passed to a speech recogniser using RTP. This is all working well with JMF. However, since this operation is "offline" (i.e. no live person is actually speaking or hearing this audio stream) and the recognizer is capable of processing the audio very quickly, then the RTP stream could be sending the audio in "faster than real time". What settings in the following components would allow this?
DataSource _dataSource = Manager.createDataSource(source);
Processor _processor = Manager.createProcessor(_dataSource);
TrackControl[] trackControls = _processor.getTrackControls();
Codec codec[] = new Codec[3];
codec[0] = new com.ibm.media.codec.audio.rc.RCModule();
codec[1] = new com.ibm.media.codec.audio.ulaw.JavaEncoder();
codec[2] = new com.sun.media.codec.audio.ulaw.Packetizer();
((com.sun.media.codec.audio.ulaw.Packetizer) codec[2]).setPacketSize(160);
_processor.realize();
DataSource dataOutput = _processor.getDataOutput();
SendStream _sendStream = _rtpManager.createSendStream(dataOutput, 0);
_sendStream.start();
_processor.start();I tried "setRate" on the processor but this had no effect. getRate showed that it was still 1.0
Best Regards,
Jamie

I wrote my own RTP client in about an hour - (seemed simpler than navigating JMF options). It is very basic, but works as I want. The RTP server (the speech recognizer it able to consume the stream and gives exactly the same results).
package com.sss.mrcp;
import java.io.InputStream;
import java.net.DatagramPacket;
import java.net.DatagramSocket;
import java.net.InetAddress;
import java.util.Random;
public class RTP extends Thread {
     InputStream is;
     String address;
     int port;
     int localPort;
     public RTP(InputStream is, int localPort, String address, int port) {
          this.is = is;
          this.address = address;
          this.port = port;
          this.localPort = localPort;
     public void run() {
          try {
          DatagramSocket socket = new DatagramSocket(localPort);
          Random r = new Random();
          int sequenceNumber = r.nextInt();
          int syncId = r.nextInt();
          int timeStamp = 0;
          int len = 256;
          byte[] buf = new byte[len];
          int code = 0;
          int headerLength = 12;
          while ((code = is.read(buf, headerLength, len - headerLength)) > -1) {
               int i = 0;
               buf[i++] = (byte) 0x80; // version info
               buf[i++] = (byte) 0x08;     // 8=alaw,0=ulaw
               sequenceNumber++;
               buf[i++] = (byte) (sequenceNumber / 0x100);
               buf[i++] = (byte) (sequenceNumber % 0x100);
               timeStamp += (len - 12);
               int timeStampTop = (timeStamp / 0x10000);
               buf[i++] = (byte) (timeStampTop / 0x100);
               buf[i++] = (byte) (timeStampTop % 0x100);
               int timeStampBottom = (timeStamp % 0x10000);
               buf[i++] = (byte) (timeStampBottom / 0x100);
               buf[i++] = (byte) (timeStampBottom % 0x100);
               int syncIdTop = (syncId / 0x10000);
               buf[i++] = (byte) (syncIdTop / 0x100);
               buf[i++] = (byte) (syncIdTop % 0x100);
               int syncIdBottom = (syncId % 0x10000);
               buf[i++] = (byte) (syncIdBottom / 0x100);
               buf[i++] = (byte) (syncIdBottom % 0x100);
               DatagramPacket packet = new DatagramPacket(buf, code+headerLength, InetAddress.getByName(address), port);
               socket.send(packet);
               Thread.sleep(1); // this sets the speed of delivery "faster than real time"
          } catch (Exception e) {
               throw new RuntimeException(e);
}

Very slow network performance - with uploads faster than downloads

I just got new ISP - 100 mbps through a Cat5 line. It checks out when I run ethernet directly to a computer. However, I want a totally wireless network.
I have a Time Capsule attached by ethernet and that is my main network device. I also have two airport Xpress' to extend the network.
I am getting, on average, 16 mbps! And, upload speed is generally higher.
The Time Capsule is about 2 yrs old, but it is an "n" device.
Anybody have any idea what the problem might be? I was considering getting a new extreme and using the Time Capsule as an extender instead of the expresses because, as I understand it, the express has one band only. Would that be better? Mainly, I want to get the speed up to what it should be.
Is there some way to trouble shoot the Time Capsule?
Others in my building with D Link or Linksys routers are getting over 80 mbps wirelessly, so I know it is possible.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. I want to stay with Apple products, but if not possible I will get another brand of router.
Thanks,
Deanna

Deannanel wrote:
So, William, I got an Airport Extreme. Within 20 or so feet of it I am now getting 85 to 95 Mbps!
Great!
However, in the far reaches of the house, signal is low and I have not been able to extent network with either the Time Capsule or an Airport Express. They just won't connect.
Based on the earlier numbers you gave me, you won't be able to establish a reliable connection "in the far reaches of the house", as it's too far away from the base router. You'll either have to (1) run Ethernet to that remote unit, (2) use PowerLine units as an Ethernet extender, or (3) put the remote unit closer to the base unit.
I reset the Time Capsule a couple of times. I noticed that both devices are automatically set to channel 157.
That's a 5 GHz channel. That band can give faster throughput, but the signal strength falls off faster than in the 2.4 GHz band.
The Extreme has 2 channels - 2 and 157. I do not have the option of changing the channel on either of the other devices.
That makes sense, if they're configured to extend an existing network. They must communicate on the same channel as the base station they're extending.

Is raid 0 faster than a 10k rpm drive?

Hi everyone
Are two 7200 rpm drives in raid 0 faster than a 10k rpm drive?
/p

Most people assume or think in terms of only two drives for a RAID, but that isn't a given. RAID adds latency and some overhead having to assemble and write to multiple drives.
WD still sells the 150 and 74GB Raptor but it is harder to justify today with fast 7.2K drives, or against the 300GB unit (won't slide into the stock drive bays as is).
http://www.barefeats.com/harper13.html
- SAS vs SATA (raid and non-RAID) has some surprising results.
http://www.barefeats.com/harper9.html - best boot drive?
http://barefeats.com/hard103.html - VelociRaptor
(break the bank, AND break any speed records, looks like $700 "must have" for the very discerning customer).
http://www.barefeats.com/harper14.html WD 640GB Caviar ($104 @ OWC)
http://www.barefeats.com/hard94.html - Terabyte drives
For boot drive? for scratch? using 1TB drive perhaps? Would you partition your RAID drives so you are using the outer half?
I've got 3 MaxLine Pro drives in stripped RAID (they do much better in RAID than as single drives). I still use 10K Raptor for boot drive and stripping a pair of Raptors did not make any appreciable difference.
A dedicated boot drive (OS and applications only) helps. My system is really really small and doesn't need anything larger than 135GB, if even that.
Having /Users/account on a 2nd drive (or stripped RAID) is what I have always used.
And obviously scratch for CS3 can be on stripped RAID.
Same, too, for data if you need fast saves while working.

Processor won't go faster than .79Ghz

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for