Search Results

Search found 4580 results on 184 pages for 'faster'.

Page 20/184 | < Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >

  • Why is my new Phenom II 965 BE not significantly faster than my old Athlon 64 X2 4600+?

    - by Software Monkey
    I recently rebuilt my 5 year old computer. I upgraded all core components, in particular from an Athlon 64 X2 4600+ at 2.4 GHz with DDR2 800 to a Phenom II 965 BE (quad core) at 3.6 GHz with DDR3 1333 (actually 1600, but testing consistently detected memory errors at 1600). The motherboard is also much newer and better. The HDD's (x3), DVD writer and card reader are the same. The BIOS memory config is auto-everything except the base timing which I overrode to 1T instead of 2T. The BIOS CPU multiplier is slightly over-clocked to 3.6 GHz from the stock 3.4 GHz. I noticed compiling Java is slower than I expected. As it happens I have some (single-threaded) Java pattern-matching code which is CPU and memory bound and for which I have performance numbers recorded on a number of hardware platforms, including my old system. So I did a test run on the new equipment and was stunned to find that the numbers are only slightly better than my old system, about 25%. The data set it is operating on is a 148,975 character array, which should easily fit in caches, but in any event the new CPU has larger caches all around. The system was, of course, otherwise idle for the test and the test run is a timed 10 seconds to eliminate scheduling anomalies. A long while ago, when I upgraded only memory from DD2 667 to DDR2 800 there was no change in performance of this test, which subjectively supports that the test cycle does not need to (significantly) access main memory, but yes it is creating and garbage collecting a large number of objects in the process of this test (low millions of matches are found for the pattern set). I am about 99.999% certain the code hasn't changed since I last ran it on 2009-03-17 - but I can't easily retest the old hardware, because it is currently in pieces on my work-bench waiting to be built into a new computer for my kids. Note that Windows (XP) reports a CPU speed of 795 MHz unless I have some thing running. With stuff running it seems to jump all over the place each time I use ALT-Pause to display the system properties, everywhere from 795 MHz to 3.4 Ghz. So why might my shiny new hardware under-performing so badly? EDIT: The old memory was Mushkin DDR2 800 with timings set for auto which should have been 5-5-5-12. The new memory is Corsair DDR3 1600, running at 1333 with timings also auto which are 9-9-9-21. In both cases they are a paired set of dual channel DIMMs. I was waiting to ensure my system was stable before tweaking with memory timings.

    Read the article

  • Why maximum 1.0 Gbit Ethernet connection an old notebook, and only 100 Mbit on newer faster computer

    - by Sam
    Strange problem about Ethernet speed: recently we bought an i7 core computer running Win7 64 bit with an onboard Gigabit Ethernet controller (Realtek PCIe Gbit Ethernet Family controller). Connecting this new fast pc directly to our brand new ASUS Gigabit Ethernet router via CAT6 cable(!) shows up the adapter status (see picture attached) only 100mbit, while the router is capable of 1000 mbit. More facts: Connecting an 8 year old IBM notebook with gigabit ethernet to the same cable end shows 1.0 Gbit connection in its adapter status. Speedtest.net shows 35 mbit/s down on the new computer Speedtest.net shows 78 mbit/s down on the old rusty IBM notebook. We have an 120 mbit down internet connection, which we we truly receive on another pc (also directly connected to the router) How to get the 1.0 Gbit going in the new pc ?

    Read the article

  • Real performance gain from faster IDE or SATA hard drive?

    - by raw_noob
    How much of a real-world performance gain would you expect from: replacing a 5400rpm IDE HD with a 7200rpm IDE HD? replacing a 5400rpm IDE HD with a SATA-150? It's assumed that the drive in question is both the system drive and the only drive. A modest AMD Sempron-based home computer with adequate DDR memory running Windows XP Home SP3. Thanks for looking.

    Read the article

  • VMWare Pre-Allocated vs. Growable, which is faster?

    - by tekiegreg
    In an effort to increase speed in my Vmware setup, I was thinking about converting a Windows XP Guest 32 bit I have from growable to pre-allocated, I'm currently running VMWare Workstation 7 with Windows 7 64 bit as the host. Specs: Dual Core CPU, one allocated to guest 4GB of RAM, 2GB to guest HD max capacity is 500GB, 150GB allocated to guest (I have 300GB left and don't mind parting with the space, currently HD is 80GB and converting would obviously add another 70GB of space), HD that guest is running on is separate from Host OS Either that or any other suggestions you have might be appreciated, thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is the Windows 7 default graphic driver faster than the newest NVIDIA Forceware?

    - by netvope
    Here is my Windows 7 Experience Index using the stock graphics driver: And after installing the newest driver Forceware 197.45, it becomes: The only change is that the "Gaming graphics" subscore drops from 6.4 to 5.2. Is the stock graphic driver more optimized for Windows 7? Or is Forceware 197.45 buggy? Should I revert back to the stock driver? My configuration: Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Asus M2A-VM (AMD 690G, SB600) 6 GB DDR2-800 RAM (only 3.25 GB usable under Windows) GeForce 8600 GT (256 MB) Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit

    Read the article

  • Why grep -i is so slow? How to do it faster for ASCII?

    - by Vi.
    $ time lzop -d < tvtropes-index.lzo | egrep -B 5 '[Dd][eE][sS][cC][eE][nN][dD] ?[Ff][rR][oO][mM]' real 0m0.438s $ time lzop -d < tvtropes-index.lzo | egrep -B 5 'descend ?from' -i real 0m11.294s Both search insensitively. why -i so slow? How to make fast grep -i without entering things [iI][nN] [tT][hH][iI][sS] [wW][aA][Yy]? For example, perl -ne 'print if /descend ?from/i' works fast, but '-B 5' is not as trivial to implement as in grep (as well as other options).

    Read the article

  • Is there a faster way to change default apps associated with file types on OS X?

    - by Lri
    Is there anything more convenient than using RCDefaultApp or Magic Launch, or just repeatedly pressing the Change All buttons in Finder's information panels? I thought about writing a shell script that would modify the CFBundleDocumentTypes arrays in Info.plist files. But each app has multiple keys (sometimes an icon) that would need to be changed. lsregister can't be used to make specific modifications to the Launch Services database. $ `locate lsregister` -h lsregister: [OPTIONS] [ <path>... ] [ -apps <domain>[,domain]... ] [ -libs <domain>[,domain]... ] [ -all <domain>[,domain]... ] Paths are searched for applications to register with the Launch Service database. Valid domains are "system", "local", "network" and "user". Domains can also be specified using only the first letter. -kill Reset the Launch Services database before doing anything else -seed If database isn't seeded, scan default locations for applications and libraries to register -lint Print information about plist errors while registering bundles -convert Register apps found in older LS database files -lazy n Sleep for n seconds before registering/scanning -r Recursive directory scan, do not recurse into packages or invisible directories -R Recursive directory scan, descending into packages and invisible directories -f force-update registration even if mod date is unchanged -u unregister instead of register -v Display progress information -dump Display full database contents after registration -h Display this help

    Read the article

  • Gigabit network limited to 25MB/s by CPU. How to make it faster?

    - by netvope
    I have a Acer Aspire R1600-U910H with a nForce gigabit network adapter. The maximum TCP throughput of it is about 25MB/s, and apparently it is limited by the single core Intel Atom 230; when the maximum throughput is reached, the CPU usage is about 50%-60%, which corresponds to full utilization considering this is a Hyper-threading enabled CPU. The same problem occurs on both Windows XP and on Ubuntu 8.04. On Windows, I have installed the latest nForce chipset driver, disabled power saving features, and enabled checksum offload. On Linux, the default driver has checksum offload enabled. There is no Linux driver available on Nvidia's website. ethtool -k eth0 shows that checksum offload is enabled: Offload parameters for eth0: rx-checksumming: on tx-checksumming: on scatter-gather: on tcp segmentation offload: on udp fragmentation offload: off generic segmentation offload: off The following is the output of powertop when the network is idle: Wakeups-from-idle per second : 61.9 interval: 10.0s no ACPI power usage estimate available Top causes for wakeups: 90.9% (101.3) <interrupt> : eth0 4.5% ( 5.0) iftop : schedule_timeout (process_timeout) 1.8% ( 2.0) <kernel core> : clocksource_register (clocksource_watchdog) 0.9% ( 1.0) dhcdbd : schedule_timeout (process_timeout) 0.5% ( 0.6) <kernel core> : neigh_table_init_no_netlink (neigh_periodic_timer) And when the maximum throughput of about 25MB/s is reached: Wakeups-from-idle per second : 11175.5 interval: 10.0s no ACPI power usage estimate available Top causes for wakeups: 99.9% (22097.4) <interrupt> : eth0 0.0% ( 5.0) iftop : schedule_timeout (process_timeout) 0.0% ( 2.0) <kernel core> : clocksource_register (clocksource_watchdog) 0.0% ( 1.0) dhcdbd : schedule_timeout (process_timeout) 0.0% ( 0.6) <kernel core> : neigh_table_init_no_netlink (neigh_periodic_timer) Notice the 20000 interrupts per second. Could this be the cause for the high CPU usage and low throughput? If so, how can I improve the situation? The other computers in the network can usually transfer at 50+MB/s without problems. And a minor question: How can I find out what is the driver in use for eth0?

    Read the article

  • How can I delete faster? Word boundary backspace?

    - by Yuji Tomita
    I like to type fast. I'm a chronic delete-keyer. I will type first, re-think the output later and hit delete. It seems I'm addicted to always doing something fast. Anyways, I have to tap the delete button very often. Is there a way to do a backspace to word boundary that's native? In a chat box, I can use alt+shift+left to get a word, cmd shift left to get the whole line, etc. but I can't do that in a python shell for example. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How faster is using an internal IP address instead of an external one?

    - by user349603
    I have a mailing list application that sends emails through several dedicated SMTP servers (running Linux Debian 5 and Postfix) in the same network of a hosting company. However, the application is using the servers' external IP addresses in order to connect to them over SMTP, and I was wondering what kind of improvement would be obtained if the application used the internal IP addresses of the servers instead? Thank you in advance for your insight.

    Read the article

  • Why is 'grep -i' so slow? How to do it faster for ASCII?

    - by Vi.
    Consider: $ time lzop -d < tvtropes-index.lzo | egrep -B 5 '[Dd][eE][sS][cC][eE][nN][dD] ?[Ff][rR][oO][mM]' real 0m0.438s $ time lzop -d < tvtropes-index.lzo | egrep -B 5 'descend ?from' -i real 0m11.294s Both search case insensitively. Why is the -i version so slow? How do I make grep -i fast without entering things like [iI][nN] [tT][hH][iI][sS] [wW][aA][Yy]? For example, perl -ne 'print if /descend ?from/i' works fast, but '-B 5' is not as trivial to implement as in grep (as well as other options).

    Read the article

  • It's the ethernet 10/100 in LAN transfer faster than USB 1.0?

    - by dag729
    I have an old laptop (PIII 800MHz, with 256 RAM) that I wish to use as my home server: it'll have to serve just two people, so I think that I'll be more than ok as for the RAM and the CPU. The issue is about data, because the internal hard disk is a 12GB, that is...ridicolous! I have more than 60GB of mixed storage and counting (images, videos and music) in an external usb hd. I could put the hd in my desktop pc just to serve the big files through ethernet or let it inside its usb box attached to the laptop. The question is: which of these solutions will be the fastest? USB 1.0 attached to the server (laptop) or internal hard disk serving files via 10/100 ethernet to the laptop on demand?

    Read the article

  • Why is an Ext4 disk check so much faster than NTFS?

    - by Brendan Long
    I had a situation today where I restarted my computer and it said I needed to check the disk for consistancy. About 10 minutes later (at "1%" complete), I gave up and decided to let it run when I go home. For comparison, my home computer uses Ext4 for all of the partitions, and the disk checks (which run around once week) only take a couple seconds. I remember reading that having fast disk checks was a priority, but I don't know how they could do that. So, how does Ext4 do disk checks so fast? Is there some huge breakthrough in doing this after NTFS came out (~10 years ago)? Note: The NTFS disk is ~300 GB and the Ext4 disk is ~500 GB. Both are about half full.

    Read the article

  • Removing 'bundled' software to make a slow laptop faster?

    - by spdegabrielle
    My brother-in-law has a cheap HP laptop used by his kids for schoolwork. It had got into a bit of a state and was running slowly with some dubious software. I removed a bunch of stuff that had been installed, that was obviously not required (three different driver scanners!), had been downloaded in error or looked like malware. I also disabled as many 'start on login' apps as I could and removed AVG replacing it with MSE. (AVG is uninstalled and replaced with MSE after failing to detect malware) What remains is a significant quantity of bundled HP and 'nero backup' software, including a HP restore utility (apparently something like the osx hidden partition restore), the trackpad driver. is there anything else I can do to breath a little more life into the old 'celeron' laptop? Should I bit the bullet and just put win8 on it? Will the trackpad still work?

    Read the article

  • Why is an Ext4 disk check so much faster than NTFS?

    - by Brendan Long
    I had a situation today where I restarted my computer and it said I needed to check the disk for consistancy. About 10 minutes later (at "1%" complete), I gave up and decided to let it run when I go home. For comparison, my home computer uses Ext4 for all of the partitions, and the disk checks (which run around once week) only take a couple seconds. I remember reading that having fast disk checks was a priority, but I don't know how they could do that. So, how does Ext4 do disk checks so fast? Is there some huge breakthrough in doing this after NTFS came out (~10 years ago)? Note: The NTFS disk is ~300 GB and the Ext4 disk is ~500 GB. Both are about half full.

    Read the article

  • How do I get Tomcat 7 to start up faster in Linux CentOS kernel version 2.6.18?

    - by user1786833
    I am experiencing a problem with slow start up times for Tomcat 7. I have done some testing by tweaking configuration parameters both on Linux CentOS kernel version 2.6.18 and on Windows 7 using this link as my primary guide: http://wiki.apache.org/tomcat/HowTo/FasterStartUp and managed only a modest improvement. The improvements seemed to result when I added metadata-complete="true" attribute to the element of my WEB-INF/web.xml file and when I added the names of almost all the jars we use for our application to the tomcat.util.scan.DefaultJarScanner.jarsToSkip property in conf/catalina.properties file. I've also used this JAVA_OPTS in the setenv.sh file: JAVA_OPTS="$JAVA_OPTS -server -Xms1536m -Xmx1536m -XX:MaxPermSize=256m -XX:NewRatio=2 -XX:+UseParallelGC -XX:ParallelGCThreads=2 -Dsun.rmi.dgc.client.gcInterval=1800000 -Dsun.rmi.dgc.server.gcInterval=1800000 -Dorg.apache.jasper.runtime.BodyContentImpl.LIMIT_BUFFER=true " but actually saw my start up times increase slightly. Our QA and production environments are on Linux CentOS so I'm hoping to get more information on improving Tomcat 7 start up times in that environment. My primary role is java developer and I don't have much system administration experience so I appreciate any input. Thank you for your time and suggestions.

    Read the article

  • i7 4770k or i7 4930k - Which for faster compile times? [on hold]

    - by Chumm
    I've looked up comparisons and found that single core performance seems to be better on i7 4770k, but has less cores that the i7 4930k. Would VS take advantage of extra cores when compiling, or would the difference be negible. I'm looking to buy the PC primarily for programming, so which would be better for visual studio? I already have the rest of my build ready, I just need to decide on this! :) thanks

    Read the article

  • In Perl, is a while loop generally faster than a for loop?

    - by Mike
    I've done a small experiment as will be shown below and it looks like that a while loop is faster than a for loop in Perl. But since the experiment was rather crude, and the subject might be a lot more complicated than it seems, I'd like to hear what you have to say about this. Thanks as always for any comments/suggestions :) In the following two small scripts, I've tried while and for loops separately to calcaulte the factorial of 100,000. The one that has the while loop took 57 minutes 17 seconds to finish while the for loop equivalent took 1 hour 7 minutes 54 seconds. Script that has while loop: use strict; use warnings; use bigint; my $now = time; my $n =shift; my $s=1; while(1){ $s *=$n; $n--; last if $n==2; } print $s*$n; $now = time - $now; printf("\n\nTotal running time: %02d:%02d:%02d\n\n", int($now / 3600), int(($now % 3600) / 60), int($now % 60)); Script that has for loop: use strict; use warnings; use bigint; my $now = time; my $n =shift; my $s=1; for (my $i=2; $i<=$n;$i++) { $s = $s*$i; } print $s; $now = time - $now; printf("\n\nTotal running time: %02d:%02d:%02d\n\n", int($now / 3600), int(($now % 3600) / 60), int($now % 60));

    Read the article

  • Why is execution-time method resolution faster than compile-time resolution?

    - by Felix
    At school, we about virtual functions in C++, and how they are resolved (or found, or matched, I don't know what the terminology is -- we're not studying in English) at execution time instead of compile time. The teacher also told us that compile-time resolution is much faster than execution-time (and it would make sense for it to be so). However, a quick experiment would suggest otherwise. I've built this small program: #include <iostream> #include <limits.h> using namespace std; class A { public: void f() { // do nothing } }; class B: public A { public: void f() { // do nothing } }; int main() { unsigned int i; A *a = new B; for (i=0; i < UINT_MAX; i++) a->f(); return 0; } Where I made A::f() once normal, once virtual. Here are my results: [felix@the-machine C]$ time ./normal real 0m25.834s user 0m25.742s sys 0m0.000s [felix@the-machine C]$ time ./virtual real 0m24.630s user 0m24.472s sys 0m0.003s [felix@the-machine C]$ time ./normal real 0m25.860s user 0m25.735s sys 0m0.007s [felix@the-machine C]$ time ./virtual real 0m24.514s user 0m24.475s sys 0m0.000s [felix@the-machine C]$ time ./normal real 0m26.022s user 0m25.795s sys 0m0.013s [felix@the-machine C]$ time ./virtual real 0m24.503s user 0m24.468s sys 0m0.000s There seems to be a steady ~1 second difference in favor of the virtual version. Why is this? Relevant or not: dual-core pentium @ 2.80Ghz, no extra applications running between two tests. Archlinux with gcc 4.5.0. Compiling normally, like: $ g++ test.cpp -o normal Also, -Wall doesn't spit out any warnings, either.

    Read the article

  • What is faster with PictureBox? Many small redraws or complete redraw.

    - by kornelijepetak
    I have a PictureBox (WinMobile 6 WinForm) on which I draw some images. There is a background image that goes in the background and it does not change. However objects that are drawn on the picturebox are moving during the application so I need to refresh the background. Since items that are redrawn fill from 50% to 80% of the surface, the question is which of the two is faster: 1) Redraw only parts of the background image that have been changed (previous+next location of the moving object). 2) Redraw complete background and then draw all the objects in their current position. Now, the reason for asking is because I am not sure how much of processor power is needed for a single drawImage operation and what are the time consuming factors. I am aware if there is almost complete coverage of the background, it would be stupid to redraw portions of it, because by drawing portions I will have drawn the complete picture. But since sometimes only half of the image had changed (some objects remained in their old position), it may (perhaps) be benefitial to redraw only those regions. But I need your insight on this... Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Is my method for avoiding dynamic_cast<> faster than dynamic_cast<> itself ?

    - by ereOn
    Hi, I was answering a question a few minutes ago and it raised to me another one: In one of my projects, I do some network message parsing. The messages are in the form of: [1 byte message type][2 bytes payload length][x bytes payload] The format and content of the payload are determined by the message type. I have a class hierarchy, based on a common class Message. To instanciate my messages, i have a static parsing method which gives back a Message* depending on the message type byte. Something like: Message* parse(const char* frame) { // This is sample code, in real life I obviously check that the buffer // is not NULL, and the size, and so on. switch(frame[0]) { case 0x01: return new FooMessage(); case 0x02: return new BarMessage(); } // Throw an exception here because the mesage type is unknown. } I sometimes need to access the methods of the subclasses. Since my network message handling must be fast, I decived to avoid dynamic_cast<> and I added a method to the base Message class that gives back the message type. Depending on this return value, I use a static_cast<> to the right child type instead. I did this mainly because I was told once that dynamic_cast<> was slow. However, I don't know exactly what it really does and how slow it is, thus, my method might be as just as slow (or slower) but far more complicated. What do you guys think of this design ? Is it common ? Is it really faster than using dynamic_cast<> ? Any detailed explanation of what happen under the hood when one use dynamic_cast<> is welcome !

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >