Why is Chrome so much faster than Safari?

I'm an Apple and Safari lover, but love goes only so far. I have tried everything with Safari in Yosemite, but it's really in a sad state when it won't even open my Google account page, or my own website. Sadly, I have found so many pages that either load so slowly that I give up, or don't open at all in Safari, yet Chrome always works, and fast. In fact, Firefox and Opera, both of which I have never used regularly are much better than Safari right now.
Does anyone have a clue as to why Safari has turned into such a poor browser in Yosemite? But please don't suggest I go to safe mode. I only want a decent browser, which I would prefer was Safari and not Chrome, but I do not want to deconstruct or rebuild my Macbook Air OS installation.

Funny. I'm finding exactly the opposite to be true. I've used Chrome since it came out, and it used to be far superior to Safari. Lately I find it to be very buggy--lots of jittery, time consuming page loads and crashes. Frustrated, I imported all of my stuff to Safari where loading times, scrolling, and navigation are like butter. No crashes and no loading issues on my MB Pro. So far so good.
I do wonder if it has something to do with the "baggage" I developed on Chrome over the years. I kept things pretty tidy--purging history, cookies, etc-- but it still just kept getting worse.
I guess Firefox is an option, but one thing is certain: I will not be returning to IE ****.

Similar Messages

  • Why is Chromium so much faster than Safari?

    Safari is starting to drag its feet when launching just about any site. Does Chromium have something Safari doesn't?

    HI,
    Empty your Safari cache more often. Command + Option + E
    Why use Google Chrome?
    Carolyn

  • Netscape is faster than Safari uploading pages to busy site.

    Netscape 7 is MUCH faster than Safari uploading pages to an interactive web site that has a lot of traffic. Several times using Safari to upload after filling out forms or doing other things, I've gotten impatient, switched to Netscape 7.02, did the same form or interaction, and sent the page. Netscape hangs much less time before the confirmation downloads to my browser. I've gotten confirmation via Netscape while Safari is still hanging, even though I tried to upload via Safari several minutes before I switched to Netscape. This has happened at NYTimes.com and other busy web sites.

    Greetings,
    The reasons behind your experience could be many, but try this to see if it improves things:
    Quit Safari if it's running and open System Preferences>Network.
    In the DNS Server tab, make sure IPv6 is turned off, and enter these two DNS servers to replace the ones you currently have:
    208.67.222.222
    208.67.220.220
    click Apply Now and quit System Preferences.
    Next, do these things in order:
    1. Go to Home/Library/Cookies and delete the Cookies.plist file.
    2. Go to Home/Library/Caches/com.apple.Safari and delete the contents of that folder.
    3. Go to Home/Library/Caches/com.apple.Safari/Web Page Previews and delete the contents of that folder.
    4. If you don't want to use the Top Sites feature, open Terminal and paste in this command:
    defaults write com.apple.Safari DebugSnapshotsUpdatePolicy -int 2
    5. Go to Home/Library/Caches/Metadata/Safari and delete the contents of that folder.
    6. Go to Home/Library/Caches/Safari and delete the contents of that folder.
    7. Go to Home/Library/Safari and delete these files (if you have them):
    Downloads.plist
    History.plist
    Form Values
    LastSession.plist
    WebpageIcons.db
    Repair Disk Permissions, then restart Safari and see if the speed is improved.

  • 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 Motion so much quicker than FCP doing Steady Cam?

    Being a helicopter operator I keep doing projects that require steady cam.
    I used to use Shake, then Motion, and now FCP with the additon of steadycam but I am wondering why Motion is so much quicker than FCP with the same clip.
    Maybe a dumb question but one I need to ask.

    running the same filter in both fcp and motion, motion always renders faster.
    This is because motion renders and draws all frames directly on your graphics card. FCP now uses the GPU for many effects but has to read back from your card to main memory.
    Unless Apple does a total rewrite of FCP this is unlikely to change, guess you either have to keep swapping apps or put up with longer renders in FCP.
    Roger
    CoreMelt

  • Why is my 2008 Macbook faster than my 2012 MacBook Pro?

    I got a basic, 13Inch Macbook back in 2008. It has been used, nonstop, for the past almost 5 yrs since i bought it. I never turn it off, it always gets used on a bed/couch, tonnes of windows/programs constantly open. Its full of crappy DLed programs, movies, music and whatnot, has only recently been updated to 10.6 OS X. Its dying, the charger barely works, and it over heats and blacksout sometimes and yet, it runs so much faster than my end of 2012 13in MacBook Pro, 2.9GHz model. Slower to the point that i still use my old one and let Hubby take the new one to the Construction site with him. Ive used it maybe once or twice since i bought it in November. Booting up is slower, general use is slow, opening programs is slower. And its got almost nothing on it!
    Just wondering why its slower when its newer and supposedly better? I thought i was upgrading?

    Wipe the drive on the new system and Reinstall OS X. Factory installs aren't all they are supposed to be. Sometimes corrupted from the Get Go.
    Only by wiping the drive and doing a Fresh Clean Install will you know if your slowness was caused by some type of OS corruption or posibly a hardware problem.
    Also you don't mention what RPM the drive is in your older Mac but Apple puts really Slow 5400RMP drives in the newer models by default. These Slow 5400RPM drives will slow down the whole system. Slow to boot. Slow to load programs and files into those programs and slow to save back to the drive. Also OS X is constantly writing to and reading from the hard drive so a slower drive will again slow down the whole system.
    If it is less then 14 days old you can return it No Questions Asked for a full refund and then maybe try another, different, machine.

  • 3G much faster than WiFi now?

    Ever since I purchased the 3G iPhone my 3G performance is MUCH faster than my WiFi connection. My old iPhone was very fast on my WiFi connection but the new 3G iPhone is MUCH slower using the WiFi connection. It's so much slower that I have permanently turned WiFi OFF. My WiFi network is exactly the same. The only thing that has changed is the phone. I thought it would get better with the latest update but it hasn't. Anyone else experiencing this??

    Here are the results from my speed tests.
    3G TEST:
    262 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
    317 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
    572 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
    293 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
    589 kbps (Latency probe response is 300ms)
    AVERAGE SPEED IS 406kbps
    WiFi TEST:
    1763kbps (initial latency probe is 35976ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
    1543kbps (initial latency probe is 36095ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
    2239kbps (initial latency probe is 441ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
    CRASH (Had to restart Safari)
    1780kbps (initial latency probe is 22810ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
    1656kbps (initial latency probe is 29863ms, 28364ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
    2084kbps (initial latency probe is 411ms, rest are roughly 140ms)
    AVERAGE SPEED IS 1844kbps
    The problem with my WiFi is the initial connection takes forever. Once it gets going it is much faster. Looks like I have massive turbo lag. Since the initial WiFi ping takes longer than the entire 10 pings of the 3G test the WiFi connection “appears” much slower. Not good.
    Anyone have any idea how I can fix this? Should I try and return the phone?

  • 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.

  • 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 have explation guys..why apple dual qure is faster than other quad qure devices?and appl 1g ram .is faster 2g of other devises?...i wish to get the reason

    i have explation guys..why apple dual qure is faster than other quad qure devices?and appl 1g ram .is faster 2g of other devises?...i wish to get the reason

    It is the OS. have you ever heard of UNIX? If you installed linux on your mac it work run just at fast... windows is very resource intensive. Also apple make sure the drivers are correct and run properly while windows could care less. Someone else can give you more reasons.

  • Firefox seems/is faster than Safari but why?

    I always found Safari to be faster than Firefox. Safari 4 compared to Firefox 3.5 seems slower. Some pages take forever to respond in Safari and don't in Firefox. I also think the screen now refreshes faster in Firefox. I've looked at the specs and Safari is supposed to be much faster but I don't seem to be experiencing it as so.
    Although Firefox is nicer for the Mac in its 3.5 iteration, I'm used to Safari having used it since I returned to the Mac in 2003. Also, Firefox doesn't support the same level of services as Safari. In Safari, I'm constantly using services to grab info to SOHO Notes folders.
    Any idea why Safari might be performing like this.

    Greetings,
    The reasons behind your experience could be many, but try this to see if it improves things:
    Quit Safari if it's running and open System Preferences>Network.
    In the DNS Server tab, make sure IPv6 is turned off, and enter these two DNS servers to replace the ones you currently have:
    208.67.222.222
    208.67.220.220
    click Apply Now and quit System Preferences.
    Next, do these things in order:
    1. Go to Home/Library/Cookies and delete the Cookies.plist file.
    2. Go to Home/Library/Caches/com.apple.Safari and delete the contents of that folder.
    3. Go to Home/Library/Caches/com.apple.Safari/Web Page Previews and delete the contents of that folder.
    4. If you don't want to use the Top Sites feature, open Terminal and paste in this command:
    defaults write com.apple.Safari DebugSnapshotsUpdatePolicy -int 2
    5. Go to Home/Library/Caches/Metadata/Safari and delete the contents of that folder.
    6. Go to Home/Library/Caches/Safari and delete the contents of that folder.
    7. Go to Home/Library/Safari and delete these files (if you have them):
    Downloads.plist
    History.plist
    Form Values
    LastSession.plist
    WebpageIcons.db
    Repair Disk Permissions, then restart Safari and see if the speed is improved.

  • I have IE & Firefox on both my laptop and desktop. Why is Firefox so much slower than IE7? Firefox seems to take forever to load pages!

    I have a HP laptop & Dell desktop with IE7 and Firefox. I use Firefox more as I like it better than IE, yet the pages in Firefox load so slow. I thought the new version of Firefox was so much faster, but it seems to drag along and take forever to load pages. Why is this??
    == This happened ==
    Every time Firefox opened
    == 6/17/2010

    Please ask your question on a forum for the Flash Player

  • Why is Thunderbolt so much slower than USB3?

    I'm considering two different drives for Time Machine purposes. Both are LaCie. Either of these:
    - Two Porsche 9233 drives, 4 TB each
    OR
    - A 2Big Thunderbolt drive, 8 TB, which I would configure as RAID 1 (a mirrored 4 TB volume)
    My question is this: I've viewed both of these product pages via the Apple Store, and I noticed that LaCie's information for the Thunderbolt drive makes it a lot slower than the USB drives. Meaning: They say that the 2Big Thunderbolt drive maxes out at like 427 MB/s, whereas the Porsche USB drives max out at 5 GB/s. Why is this? Isn't Thunderbolt supposed to be a lot faster than USB (any iteration)?

    Not an easy question, short of a whole lot more detail on the construction of those two devices.   You're likely going to need to look at the details of the drives and probably at some actual data.   You're really looking for some real benchmark data that you can compare, in other words.    Particularly which (likely Seagate) drives are used in those (IIRC, Seagate bought LaCie a while back), and what the specs are.
    The hard disk drives themselves are a central factor, where the drive transfer rate is a key metric for big transfers (and that can be based on drive RPM as much as anything, faster drives can stream more data, but they tend to need more power and run hotter), and access (seek) time for lots of smaller transfers (faster seeks mean faster access, so good for lots of small files scattered around).  Finding the details of the drives can be interesting, though.  I've seen lots of cheaper disks that spin very slowly, which means that they can have nice-looking transfer times out of any cache, but then... you... wait... for... the... disk... to... spin.
    The device bus interfaces can also vary (wildly) in quality.   I've seen some decent ones, and I've seen some USB adapters that were absolute garbage.   Some devices have decent quantities of cache, too.  Others have dinky caches, and end up doing synchronous transfers to hard disks, and that's glacial compared with memory speeds.
    One of your example configurations also features RAID 1 mirroring, which means that each write is hitting both disks.   The writes have to pass through a controller that can do RAID 0 mirroring, and that can write the I/O requests to both drives, and that can read the data back from (if it's clever) whichever of the two drives is best positioned in related to the sectors you're after.   If it's dumb, it won't account for the head positions and drive rotation and sector target.   Hopefully the controller is smart enough to correctly deal with a disk failure; I've met a few RAID controllers that weren't as effective when disks had failed and the array was running in a degrated mode.  In short, RAID 1 mirroring is a reliability-targeted configuration and not a performance configuration.  It'll be slower.  Lose a disk in RAID 1 mirroring, and you have a second disk with a second copy.    If the controller works right.
    If you want I/O performance without reliability, then configure for RAID 0 striping.   With that configuration, you're reading data from both disks.  But lose a disk in a RAID 0 striping configuration and you're dealing with data recovery, at best.  If the failure is catastrophic, you've lost half your data.
    But nobody's going to make this choice for you, and I'd be skeptical of any specs outside of actual benchmarks, and preferably benchmarks approximating your use.  Reliability is another factor, and that's largely down to reputation in the market; how well the vendor supports the devices, should something go wrong.  One of the few ways to sort-of compare that beyond the reviews is the relative length of the warranty, and what the warranty covers; vendors generally try to design and build their devices to last at least the length of the warranty.
    Yeah.  Lots of factors to consider.  No good answers, either.  Given it's a backup disk, I'd personally tend to favor  eliability and warranty and less about brute speed.
    Full disclosure: no experience with either of these two devices.  I am working with Promise Pegasus Thunderbolt disk arrays configured RAID 6 on various Mac Mini configurations, and those support four parallel HD DTV video streams with no effort.  The Pegasus boxes are plenty fast.  They're also much more expensive than what you're looking at.

  • Calling a library function node much faster than labview code?

    Hi,  I wrote a labview routine to perform a multiple tau autocorrelation on a large array of integers.  A multi tau autocorrelation is a way to reduce the computation time of the correlation but at the expense of resolution.  You can taylor the multitau correlation to give you good resolution where you need it.  For instance, I require good resolution near the middle (the peak) of the correlation, so I do a linear autocorrelation for the first 64 channels from the peak, then I skip every second channel for the next 32, then skip every 4th channel for 32 more, then skip every 8th for 32 channels... etc.
    Originally, I wrote my own multitau calculation, but it took several hours to perform for just 1024 channels of the correlation of around 2million points of data.  I need to actually do the the correlation on probably 2 billion or more points of data, which would take days.  So then I tried using labview's AutoCorrelation.vi which calls a library function.  It could do a linear autocorrelation with 4 million points in less than a minute.  I figured that writing my code in C and calling it using a call library function node would be faster, but that much faster?
    Finally, I wrote some code that extracts the correlation data points that I would've got from my multitau code from the linear correlation function that I get from the AutoCorrelation.vi.  Clearly this is not optimal, since I spend time calculating all those channels of the correlation function just to throw them away in the end, but I need to do this because the final step of my procedure is to fit the correlation function to a theoretical one.  With say 2million points, the fit would take too long.  The interesting thing here is that simply extracting the 1024 point from the linear autocorrelation function takes a significant amount of time.  Is labview really that slow?
    So, my questions are...  if I rewrite my multitau autocorrelation function in C and call it using a call library function node, will it run that much faster?  Can I achieve the same efficiency if I use a formula node structure?  Why does it take so long just to extract 1024 points from an array?
    I've tried hiding indicators and this speeds things up a little bit, but not very much.
    I'll attach my code if you're interested in taking a look.  There is a switch on the front panel called 'MultiTau'... if in the off position, the code performs the linear autocorrelation with the AutoCorrelation.vi, if in the on position, it performs a multitau autocorrelation using the code I wrote.  Thanks for any help.
    Attachments:
    MultiTauAutocorrelate.vi ‏627 KB

    Hi,
    The C routine that AutoCorrelation.vi is using is probably a higly optimised routine. If you write a routine in LabVIEW, it should be less then 15% slower. But you'd have to know all ins and outs of LabVIEW. How data is handled, when memory is allocated, etc. Also note that the AutoCorrelation.vi has years of engineering behind it, and probably multiple programmers.
    It might even be possible that the c code uses an algorithmic improvement, like the Fast Fourier Transform improves speed on the Fourier Transform. I think the autocorrelation can be done using FFT, but that isn't my thing, so I'm not sure.
    For a fair comparation, posting the code in this forum was a good idea. I'm sure together we can get it to 115% or less of the C variant. (15/115 is just a guess, btw)
    I'm still using LV7.1 for client compatibility, so I'll look at the code later.
    Regards,
    Wiebe.
    "dakeddie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    Hi,&nbsp; I wrote a labview routine to perform a multiple tau autocorrelation on a large array of integers.&nbsp; A multi tau autocorrelation is a way to reduce the computation time of the correlation but at the expense of resolution.&nbsp; You can taylor the multitau correlation to give you good resolution where you need it.&nbsp; For instance, I require good resolution near the middle (the peak) of the correlation, so I do a linear autocorrelation for the first 64 channels from the peak, then I skip every second channel for the next 32, then skip every 4th channel for 32 more, then skip every 8th for 32 channels... etc. Originally, I wrote my own multitau calculation, but it took several hours to perform for just 1024 channels of the correlation of around 2million points of data.&nbsp; I need to actually do the the correlation on probably 2 billion or more points of data, which would take days.&nbsp; So then I tried using labview's AutoCorrelation.vi which calls a library function.&nbsp; It could do a linear autocorrelation with 4 million points in less than a minute.&nbsp; I figured that writing my code in C and calling it using a call library function node would be faster, but that much faster?Finally, I wrote some code that extracts the correlation data points that I would've got from my multitau code from the linear correlation function that I get from the AutoCorrelation.vi.&nbsp; Clearly this is not optimal, since I spend time calculating all those channels of the correlation function just to throw them away in the end, but I need to do this because the final step of my procedure is to fit the correlation function to a theoretical one.&nbsp; With say 2million points, the fit would take too long.&nbsp; The interesting thing here is that simply extracting the 1024 point from the linear autocorrelation function takes a significant amount of time.&nbsp; Is labview really that slow?So, my questions are...&nbsp; if I rewrite my multitau autocorrelation function in C and call it using a call library function node, will it run that much faster?&nbsp; Can I achieve the same efficiency if I use a formula node structure?&nbsp; Why does it take so long just to extract 1024 points from an array?I've tried hiding indicators and this speeds things up a little bit, but not very much.I'll attach my code if you're interested in taking a look.&nbsp; There is a switch on the front panel called 'MultiTau'... if in the off position, the code performs the linear autocorrelation with the AutoCorrelation.vi, if in the on position, it performs a multitau autocorrelation using the code I wrote.&nbsp; Thanks for any help.
    MultiTauAutocorrelate.vi:
    http://forums.ni.com/attachments/ni/170/185730/1/M​ultiTauAutocorrelate.vi

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

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

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

Maybe you are looking for