LIVE FIVE PERFORMANCE TEST - results here

kenn michael · Post by **kenn michael** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:21 am

alan* wrote:
aueua wrote:Render To Disk Test :

1) Activity Viewer CPU Meter % - 100.6% (one core is 100%!)
2) Laptop/Desktop? Make/Model - Laptop Apple MacBook Pro
3) Operating System - OSX 10.4.5
4) CPU Make Model and Speed - Intel Core Duo 2.0 GHz
5) Amount of Ram / Speed of Ram (if you know) - 1024MB / DDR2-667
6) Soundcard (Stock or add on?, usb/firewire/pci ?) - M-Audio Ozonic Firewire
7) Hard Disk Drive Speed (if you know) - 7200rpm

iTunes mp3 encoding of the rendered 50 min AIFF stereo 16 bit 44.1 KHz track:

1) Activity Viewer CPU Meter % - 172.8% (one core is 100%!)

Looks like Live is using one core only!

Cheers!
Aueua
Please confirm this is using the ppc osx 5.2 beta and not the intel osx 5.2 beta ?

it's the same thing. there's one OSX beta that has both Intel code and PPC code. the Intel machines run the Intel code and the G4s/G5s run the PPC code. Universal Binary.

It seems that the iMacs are faster than the MacBooks. I ran AdamJay's performance test on a Duo 2.0 GHz MacBook Pro and a Duo 2.0 GHz iMac. The MacBook performance was the same as it is on my MacBook and the same as the benchmarks in this thread (35-40%). The iMac benchmarked at 25-29%... Don't know why the iMac would be faster.

That being said, the MacBook (as well as the iMac) still kills because then Live 6 comes out, it will almost double in performance.

I'm loving mine.

Digi V · Post by **Digi V** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:05 am

when you run your macbook tests do you close everything else? is the laptop cool when u do it? all these things matter i think because i get percentages around 27-43

regardless duel core will own once its used.

DJSK · Post by **DJSK** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:10 am

Are you sure that when you use the Macbook that you have the Energy Saver set to highest performance for Processor?

aueua · Post by **aueua** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:03 pm

Alan, my test was done on a MacBook Pro and I guess the Universal Binary of Live 5.2 beta 4 runs its Intel code on this machine, not the PPC one!

When I posted this, I didn't notice that the "single core usage" issue was already well described in this 31 pages discussion.

Anyway, Live runs a little faster on my MacBook Pro than it does in my Sawtooth G4 1.5 GHz (1.5 GB PC100 SD-RAM, U2W-SCSI Hard Disks) and if version 6 will take advantage of multiple processors, well...

Cheers!
Aueua

kenn michael · Post by **kenn michael** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:52 pm

DJSK wrote:Are you sure that when you use the Macbook that you have the Energy Saver set to highest performance for Processor?

There is no highest performance processor mode.

DJSK · Post by **DJSK** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:21 pm

Damn that sucks then. I am still waiting for my Macbook to ship. I would hate to think that it will be running 15 % slower than my emachine notebook that I have now where I get a score of 25-27% on my AMD 64. I was just wondering because I know that if I don't change my power setting to ALWAYS ON the processor doesn't perform at max. I was kind of hoping that they had some kind of setting like that in the Macbook Pro and that was why the scores were so high. It just seems really odd that they are running that much slower than the IMac when they have the same speed processor.

kenn michael · Post by **kenn michael** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:31 am

DJSK wrote:Damn that sucks then. I am still waiting for my Macbook to ship. I would hate to think that it will be running 15 % slower than my emachine notebook that I have now where I get a score of 25-27% on my AMD 64. I was just wondering because I know that if I don't change my power setting to ALWAYS ON the processor doesn't perform at max. I was kind of hoping that they had some kind of setting like that in the Macbook Pro and that was why the scores were so high. It just seems really odd that they are running that much slower than the IMac when they have the same speed processor.

Here's the difference though... Is your emachines laptop dual core? If not then when Live 6 is released, the Macbook performance will almost double. Your emachines laptop performance will stay the same.

Digi V · Post by **Digi V** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:04 am

an amd 64 processor single core is still going to be faster than a 2.0 intel duel core for processor if one processor is just sitting there.

so its basically liek you just have an intel 2.0ghz chip in there.

understand yet?

DJSK · Post by **DJSK** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:39 am

I got it. My emachine laptop is only single core so that makes me feel better for future purposes. It still kind of sucks that the Imacs are performing so much better. I guess I will figure out when I get mine what kind of tweaks can be done to increase performance.

kenn michael · Post by **kenn michael** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:04 am

Incidentally, according to Cinebench tests (which are Intel mac optimized, etc...) the 2.0 MacBook Pro and the 2.0 iMac score nearly identically....

so I'm not sure why Live is faster on an iMac than it is on a MBP.

Digi V · Post by **Digi V** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:19 am

i'm getting about the same results, i mean there are little thigngs u can do. however maybe the live code isn't fully functional yet? u know?

regardless 30-40 percent isn't bad at all. people just keep looking at numbers.

3 to 4 months we'll have live 6.

relax, make music, smoke a blunt, enjoy your laptop.

geesh people , sometimes i think a lot of you are statistical analysis junkies.

did everyone in here get A's in statistics in college? my god.

glitchrock-buddha · Post by **glitchrock-buddha** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:02 pm

Ok. I just went in to a mac store, downloaded the 5.2 beta on a 2.0 Ghz macbook pro w/ 1gb ram, and ran AdamJay's test on it in the store. I was also expecting 26-29% like on the imacs and was a little worried to see 36-41%, especially when many single core 1.7 intel pc's where running around 29-30% forever ago. And yes the performance was set to "highest" on the macbook.

So after talking to the guy in the store, and asking why the imac and macbook would be different, his best guess was the hard drive speed. Now I never thought that that had too much effect on cpu performance, but he says it definitely can and that would make sense here. The imac would have a 7200 rpm drive, and the macbook that ran this test had a 5400 rpm drive. I don't know what else could account for such a performance difference of two identical speed processors on the same operating system.

I'd be interested to see a test done on a macbook pro with a 7200 rpm drive, or even better, one of those new seagate perpendicular 160gb 5400rpm sata drives (which many computer folk think will be as fast as the 7200rpm drives but with the power consumption of a 4200rpm drive...)

still leaning towards the macbook here....

grb

alan* · Post by alan* » Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:41 pm

I am waiting for my 7200rpm mpb to arrive, should be here any day now and so will post results here unless someone beats me to it.

Digi V · Post by **Digi V** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:18 am

i thought about getting the faster harddrive. in the end i decided against it

after duel core optimization everything will be fast enough for what i need to do.

kenn michael · Post by **kenn michael** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:26 am

glitchrock-buddha wrote:So after talking to the guy in the store, and asking why the imac and macbook would be different, his best guess was the hard drive speed. Now I never thought that that had too much effect on cpu performance, but he says it definitely can and that would make sense here. The imac would have a 7200 rpm drive, and the macbook that ran this test had a 5400 rpm drive. I don't know what else could account for such a performance difference of two identical speed processors on the same operating system.

I'd be interested to see a test done on a macbook pro with a 7200 rpm drive, or even better, one of those new seagate perpendicular 160gb 5400rpm sata drives (which many computer folk think will be as fast as the 7200rpm drives but with the power consumption of a 4200rpm drive...)

still leaning towards the macbook here....

grb

I doubt it was the hard drive speed difference. There's only one audio file actually playing in the performance test and the other audio files are loaded into RAM.

Either way, the MacBook is DOPE!

LIVE FIVE PERFORMANCE TEST - results here

Re: Is Live 5.2b4 Using One Core Only?