Search Results

Search found 415 results on 17 pages for 'bottleneck'.

Page 1/17 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Numeric GUI bottleneck

    - by Physic
    Hi all, I've made a GUI to set up and start a numerical integrator using PyQT4, Wing, QT, and Python 2.6.6, on my Mac. The thing is, when I run the integrator form the GUI, it takes very many times longer than when I crudely run the integrator from the command line. As an example, a 1000 year integration took 98 seconds on the command line and ~570 seconds from the GUI. In the GUI, the integration runs from a thread and then returns. It uses a a queue to communicate back to the GUI. Does anyone have any ideas as to where the bottleneck is? I suspect that others may be experiencing something like this just on a smaller scale. t = threading.Thread( target=self.threadsafe_start_thread, args=( self.queue, self.selected ) ) t.start() Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How do I diagnose a bottleneck in an Intel Atom based Ubuntu server?

    - by Jon Cage
    I have a small media server at home which has software raid and a gigabit link to the rest of my network. For some reason though, I only get ~10MB/s transfers when copying to/from the server. I use software RAID5 (mdadm) over 4 1TB disks. On top of that I then use LVM to give me a huge pool of disk space which is then split up into multiple partitions which can be resized as and when they need it. I'm guessing this it most likely the cause, but I'd like to know for sure where the root cause is. So, how can I benchmark network throughput (Windows 7 desktop <- Ubuntu server) and hard disk performance to try and identify where my bottleneck might be? [Edit] If anyone's interested, the motherboard is an Intel Desktop Board D945GCLF2. So that's a 300 series Atom processor with the Intel® 945GC Express Chipset [Edit2] I feel like such a fool! I just checked my desktop and I had the slower of the two onboard NICs plugged in so the server is probably not at fault here. Transferring a copy of ubuntu off the server I get ~35-40MB/s according to Windows 7. I'll do those HD tests when I get a chance though (just for completeness).

    Read the article

  • Optimizing collision engine bottleneck

    - by Vittorio Romeo
    Foreword: I'm aware that optimizing this bottleneck is not a necessity - the engine is already very fast. I, however, for fun and educational purposes, would love to find a way to make the engine even faster. I'm creating a general-purpose C++ 2D collision detection/response engine, with an emphasis on flexibility and speed. Here's a very basic diagram of its architecture: Basically, the main class is World, which owns (manages memory) of a ResolverBase*, a SpatialBase* and a vector<Body*>. SpatialBase is a pure virtual class which deals with broad-phase collision detection. ResolverBase is a pure virtual class which deals with collision resolution. The bodies communicate to the World::SpatialBase* with SpatialInfo objects, owned by the bodies themselves. There currenly is one spatial class: Grid : SpatialBase, which is a basic fixed 2D grid. It has it's own info class, GridInfo : SpatialInfo. Here's how its architecture looks: The Grid class owns a 2D array of Cell*. The Cell class contains two collection of (not owned) Body*: a vector<Body*> which contains all the bodies that are in the cell, and a map<int, vector<Body*>> which contains all the bodies that are in the cell, divided in groups. Bodies, in fact, have a groupId int that is used for collision groups. GridInfo objects also contain non-owning pointers to the cells the body is in. As I previously said, the engine is based on groups. Body::getGroups() returns a vector<int> of all the groups the body is part of. Body::getGroupsToCheck() returns a vector<int> of all the groups the body has to check collision against. Bodies can occupy more than a single cell. GridInfo always stores non-owning pointers to the occupied cells. After the bodies move, collision detection happens. We assume that all bodies are axis-aligned bounding boxes. How broad-phase collision detection works: Part 1: spatial info update For each Body body: Top-leftmost occupied cell and bottom-rightmost occupied cells are calculated. If they differ from the previous cells, body.gridInfo.cells is cleared, and filled with all the cells the body occupies (2D for loop from the top-leftmost cell to the bottom-rightmost cell). body is now guaranteed to know what cells it occupies. For a performance boost, it stores a pointer to every map<int, vector<Body*>> of every cell it occupies where the int is a group of body->getGroupsToCheck(). These pointers get stored in gridInfo->queries, which is simply a vector<map<int, vector<Body*>>*>. body is now guaranteed to have a pointer to every vector<Body*> of bodies of groups it needs to check collision against. These pointers are stored in gridInfo->queries. Part 2: actual collision checks For each Body body: body clears and fills a vector<Body*> bodiesToCheck, which contains all the bodies it needs to check against. Duplicates are avoided (bodies can belong to more than one group) by checking if bodiesToCheck already contains the body we're trying to add. const vector<Body*>& GridInfo::getBodiesToCheck() { bodiesToCheck.clear(); for(const auto& q : queries) for(const auto& b : *q) if(!contains(bodiesToCheck, b)) bodiesToCheck.push_back(b); return bodiesToCheck; } The GridInfo::getBodiesToCheck() method IS THE BOTTLENECK. The bodiesToCheck vector must be filled for every body update because bodies could have moved meanwhile. It also needs to prevent duplicate collision checks. The contains function simply checks if the vector already contains a body with std::find. Collision is checked and resolved for every body in bodiesToCheck. That's it. So, I've been trying to optimize this broad-phase collision detection for quite a while now. Every time I try something else than the current architecture/setup, something doesn't go as planned or I make assumption about the simulation that later are proven to be false. My question is: how can I optimize the broad-phase of my collision engine maintaining the grouped bodies approach? Is there some kind of magic C++ optimization that can be applied here? Can the architecture be redesigned in order to allow for more performance? Actual implementation: SSVSCollsion Body.h, Body.cpp World.h, World.cpp Grid.h, Grid.cpp Cell.h, Cell.cpp GridInfo.h, GridInfo.cpp

    Read the article

  • Strategy to find bottleneck in a network

    - by Simone
    Our enterprise is having some problem when the number of incoming request goes beyond a certain amount. To make things simpler, we have N websites that uses, amongst other, a local web service. This service is hosted by IIS, and it's a .NET 4.0 (C#) application executed in a farm. It's REST-oriented, built around OpenRasta. As already mentioned, by stress testing it with JMeter, we've found that beyond a certain amount of request the service's performance drop. Anyway, this service is, amongst other, a client itself of other 3 distinct web services and also a client for a DB server, so it's not very clear what really is the culprit of this abrupt decay. In turn, these 3 other web services are installed in our farm too, and client of other DB servers (and services, possibly, that are out of my team control). What strategy do you suggest to try to locate where the bottleneck(s) are? Do you have any high-level suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Can a SQL Server have a CPU bottleneck when Processor Time is under 30%

    - by Sleepless
    Is it in principle possible for the CPU to be the bottleneck on a SQL Server if the Performance Counter Processor:Processor Time is constantly under 30% on all cores? Or does low Processor Time automatically allow me to rule out the CPU as a potential trouble source? I am asking this because SQL Nexus lists CPU as the top bottleneck on a server with low Processor Time values.

    Read the article

  • Does this prove a network bandwidth bottleneck?

    - by Yuji Tomita
    I've incorrectly assumed that my internal AB testing means my server can handle 1k concurrency @3k hits per second. My theory at at the moment is that the network is the bottleneck. The server can't send enough data fast enough. External testing from blitz.io at 1k concurrency shows my hits/s capping off at 180, with pages taking longer and longer to respond as the server is only able to return 180 per second. I've served a blank file from nginx and benched it: it scales 1:1 with concurrency. Now to rule out IO / memcached bottlenecks (nginx normally pulls from memcached), I serve up a static version of the cached page from the filesystem. The results are very similar to my original test; I'm capped at around 180 RPS. Splitting the HTML page in half gives me double the RPS, so it's definitely limited by the size of the page. If I internally ApacheBench from the local server, I get consistent results of around 4k RPS on both the Full Page and the Half Page, at high transfer rates. Transfer rate: 62586.14 [Kbytes/sec] received If I AB from an external server, I get around 180RPS - same as the blitz.io results. How do I know it's not intentional throttling? If I benchmark from multiple external servers, all results become poor which leads me to believe the problem is in MY servers outbound traffic, not a download speed issue with my benchmarking servers / blitz.io. So I'm back to my conclusion that my server can't send data fast enough. Am I right? Are there other ways to interpret this data? Is the solution/optimization to set up multiple servers + load balancing that can each serve 180 hits per second? I'm quite new to server optimization, so I'd appreciate any confirmation interpreting this data. Outbound traffic Here's more information about the outbound bandwidth: The network graph shows a maximum output of 16 Mb/s: 16 megabits per second. Doesn't sound like much at all. Due to a suggestion about throttling, I looked into this and found that linode has a 50mbps cap (which I'm not even close to hitting, apparently). I had it raised to 100mbps. Since linode caps my traffic, and I'm not even hitting it, does this mean that my server should indeed be capable of outputting up to 100mbps but is limited by some other internal bottleneck? I just don't understand how networks at this large of a scale work; can they literally send data as fast as they can read from the HDD? Is the network pipe that big? In conclusion 1: Based on the above, I'm thinking I can definitely raise my 180RPS by adding an nginx load balancer on top of a multi nginx server setup at exactly 180RPS per server behind the LB. 2: If linode has a 50/100mbit limit that I'm not hitting at all, there must be something I can do to hit that limit with my single server setup. If I can read / transmit data fast enough locally, and linode even bothers to have a 50mbit/100mbit cap, there must be an internal bottleneck that's not allowing me to hit those caps that I'm not sure how to detect. Correct? I realize the question is huge and vague now, but I'm not sure how to condense it. Any input is appreciated on any conclusion I've made.

    Read the article

  • Terrible DotNetNuke performance

    - by Peter Bridger
    I'm involved with a project using DotNetNuke version 05.01.04 Community Edition. We are building our new Intranet using it, but performance is terrible. We have five people adding pages and content to it and every 15-30 seconds they experience a pause of 10 seconds or longer before the system continues and the next screens loads. The server is Windows 2003, 3.8GHz with 1GB of RAM. I'm told by our server admin that the CPU and memory performance don't appear to be the bottleneck. We currently have 350 pages in the system, we a plan to add 1000. So we need to resolve this performance problem so that we can enter content and so we can go live. I just can't see where the bottleneck is. Is there a good why to determine the bottleneck when using DotNetNuke? Modules installed Publish:Engage (Not currently in use) Page Blaster (Doesn't appear to providing caching when users logged in using Integrated Authentication) SimpleGallery XMod Content Manager IIS Setup Application recycling completely disabled (Apart from a 2am recycle) New findings: 18th March 2010 The main bottleneck was due to version 5.1.4 having a bug which caused 1300 database roundtrips on an average page, due to broken database in-memory caching. We've upgraded to 5.2.4 which has resolved this bottleneck. Now the next biggest bottleneck is the navigation. We've used both DDR:Menu and DDN:Nav, but both have a major impact on performance. Is there a navigation interface out there that doesn't drain performance so badly?

    Read the article

  • What is bottleneck of my Apache server ?

    - by rrh
    $netstat -anp | grep :80 | grep TIME_WAIT | wc -l 840 $netstat -anp |grep :80 | grep ESTABLISHED | wc -l 50 memory usage : 850MB / 1000MB apache2.conf contains.. <IfModule mpm_prefork_module> StartServers 5 MinSpareServers 5 MaxSpareServers 10 MaxClients 150 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 </IfModule> <IfModule mpm_worker_module> StartServers 2 MinSpareThreads 25 MaxSpareThreads 75 ThreadLimit 64 ThreadsPerChild 25 MaxClients 150 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 </IfModule> <IfModule mpm_event_module> StartServers 2 MaxClients 150 MinSpareThreads 25 MaxSpareThreads 75 ThreadLimit 64 ThreadsPerChild 25 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 </IfModule> Are there any configuration changes that can help me or its just my RAM the bottleneck here? Urgent help needed..!!

    Read the article

  • iis7 large worker process request queue creating process blocking aspnet.config & machine.config amended (bottleneck)

    - by scott_lotus
    ASP.net 2.0 app .net 2.0 framework IIS7 I am seeing a large queue of "requests" appear under the "worker process" option. State recorded appear to be Authenticate Request and Execute Request Handles more than anything else. I have amended aspnet.config in C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v2.0.50727 (32 bit path and 64 bit path) to include: maxConcurrentRequestsPerCPU="50000" maxConcurrentThreadsPerCPU="0" requestQueueLimit="50000" I have amended machine.config in C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v2.0.50727\CONFIG (32 bit and 64 bit path) to include: autoConfig="true" maxIoThreads="100" maxWorkerThreads="100" minIoThreads="50" minWorkerThreads="50" minFreeThreads="176" minLocalRequestFreeThreads="152" Still i get the issue. The issue manifestes itself as a large number of processes in the Worker Process queue. Number of current connections to the website display 500 when this issue occurs. I dont think i have seen concurrent connections over 500 without this issue occurring. Web application slows as the request block. Refreshing the app pool resolves for a while (as expected) as the load is spread between the two pools. Application pool in question FIXED REQUEST have been set to refresh on 50000. Thank you for any help. Scott quick edit to say hmm, my develeopers are telling me the project was built with .net 3.5 framework. Looking at C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework64\v3.5 there does not appear to be a ASPNET.CONFIG or a MACHINE.CONFIG .... is there a 3.5 equivalent ? after a little searching apparenetly 3.5 uses the 2.0 framework files that 3.5 is missing. So back to the original question , where is my bottleneck ?

    Read the article

  • How To Remove Bottleneck with Squid Caching Proxy

    - by Volomike
    I'm more of a LAMP web developer trying to help the sysop. When I joined a project, I inherited some old PHP spaghetti code. Some of that code is that it goes out to a third-party website (let's call it thirdparty.com) and pulls down content with an HTTP-GET request. Unfortunately, the way the code is designed, it needs to do this several times a minute. When we looked at the bottlenecks on the server with 'netstat -a', we saw that connections to thirdparty.com were constantly running when this content would be plenty fine to be gathered once a day. What I need to know is if the Squid Proxy Caching Server is the solution we need? I'm guessing that this might let us have it pretend to be thirdparty.com on the network. If the web server needs to query thirdparty.com, it hits Squid instead. Squid can then determine whether it needs to supply content from cache or if it needs to go to thirdparty.com for fresh content. Is this the solution we need? And second, is this easily configured and only to cache thirdparty.com requests?

    Read the article

  • Network bottleneck/throttling issue

    - by Gavin
    Hi all, It's my first day at a new company and i've been given the task to find out an issue with the internet connection. I noticed that whilst I was downloading a large file, the network grinds to a halt, except for my download. At first I thought it was the internet connection/modem but it seems that whilst the lockdown occurs, I am unable to access any network device. Has anyone experienced this before and if so, do you have any pointers? Looking at the setup. They have an DSL modem that connects to a 10/100 switch. There are only 5-6 computers on the network. Cheers Gavin

    Read the article

  • Where is the bottleneck?

    - by jsymon
    There is a limit on connections somewhere along the line here... On a windows server 2008 machine, each request to a url running on localhost takes ~3 seconds to complete. This is fine and normal for the url. However, if i open the same localhost url in about 10 tabs, and set them to reload all at the same time, they finish sequentially, 3 seconds after each other. Meaning the last tab has taken 30 seconds to load (3s x 10). What is especially odd is that firebug reports each page as taking 3seconds to load. Another point to add is that the status bar just sits at 'done' for the last tab until 3 seconds before completing, where it then changes to 'waiting for localhost'. I am praying there is some connection limit somewhere otherwise this would be a disaster if more than one user ever visited the site at a time! Maybe a limit or something where one pc cant make more than 2 simultaneous requests to a url at a given time?

    Read the article

  • Simple end-to-end load and bottleneck monitoring for DB-based web sites

    - by T.J. Crowder
    What tools do you use / would you recommend for monitoring a Linux-based, DB-based website's servers for bottlenecks and load? The obvious goal being to know when growth has gotten to the point where it's necessary to scale up (or out) one or more of the bits and pieces because the current system won't be managing the load if an observed trend continues. I'm looking for general recommendations based on standard Linux load metrics, disk I/O metrics, network I/O metrics, etc., but if specifics are helpful: It'll be Tomcat6 using APR (possibly with a Varnish or similar caching and balancing front-end), MySQL, and either Ubuntu 8.04 LTS or 10.04 LTS depending on timing. I know about top, vmstat, iostat, bwmon and the like that collect and parse info from the /proc file system (et. al.); and obviously MySQL provides a lot of queriable performance information. I could use those directly, probably automating periodic monitoring logs with scripts and such. But I have a suspicion that I'd be reinventing a wheel... For example, Hyperic HQ seems to be along the lines of what I'm looking for. Others? Meta: I tend to think of "recommendation" questions as needing to be CW because there's no one right answer, but I see a lot of these here that aren't CWs, so I haven't marked it as one. I'll happily do so if enough people think I should.

    Read the article

  • Identifying Hard Drive as performance bottleneck for desktop machines

    - by Programming Hero
    I'm working in a development team where we all use laptops so we can work in multiple locations. These laptops are proving notoriously slow for development work, but at a glance they all look to have the specification for a much faster experience: CPU - Intel Core 2 Duo T7500 Memory - 2GB of RAM We all experience the biggest delays when the hard-drives are being accessed, particularly when swap-files are being thrashed. After doing a little bit of profile, a colleague discovered that our HDDs are seeing Read/Write speeds of about 10MB/sec. This seems abnormally low and we believe it the cause of the problem. Sensibly (though somewhat annoyingly) our business wont blow money on faster drives just to see if it fixes the problem; we need to illustrate this is definitely the problem and that buying some solid-state drives will make it go away. I need some way of showing how 90% of the system resources aren't being used over the course of a day, and that whenever there is utilization, it's all in HDD reads or writes. Are there any tools I could use to provide this information? Does it seem likely the problem is going to be fixed by a faster drive? Should I be looking for alternatives?

    Read the article

  • master-slave-slave replication: master will become bottleneck for writes

    - by JMW
    hi, the mysql database has arround 2TB of data. i have a master-slave-slave replication running. the application that uses the database does read (SELECT) queries just on one of the 2 slaves and write (DELETE/INSERT/UPDATE) queries on the master. the application does way more reads, than writes. if we have a problem with the read (SELECT) queries, we can just add another slave database and tell the application, that there is another salve. so it scales well... Currently, the master is running arround 40% disk io due to the writes. So i'm thinking about how to scale the the database in the future. Because one day the master will be overloaded. What could be a solution there? maybe mysql cluster? if so, are there any pitfalls or limitations in switching the database to ndb? thanks a lot in advance... :)

    Read the article

  • Performance Bottleneck with Photoshop CS3 on XPSP3

    - by Doozer1979
    I have an intel core 2 4400, with 4GB of ram running on XP 32-BIT SP3. Photoshop CS3 becomes sluggish & unresponsive even after loading up small files, and this is with only Bridge open as well, plus McAffee AV. My photos are loaded in from a USB 2 external drive, and my c: drive is used only for programs and windows itself. Even with 4GB of RAM, i am seeing the pagefile increase to 1.6GB, whilst there appears to be 1.5GB of RAM free to use. I've defragged the drive, with defraggler, and after that the only file reported to be fragmented was the pagefile itself. Anyone have any ideas what i can do to improve/solve this?

    Read the article

  • Most hazardous performance bottleneck misconceptions

    - by David Murdoch
    The guys who wrote Bespin (cloud-based canvas-based code editor [and more]) recently spoke about how they re-factored and optimize a portion of the Bespin code because of a misconception that JavaScript was slow. It turned out that when all was said and done, their optimization produced no significant improvements. I'm sure many of us go out of our way to write "optimized" code based on misconceptions similar to that of the Bespin team. What are some common performance bottleneck misconceptions developers commonly subscribe to?

    Read the article

  • What iowait values are ok?

    - by alfish
    I am trying to find the bottleneck of a server running a fairly busy php/mysql site. My first culprit was io but iostat shows that on average iowait consumes only %3.60 of cpu time. here is the complete result of issuing iostat: avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 65.78 0.00 8.52 3.60 0.00 22.10 Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn sda 42.36 138.28 1754.70 408630278 5185216128 So I am wondering if the iowait is within acceptable range, and if not, whether switching from SATA to SSD would dramatically reduce it?

    Read the article

  • Bad I/O scheduler?

    - by user62367
    os: up-to-date Fedora 14. Working as a "normal desktop". It's doing very well, but if i start VirtualBox, and e.g.: install a guest on it, it just "freezez". I mean if there are disk activities on a VirtualBox guest, then the computer becomes unrespondable..even the mouse is laggin for about 50 minutes.. What could be the bottleneck? What could be the problem? If anyone has any tips/howtos to speed it up, please help! It has a normal 2,5" HDD, with 5400 RPM. Does it worth for me if i buy a 2,5" HDD with 7200 RPM? T7200 cpu, 4 GByte RAM, "vm.swappiness = 0". Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Server hard disk read speed and client download speed, is there a connection? [closed]

    - by Mywiki Witwiki
    Ok so a client's download speed is only as fast as a server's upload speed, and vice versa. Based on the answers to this post: Does upload speed depend upon download speed of the server? In other words, the data transfer rate between the two computers is only as fast as the speed of the "bottleneck". Let's pretend the two computers are in two different networks and both have 100Mbps internet connection. Ben wants a copy of a file in Mark's computer hard disk with 30Mbps read speed. Does this mean that Ben can download the file at a speed of around 30Mbps only, despite having an internet connection faster than 30Mbps?

    Read the article

  • Should I use nginx exclusively, or have it as a proxy to Tomcat (performance related)?

    - by Kevin
    I've planned to create a website that'll be pretty heavy on dynamic content, and want to know what would be the wisest choice for part of my webstack. Right now I'm trying to decide whether I should develop upon nginx, using PHP to deliver the dynamic content, or use nginx as a proxy to Tomcat and use servlets to deliver the dynamic content. I have a good amount of experience with Java, JSP, and servlets, so that's a plus right off the bat. Also, since it is a compiled language, it will execute faster than PHP (it is implied here that Java is around 37x faster than PHP) , and will create the web pages faster. I have no experience with PHP, however i'm under the impression that it is easy to pick up. It's slower than Java, but since the client will only be communicating with nginx, I'm thinking that serving the dynamically created web pages to the client will be faster this way. Considering these things, i'd like to know: Are my assumptions correct? Where does the bottleneck occur: creating pages or serving them back to the client? Will proxying Tomcat with nginx give me any of nginx performance benefits if I'm going to be using Tomcat to generate the dynamic content (keeping in mind my site is going to be heavy in this aspect)? I don't mind learning PHP if, in the end, its going to give me the best performance. I just want to know what would be the best choice from that standpoint.

    Read the article

  • What are the most likely bottlenecks determining the performance of CamStudio screen recording?

    - by Steve314
    When doing screen recording, I can get a frame rate of maybe 15 frames per second for the full screen on my 1080p monitor using the XVID codec. I can increase the speed a bit by recording a region, changing screen modes, and tweaking other settings, but I'm curious what hardware upgrades might give me the biggest bang for my buck. My PC is budget, but modern... Athlon 2 X4 645 (3.1GHz, quad core, limited cache) processor. 4GB single channel DDR3 1066 RAM. ASRock motherboard with NVidia GeForce 7025/nForce 630a Chipset. ATI Radeon HD 5450 graphics card - 512MB on board, not configured to steal system RAM. I dual-boot Windows XP and Windows 7. For the moment, XP is my bigger performance concern as it's still my getting-things-done O/S as opposed to my browser-host O/S. My goal is to make a few programming-related tutorials. For a lot of that I don't need screen recording - I can make up some slides, record audio with the PC switched off, yada yada. When I do need screen recording, I'll mostly be recording Notepad++, Visual Studio or a command prompt. Occasionally, I may be recording some kind of graphics or diagram program and using my pre-Bamboo cheap Wacom tablet - I have the CS2 versions of Photoshop and Illustrator, but I'd much more likely be using Microsoft Paint. Basically, what I'll be recording won't be making huge demands on the machine - but recording a fair number of pixels (720p preferred) will be useful. What's particularly wierd - not so long ago I still had a five-year-old Pentium 4 based PC. And (with the same 1080p monitor) it could record at not far from the same frame rate. So clearly the performance issues are more subtle than just throw-money-at-it. My first guess would be that the main bottleneck is the bandwidth for transferring data to/from the graphics card. Is that likely to be correct? In support of that, see this [Radeon HD 5450 review][1] - the memory bandwidth is only 12.8 GB/s. If you can't get data out of graphics memory quickly, you can't transfer it back to the system memory quickly. Apparently, that's slower than some top-end cards in 2002.

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >