Sun Studio 12 is still much faster than the newest express 11/08

I gave the newest Express 11/08 a try on my laptop. I found that Studio 12 is still
much faster than the express version at least on my laptop. See the old messge below.
http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5321607&tstart=15
I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.

I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.Thanks for noting :)
This has already been filed as a bug - http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6735472.
And as you can see it is even already fixed.
Unluckily it missed Express 11/08 integration time slot (by a mere week or so).
It is reasonable to expect it to be available at the next Express/whatever release happens next.
regards,
__Fedor.

Similar Messages

  • Premiere Pro CS6 still much faster than Premiere Pro CC

    I am currently editing videos that were captured using screen recording software. The files have subsequently been converted to .WMV clips with a data rate of exactly 4.4 MB/sec (that's Megabytes/second). This data rate includes both video and audio.
    There is no problem editing these clips in Premiere Pro CS6. Playback and scrubbing are fine at any quality setting and at any magnification size. Unfortunately, this is not the case with Premier Pro CC2014. This "new" version of Premier Pro chokes to death with attempting to play back or scrub the exact same clips. Even at 1/4 resolution, CC2014 struggles along. I can improve things a bit by turning off CUDA acceleration (which makes even less sense to me), however, CC2014 just can't do what CS6 does.
    I introduced this issue a few months ago, but it obviously has not been resolved by Adobe. They are bringing new feature into CC2014 all the time, but I'd much rather they focus on getting the software to work properly, like CS6 does.

    Totally agree!  C'mon on Adobe...let's fix the performance and the memory leakage!

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • Is 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.

  • If i export my project, it runs much faster than in the canvas. How can I fix that?

    If i export my project, it runs much faster than in the canvas. How can I fix that?
    I'm from germany, sorry for my english!

    When you export your project, it is "compiled" into video format. Any player will play it at its frame rate.
    Motion is a compositing application. It has to make many more times the calculations needed to animate everything and 90% of the time, it's just not possible for Motion to keep up with "real time".  It's to be expected. Learning to live with that fact will make life a lot easier for you, I promise.
    There are a few things you can do to help speed up Motion:
    Reduce temporary play ranges to no more than about 5 seconds at a time. You can move the Play Range In and Out markers from section to section. Motion does all of its real time rendering in RAM. The longer the play range, to more it has to work managing that memory.
    Remove Preview Icons from the Layers list ( View menu > Layers Columns > Preview will toggle the views)
    When you play your animation, turn off on screen guides: (command - / will toggle onscreen guides)
    In Motion 5, reducing the quality of playback from the Render menu does not make a lot of difference anymore, so you might as well keep the default settings of Dynamic, Full and Normal on. However, Motion Blur, Frame Blending, Field Rendering, as well as the lighting options will affect playback, sometimes by quite a lot. So if you have Lights, turning off Lighting, Shadows, and Reflections will get back a lot of real time playback speed (just remember to turn on all that you need before rendering, or these things will be left out of the export!)
    HTH

  • I can hardly believe my old school Palm Pre was much friendlier than the IPhone.  I have had it for more than six months and still cannot sync my Outlook calendars and contacts.  I get a message like, "no calendar application  identified."    help!

    My old school palm pre was much friendlier than the IPHONE 3G.  I was able to sync my outlook calendars and contacts via wi-fi effortlessly.  I tunes did sync once or twice in the six months that I have had it, but more often it acts like it is syncing and ultimately delivers a message like "no calendar application is supported".  Why the back and forth.  Very frustrating after literally hours of trying to sync my phone with my Outlook calendar and contacts.  HELP!!!!

    What version of MS Office do you have installed? Have you tried re-installing office over top of itself? It may not be properly registered with the OS.

  • How much faster is the 2.7GHz Quad Core Intel Core i5 than the 2.7GHz Dual Core Intel Core i5?

    Hi there,
    I'm considering buying either a Mac Mini (2.7GHz Dual Core Intel Core i5) or an iMac (2.7GHz Quad Core Intel Core i5). I'm just wondering what the difference in speed is between the two different chips. If both had 4GB of memory would the iMac be a lot faster than the Mac Mini? I'm a graphic designer so I'd be mostly using Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop.
    Many thanks,
    Richard

    You mean this information:
    GRAPH LEGEND
    MP 3.3 w6 = 2010 Mac Pro 3.33GHz Hex-Core Westmere
    iMac 3.4 i7 = 2011 iMac 3.4GHz Quad-Core i7
    MBP 2.3 i7 = 2011 MacBook 2.3GHz Pro Quad-Core i7
    mini 2.7 i7 = 2011 Mac mini 2.7GHz Dual-Core i7
    MBP 2.7 i7 = 2011 MacBook Pro 2.7GHz Dual-Core i7
    MBA 1.8 i7 = 2011 MacBook Air 1.8GHz Dual-Core i7
    All Macs had except the MacBook Air had at least 8GB of RAM

  • Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2?

    Hi,
        Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2? Also, how much better resolution is the iPad 3 from the iPad 2? I was just wondering because I heard that the new iPad isn't worth it's price.

    The New iPad is not remarkably faster, but does have a faster chip, which is required to handle the amazing Retina display.  The new display on New iPad is without question significatly better than iPad 2 and offers nearly 4 times the resolution of iPad 2.  Whether it's important to you, only you can know.  To see the difference, go to an Apple store where they still sell iPad 2 and New iPad.  For me, the difference was night and day, which is why I sold my iPad 2 and upgraded to New iPad.

  • Macbook pro or imac, how much faster is the imac?

    I work on huge photoshop files.  Up to 15gb sometimes.   In the studio I have a macpro 8 core, 32gb ram.   However, I also do work abroad, and for this I bought a macbook pro 2.4ghz intel 2 duo, 3 years ago.   when travelling I keep my files to 1GB or less.  It's still painfully slow.
    I need a faster portable option.   Can anybody advise me on the new macbook pro, vs macmini, vs imac?  how do the fastest macbook pro hold up against the fastest imac?  

    Take a look at this.  There are probably a few more on the web that you can find.
      http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchma
    The fact is that the iMacs have faster processors than the MBPs but the new MBPs will be significantly faster that your old one.  With that said,  your MAC PRO will still be faster than both the new MBP and the new iMac. 
    I suspect that if portability is an issue, the MBP probably should get the nod.  The iMac's are big and heavy.
    Ciao.

  • Why is menu size so much larger than the files?

    I am somewhat perplexed - I'm making a single-layer dvd and have a simple single screen theme (no animation) - it has one drop zone. The movie has 28 chapters so there are five of them, but so far I've added only one montage of photos to each menu page - it's a "mobile" quality in media browser and ave only 10 - 20 MB, then one song. On average these movie clips are 1:00 to 2:00 min long and the music is cut to that length. So, all told, it's probably less than 110 MB in files - but when I look at the project properties, the menus are 3301 MB!!!
    The movie itself is only 1.1 GB so what is going on?
    It's preventing me from doing the project and I've got no idea why it's making the menu size so much larger than the file sizes?
    Can you please help me figure out what to do?
    Alexa

    The 2 min clips were natively 2 min - I had each one separate and actually converted to media browser in "mobile" size (b/c the drop zone was 4 x 6 in size in the theme). They were tiny - in most cases I was shortening the audio (e.g. the song was 4 minutes and I was setting the loop to only 1:30 b/c that's how long the video clip was on the menu).
    BUT, to resolve the question (I always like to post the answer) - I ended up duplicating the project to try to reimport the video. It was a fresh iDVD project and I happened to click on the project tree of screens - and, lo and behold, the ENTIRE menu was duplicated for some reason (and the movie, actually). I went back to the original and it was the same! I have no idea how that would happen do you? It only had one main menu screen - and then an entire duplicate menu - which I wouldn't even know how to access if I didn't see it in the project menu tree?
    The only think of is that at one point I added a title menu link to the scene selection - it gave me a warning that my menu was more than 12 minutes, did I want to fix or ignore and fix later - which confused me b/c it was under 12 min, then but I clicked ignore. Does that create an alternate title menu and send people back to something else?
    Anyway, I deleted the entire extra scene selection menus (5 of them) and it was back to under 4 GB.
    So, I was able to burn, but still wondering about creating the "title menu" link on scene selections? It drives me crazy that it doesn't automatically do that so I like to add "main menu" links.
    Thanks for your help!
    Alexa

  • External projection much darker than the source

    I am using a mini displayport to vga adapter and the external image is much darker than the source running on my mbp. this is going into a mixer then out to a projector. I also have an old pre intel powerbook that is doing the same thing(into a mixer and out to a projector) with s-video , with no problems at all.
    this is a recent problem with the mbp,6 months ago it worked fine.
    could it be the new os? if so how do i get back to the one i need?

    I am having the same problem with my brand new MacBook Pro connecting to a video projector with a Mini-display to VGA connector. Many of the pictures are darker
    than they should be. In PowerPoint I had to go to those darker slides and lighten them up (brightness up and contrast down). Now they are tolerable, but they still look better on the Mac screen than the projected image. Have tried three different projectors and find the same result. Projected colors are quite a bit different also. Puzzeled in Pennsylvania

  • Import volume much lower than the (clean) CD playback

    I had a quick search, and apologise if this has been bashed before...
    I'm importing a CD (St Germain - Tourist, in case you were interested). When playing back the CD version, and then the ACC ripped track, the volume is far far lower, its infuriating! Changing the bit rate makes no difference.
    The CD signal is clean and crisp, there is no reason for itunes to crank it down... is there any way to fix this on the import? Changing the levels in 'get info' afterwards doesn't make much difference, its still far lower than the original.
    thanks,
    tom

    The first things I would do are;
    1. Go to iTunes > Preferences > Playback, and disable both Sound Enhancer and Sound Check.
    2. Turn off the EQ (accessed by clicking the Equalizer button in the lower right corner of the iTunes window).

  • Is the Gig version really faster than the 100m version !?

    I just upgraded my 100 meg AEBS to the new Gig version, and ran a quick n easy benchmark, an rsync -e ssh on a 150 meg file. The server is an iMac connected via gig-e, and the Macbook c2d is connected via 802.11n (reporting a consistant 300 mbps in network utility - about 20 feet from the router, going through 2-4 sheets of drywall). The tests were conducted in my Chicago apartment, with at least 10 detectable 2.4gHz networks, and no 5.8gHz networks that I know of.
    The 802.11n 5.8gHz no backwards compatibility was by far the fastest. The fastest test I ran was 11 MBps on the copy, with 802.11a compatibility I believe was around 8, and 2.4ghz + 802.11g compatibility was around 6. I repeated all tests a few times, the results were pretty consistant.
    These results suprised me, as I was really hoping for a bit faster. I could get 40 MBps on my Linux file server over gig-e to the iMac in previous tests. Unfortunately that machine is down until I get some replacement parts, so I couldn't use it to test the new AEBS. But I seem to remember getting 11 or 12 MBps with the Linux file server over the old AEBS with 100m and 5.8gHz no backwards compatiblity.
    So how much of the performance non-difference is due to the iMac vs Linux file server, or the Gig-E version being no faster than the 100 meg version remains to be seen. I'm curious if anyone else has done tests.
    If the router, or this 802.11n implementation is the bottleneck - folks may not want to waste their money upgrading, unless they really want that 4 port (in bridge mode) gig-e switch on the back.
    Rob

    That is somewhat counterintuitive, as the 802.11n connection speed is reportedly 300 mbps. I understand the implications of protocol overhead, but 70% overhead seems a bit excessive. I guess I'm curious if the bottleneck is:
    - in the router backplane
    - in the 802.11n protocol
    - in apples implementation of 802.11(draft)n
    Also - anyone else have actual benchmark data to share?
    regards
    Rob

  • How much fast are the new iMac's?

    I've been looking at upgrading my G5 PowerMac for a while and now Apple has just updated the iMac. How much faster are the new models over the just superseded ones and my G5 (spec below).
    I mainly us it for my work with Photoshop CS2 and the G5 does a great job most of the time but is showing it's age. I was looking at the 2nd model but for not much more you can get the 27inch screen with better upgrade options.

    Hi Craig,
    even the very first 2006 released Intel iMacs were faster than the G5 iMacs including yours.
    See this Barefeats test http://www.barefeats.com/imcd3.html
    Check additional tests on Barefeats on older iMacs against newer ones http://www.barefeats.com/
    The new 2010 iMacs of any sort run circles around the 2006 iMacs, so you are in for a very pleasant surprise
    Regards
    Stefan

Maybe you are looking for