1.3 speed
is it just me or 1.3 seems insanely slow compare to 1.2?
performance has always been an issue with dynamo, when working with large data sets, mainly due to the functional way in which a dynamo graph operates. you have to remember that data is never mutated. instead, it is always copied between nodes.

when you input something into a node, dynamo’s backend…
this was fixed in 0.1.0 miles/hour is just that.
 
(3/4)/(1/12) = (3/4)(12) = 9 mph ok, in that case we believe it should be fixed in the upcoming 13.1 update, let us know if this is not the case once it’s out. try removeing the full stop in front of range only thing i can think of is to maybe reflash the firmware. thanks, this will be fixed for 0.7.6. (a) to my eye, they never have a common speed. that would require the two curves to have the same slope at the same time, which doesn't appear to me to be true.

(b) b is ahead of a but is slowing down and being passed by a, which has been moving at constant speed.

(c) b has an acceleration with greater magnitude. (in fact, the curve for a doesn't show any acceleration at all.)

(d) a has a constant slope, and therefore a constant velocity (and therefore displays no acceleration at all). b starts ahead of a initially with a velocity greater, but then decelerates as it nears t = 4 s. at around t = 3.7 s, b's velocity (slope) has nearly dropped to zero, and it gets passed by a.

if you find this helpful, please select favorite answer! this is a known issue, we are currently working on it and it should be fixed in the 3.0 patch. that is still 135 more than i'd pay you. generally the performance of a new generation of "supporting" equipment does not have a huge affect on the true performance. gddr6 is better, but it is not the only reason the super varient is going to be faster. same with pcie generations, and regular ddr3/4 ram. pcie gen 3 is not saturated, so gen 4 should not be a deciding factor (yet). ddr3 is worse than ddr4, but the performance change is seen when comparing the cpus directly, not in the ram alone. for both gpu and cpu, the ram will affect the performance, but not on its own. the rest of the part needs to be able to take advantage of the upgraded ram.

you can just compare the raw performance numbers of those two gpus, like benchmark fps in games, and use that to decide if you want to spend the extra $130 for the better gpu. you do not have to particularly worry about the supporting specs, like gddr5/6, cuda core count, or even base clock speed, because these differences will be reflected in the performance changes as a whole, so you do not have to compare those specific differences. certain models of gpu might be clocked faster, and will perform better, but you compare those models to the same gpu in stock form. ie, not 1650 vs 1650 super at higher clock, you would compare the base speed 1650 super to an upgraded 1650 super, to see how the clock speed boost changes the performance of the card over its stock clocks.

tl: dr, dont bother with the details too much, just use benchmarks/average fps to decide if the extra performance is worth the extra money.