Search Results

Search found 271 results on 11 pages for 'benchmarks'.

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

  • Samsung a-t-il triché sur les benchmarks pour le Galaxy S4 ? Les performances de l'Exynos 5 remises en cause après des tests

    Samsung : les Galaxy S4 affichent des performances élevées pour les benchmarks Mais moindres pour les autres applicationsTout a débuté avec le post d'un utilisateur mécontent sur le site Beyond3d après qu'il ait réalisé des bancs d'essai pour le GPU de son Galaxy S4. Pendant les essais, l'utilisateur constate que le GPU de son smartphone tourne à 532 Mhz. Cependant, pour toutes les autres applications y compris les jeux (aux résolutions les plus poussées) ce dernier ne tournerait plus qu'à 480 Mhz. « Oh Samsung honte à toi ! » écrira-t-il.Par la suite, Brian Klug et Anand Lal Shimpi, du site web Anandtech, reprennent eux aussi l'expérience de cet utilisateur avec leurs propres smartphones pour en confirmer...

    Read the article

  • Are there any benchmarks showing difference between hardware virtualisation enabled/disabled?

    - by Wil
    I have a 13" sub-laptop/large-netbook, it has an AMD Athlon Neo X2 L335, and I chose this one because it supports hardware virtualisation. In the end, I hardly do any virtualisation on it, however, when I do... it is fast. To my shock, I went in to the BIOS and saw that virtualisation was disabled! I turned this on and, I see no speed difference.... or at least none that I can tell. I do not have time to do a full set of benchmarks - and I run quite a bit of software on the host, so it wouldn't be scientific. I have searched quite a few places and I just can not find any benchmarks showing the difference of virtualisation bit enabled/disabled on the same hardware. Does anyone have any benchmarks they have seen that they can share? In addition, I know there was an uproar a while ago as Sony disable the hardware virtualisation on some models and only offer it in their higher models as a premium feature, however, apart from forcing an up-sell, are there any benefits to having it disabled e.g. battery/heat? I just can't find any information and can't work out why it would be disabled by default. Edit--- To add, The only thing I can find is that without it, you can not perform x64 virtualisation as fast. This is the only down side I can find. However, if this is the only difference, then I am still interested in the second part of the question - why offer the option to disable it?

    Read the article

  • Grails benchmarks compared to other web MVC platform (Rails, Django, ASP MVC)?

    - by fabien7474
    I have been searching the web for recent benchmarks measuring Grails overall performance compared to its competitors (Rails, Django, ASP.NET MVC...), but I didn't find anything more recent than a 3 years-old article with obsolete grails version (0.5). See here and here. So, starting from grails 1.2, are there any more recent grails benchmarks you are aware of ? Or do you have your own performance tests for grails (compared to others if possible) ?

    Read the article

  • Why is writing to my external hard drive slow, while benchmarks show fast writing?

    - by matix2267
    I have an iOmega eGo 320GB portable drive connected through USB2.0 to my laptop running Windows Vista. It's been working fine for quite some time until recently it became very slow when writing e.g. when copying ~300MB movie over to the drive at first it is extremely fast but it actually doesn't write it only puts in cache and then hangs on last 10-20MBs for about a minute. When copying larger files it's the same story: starts fast but then slows down to ~5MB/s (sometimes even slower down to 2MB/s). Strange thing is that I have always had caching disabled for this drive (it was disabled by default and I never bothered changing it). At first I thought that the disk is dying so I checked S.M.A.R.T. values and everything is fine there. I also run chkdsk and it seemed to fix the problem - it worked fast for a few minutes but then it slowed down again. I also tried plugging it into another USB port - no difference. Additionally I noticed that reading under certain circumstances is sometimes slower e.g. loading times for some games are ~10 times longer, whereas simple copying files from this drive to my internal HDD is fast. I ran a speed benchmark using CrystalDiskMark with a 5x100MB run and strangely got these results: read write (MB/s) Seq 33.05 28.25 512k 17.30 15.27 4k 0.267 0.372 4kQD32 0.510 0.260 This is different from what most other people have (I've found many threads about slow disk write while googling but all of them were slow on benchmarks too) which is why I decided to post this problem here. BTW most of the time when writing (or sometimes reading) the activity led is mostly idle (blinks a while and then stops for longer, sometimes has slower blinks ~1 sek, sometimes goes off for a few seconds - extremely long blink :) ) but when benchmarking, defragmenting or just reading (copying from this drive, installing apps from installers there, watching HD videos) it is blinking really fast (like it should) and there are no slowdowns. It shouldn't be driver issue unless stock Windows drivers have some issues I'm not aware of.

    Read the article

  • Why is Python slower than Java but faster than PHP

    - by good_computer
    I have many times seen various benchmarks that show how a bunch of languages perform on a given task. Always these benchmarks reveal that Python is slower then Java and faster than PHP. And I wonder why is that the case. Java, Python, and PHP run inside a virtual machine All three languages convert their programs into their custom byte codes that run on top of OS -- so none is running natively Both Java and Python can be "complied" (.pyc for Python) but the __main__ module for Python is not compiled Python and PHP are dynamically typed and Java statically -- is this the reason Java is faster, and if so, please explain how that affects speed. And, even if the dynamic-vs-static argument is correct, this does not explain why PHP is slower than Python -- because both are dynamic languages. You can see some benchmarks here and here, and here

    Read the article

  • Reasons for either 32-bit or 64-bit as development machine

    - by vartec
    I'm about to make a new Linux install, which will be primarily used for programming. I've seen benchmarks showing speed improvement of 64-bit version, however, I have hard time of telling how much these benchmarks translate to improvement in every day usage. And of course there are other aspects to consider. Usage I have in mind: mainly programming Python, with occasional C, C++ and Java; IDEs, which are using Java platforms (Eclipse and IntelliJ); on very rare occasions having to compile for 32-bit platform; not planning to have more than 64GB of RAM anytime soon (and I don't mind using PAE kernels); machine in question has 4GB RAM and Athlon II X2; What are pros and cons of choosing either i386 or x86_64 distro?

    Read the article

  • Oracle NoSQL Database Using FusionIO ioDrive2

    - by Charles Lamb
    We ran some benchmarks using FusionIO ioDrive2 SSD drives and Oracle NoSQL Database. FusionIO has published a whitepaper with the results of the benchmarks. "Results of testing showed that using an ioDrive2 for data delivered nearly 30 times more operations per second than a 300GB 10k SAS disk on a 90 percent read and 10 percent write workload and nearly eight times more operations per second on a 50 percent read and 50 percent write workload. Equally impressive, an ioDrive2 reduced latency over 700 percent (seven times) on inserts in a 90 percent read and 10 percent write workload and over 5800 percent (58 times) on reads in a 50 percent read and 50 percent write workload."

    Read the article

  • How does ARM Cortex A8 compare with a modern x86 processor

    - by thomasrutter
    I was wondering how does a modern ARM chip based on ARM Cortex A8 compare, in clock-for-clock performance and capability, to a modern x86 chip such as a Core 2 Duo or Core i5? I realise due to the different instruction sets it'll depend heavily on what you're doing. To put it another way, rendering a web page in webkit on a 1GHz ARM Cortex A8 based chip should be about equivalent to doing in on a Core i5 at __ MHz? Update October 2013: Since I asked this question years ago it's become a lot more common, when reading about mobile devices, to see architecture-agnostic benchmarks that you can compare across platforms - for example, in-browser benchmarks like Sunspider in Webkit will run on just about anything and you see these in reviews all the time now. And there's things like Geekbench now.

    Read the article

  • Why does storage's performance change at various queue depths?

    - by Mxx
    I'm in the market for a storage upgrade for our servers. I'm looking at benchmarks of various PCIe SSD devices and in comparisons I see that IOPS change at various queue depths. How can that be and why is that happening? The way I understand things is: I have a device with maximum (theoretical) of 100k IOPS. If my workload consistently produces 100,001 IOPS, I'll have a queue depth of 1, am I correct? However, from what I see in benchmarks some devices run slower at lower queue depths, then speedup at depth of 4-64 and then slow down again at even larger depths. Isn't queue depths a property of OS(or perhaps storage controller), so why would that affect IOPS?

    Read the article

  • Verify server performance

    - by George Kesler
    I'm looking for a quick and SIMPLE way to verify that new servers are performing as expected. The most important metric is disk performance, second is network performance. I’m trying to prevent problems caused by misconfiguration of RAID arrays, NIC teaming etc. The solution should work with both physical and virtual servers. I don’t need sophisticated analysis with different workloads, just one set of benchmarks which I would run against a reference server and later compare to new ones. One problem is that most benchmarks are not giving accurate results when running on a VM.

    Read the article

  • TCP/IP performance tuning under KVM/Qemu

    - by vpetersson
    With more and more companies switching to public cloud services, I'm curious what you guys' thoughts are on TCP/IP tuning in the cloud. Is it worth bothering with? Given that you don't have access to the host-server, you're somewhat limited I presume Let's say for the sake of the argument that you're running three MongoDB-servers in a replica-set on FreeBSD or Linux that all sync over an internal network. I'd also be curious if anyone made any actual performance benchmarks to back up their arguments. I benchmarked the various network drivers available for KVM/Qemu here, but I'm curious what the gurus here suggest to tune further. I started playing around a bit with the tuning-recommendations as suggested over here, but interestingly enough I saw a decrease in performance, rather than an increase, but perhaps I didn't fully understand the tweaks. Update: I did a few more benchmarks and posted the result here. Unfortunately the result wasn't really what I expected.

    Read the article

  • How to tell, before buying, if a given graphics card will play Full HD video?

    - by Dominykas Mostauskis
    I am looking for the cheapest video card that would be capable of smooth playback of Full HD (1080p) video on a Full HD screen. An answer by @Mikhail on a related question briefly mentioned that: performance of video playback is largely dependent on the video accelerators present [in the card] Is this true? Could anyone expand on that? Are there any benchmarks or specifications that could be used to tell if a given (low-end) card can play Full HD video smoothly? Benchmarks I encountered are oriented towards computer games, and using them to evaluate video playback performance may be less-than-optimal, I imagine.

    Read the article

  • Take Two: Comparing JVMs on ARM/Linux

    - by user12608080
    Although the intent of the previous article, entitled Comparing JVMs on ARM/Linux, was to introduce and highlight the availability of the HotSpot server compiler (referred to as c2) for Java SE-Embedded ARM v7,  it seems, based on feedback, that everyone was more interested in the OpenJDK comparisons to Java SE-E.  In fact there were two main concerns: The fact that the previous article compared Java SE-E 7 against OpenJDK 6 might be construed as an unlevel playing field because version 7 is newer and therefore potentially more optimized. That the generic compiler settings chosen to build the OpenJDK implementations did not put those versions in a particularly favorable light. With those considerations in mind, we'll institute the following changes to this version of the benchmarking: In order to help alleviate an additional concern that there is some sort of benchmark bias, we'll use a different suite, called DaCapo.  Funded and supported by many prestigious organizations, DaCapo's aim is to benchmark real world applications.  Further information about DaCapo can be found at http://dacapobench.org. At the suggestion of Xerxes Ranby, who has been a great help through this entire exercise, a newer Linux distribution will be used to assure that the OpenJDK implementations were built with more optimal compiler settings.  The Linux distribution in this instance is Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot. Having experienced difficulties getting Ubuntu 11.10 to run on the original D2Plug ARMv7 platform, for these benchmarks, we'll switch to an embedded system that has a supported Ubuntu 11.10 release.  That platform is the Freescale i.MX53 Quick Start Board.  It has an ARMv7 Coretex-A8 processor running at 1GHz with 1GB RAM. We'll limit comparisons to 4 JVM implementations: Java SE-E 7 Update 2 c1 compiler (default) Java SE-E 6 Update 30 (c1 compiler is the only option) OpenJDK 6 IcedTea6 1.11pre 6b23~pre11-0ubuntu1.11.10.2 CACAO build 1.1.0pre2 OpenJDK 6 IcedTea6 1.11pre 6b23~pre11-0ubuntu1.11.10.2 JamVM build-1.6.0-devel Certain OpenJDK implementations were eliminated from this round of testing for the simple reason that their performance was not competitive.  The Java SE 7u2 c2 compiler was also removed because although quite respectable, it did not perform as well as the c1 compilers.  Recall that c2 works optimally in long-lived situations.  Many of these benchmarks completed in a relatively short period of time.  To get a feel for where c2 shines, take a look at the first chart in this blog. The first chart that follows includes performance of all benchmark runs on all platforms.  Later on we'll look more at individual tests.  In all runs, smaller means faster.  The DaCapo aficionado may notice that only 10 of the 14 DaCapo tests for this version were executed.  The reason for this is that these 10 tests represent the only ones successfully completed by all 4 JVMs.  Only the Java SE-E 6u30 could successfully run all of the tests.  Both OpenJDK instances not only failed to complete certain tests, but also experienced VM aborts too. One of the first observations that can be made between Java SE-E 6 and 7 is that, for all intents and purposes, they are on par with regards to performance.  While it is a fact that successive Java SE releases add additional optimizations, it is also true that Java SE 7 introduces additional complexity to the Java platform thus balancing out any potential performance gains at this point.  We are still early into Java SE 7.  We would expect further performance enhancements for Java SE-E 7 in future updates. In comparing Java SE-E to OpenJDK performance, among both OpenJDK VMs, Cacao results are respectable in 4 of the 10 tests.  The charts that follow show the individual results of those four tests.  Both Java SE-E versions do win every test and outperform Cacao in the range of 9% to 55%. For the remaining 6 tests, Java SE-E significantly outperforms Cacao in the range of 114% to 311% So it looks like OpenJDK results are mixed for this round of benchmarks.  In some cases, performance looks to have improved.  But in a majority of instances, OpenJDK still lags behind Java SE-Embedded considerably. Time to put on my asbestos suit.  Let the flames begin...

    Read the article

  • Does Google Analytics have peformance overhead?

    - by Mohit Nanda
    To what extent does Google Analytics impact performance? I'm looking for the following: Benchmarks (including response times/pageload times et al) Links or results to similar benchmarks One (possible) method of testing Google Analytics (GA) on your site: Serve ga.js (the Google Analytics JavaScript file) from your own server. Update from Google Daily (test 1) and Weekly (test 2). I would be interested to see how this reduces the communication between the client webserver and the GA server. Has anyone conducted any of these tests? If so, can you provide your results? If not, does anyone have a better method for testing the performance hit (or lack thereof) for using GA?

    Read the article

  • Don’t Miss The Top Exastack ISV Headlines – Week Of June 5

    - by Roxana Babiciu
    Kerridge achieves Oracle Exadata Optimized status with K8, an ERP Solution for distribution, merchant and wholesale/retail sectors. The online transactional processing saw a 12x increase in the volume throughput from previous benchmarks – Watch video. Accenture achieves Oracle Exalogic Optimized status with AFPO, a unique accelerator for customer-facing solutions. Over 125 clients cut their implementation costs by up to thirty percent – Read more.

    Read the article

  • SAP va étendre le champ d'application de sa technologie « In-Memory » et réduire la complexité des environnements IT

    SAP va étendre le champ d'application de sa technologie « In-Memory » Et réduire la complexité des environnements IT Le « In-Memory » consiste à mettre en cache les données traitées par les applications plutôt que, par exemple, de faire des appels à un serveur. Chez SAP, la technologie est baptisée HANA (High-Performance Analytic Appliance). Elle peut, d'après les benchmarks de l'éditeur Allemand, aller jusqu'à diviser par 1200 le temps de traitement de certains scénarios. SAP a intégré HANA à la dernière version de

    Read the article

  • Update of SAE Benchmark Presentation to M6/T5/ZFS

    - by uwes
    Strategic Applications Engineering (SAE) published in March an updated Benchmark presentation showing the performance of Oracle systems, software and Virtualization. SPARC M6/T5/ZFS Benchmarks March 2014 The presentation is available via our eSTEP portal.  You will need to provide your email address and the pin below to access the downloads. Link to the portal is shown below. URL: http://launch.oracle.com/ PIN: eSTEP_2011 The material can be found under tab eSTEP Download Located under: Recent Updates and Miscellaneous

    Read the article

  • Intel Atom: NVIDIA ION vs. Radeon HD 4330 Graphics

    <b>Phoronix:</b> "Before devoting this hardware to the farm, we ran a few benchmarks comparing the performance of NVIDIA's ION GeForce 9400M graphics processor to the ATI Radeon HD 4330 graphics processor found on the MSI 6667BB-004US and several other Atom-powered devices."

    Read the article

  • Why Solid-State Drives Slow Down As You Fill Them Up

    - by Chris Hoffman
    The benchmarks are clear: Solid-state drives slow down as you fill them up. Fill your solid-state drive to near-capacity and its write performance will decrease dramatically. The reason why lies in the way SSDs and NAND Flash storage work. Filling the drive to capacity is one of the things you should never do with a solid-state drive. A nearly full solid-state drive will have much slower write operations, slowing down your computer.    

    Read the article

  • WebSphere Application Server V8 : IBM améliore les capacités techniques de son serveur d'applications, testez-le gratuitement

    WebSphere Application Server V8 : meilleures capacités techniques Pour le nouveau serveur d'applications d'IBM pour développeurs, testez-le gratuitement IBM vient de présenter la nouvelle version de son serveur d'applications (le plus vendu au monde) : WebSphere Application Server V8. WAS est « en tête des benchmarks et considéré par les analystes comme le serveur d'applications le plus solide du marché », se félicite IBM. Sa nouvelle version optimise le déploiement d'applications accessibles à partir de terminaux de tous formats : PC, smartphones, tablettes, etc. Autre nouveauté, WAS v8 supporte les langages Ruby et Python, il accélère le chargement...

    Read the article

  • The Real Need For Nouveau Power Management

    <b>Phoronix:</b> "We have already published a look at the Fedora 13 Beta, delivered ATI Radeon benchmarks atop Fedora 13 Beta, and have other articles on the way covering this new Fedora release, while in this article we are investigating Nouveau's power performance using this newest Fedora release."

    Read the article

  • KWin Can Cause A Performance Hit Too, But It's Different From Compiz

    <b>Phoronix:</b> "This surprised many so we published another article entitled The Cost Of Running Compiz where we showed the performance penalties of a compositing window manager with different hardware and drivers. This led some to ask whether the performance of KWin also causes the OpenGL frame-rate to drop, so here are those KDE benchmarks."

    Read the article

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