Macbook Pro performance test result
-
glitchrock-buddha
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:29 am
- Location: The Ableton Live Forum
I find it understandable that people want to know how these allegedly fast machines compare to their current ones.....Digi V wrote:glitch for god sakes man.
the macbook is fast why are you so obsessed with the numbers?
what kind of tracks are you planning on creating?
or is this pure spec maddness ?
or those laptops on the other side of the fence
DigiV
we have a pretty big issue here.
we cannot get the MacBooks to run at full cpu speed.
from what i've learned of these Core Duos, they wont go into full speed unless BOTH cores are getting alot of work. and as you know Live being a non-multithreaded audio engine application... its very difficult to do that.
when i fire up Xbench to force both cores to turn the speedstep OFF the performance gains are tremendous.
i was just testing an .als for a friend that was hitting 44% on my MacBook Pro 2ghz
when i fired up Xbench to get the TRUE cpu%, it was 26-27%.
thats a pretty damn big discrepency...
i've tried all the cpu applets i can find on macupdate.com and versiontracker.com to see if i can turn this speedstep off but no luck yet.
it may require going into the EFI (macbook's version of a BIOS), waiting for an applette to adjust processor energy savings that we USED to have on portable macs, or lastly... waiting on Apple to fix this.
so i hope you can see why people CARE.
When you buy a machine thats 4x as fast as a G4 1.5ghz.. but you're only getting 60% of its capabilities in Live 5.2beta... the $2900 after hd/ram upgades and tax i spent becomes a very VERY big chunk of change (as if it weren't already).
Yea, the macbooks are fast. agreed.
but they really can be much faster once we get this speedstep thing sorted.
we have a pretty big issue here.
we cannot get the MacBooks to run at full cpu speed.
from what i've learned of these Core Duos, they wont go into full speed unless BOTH cores are getting alot of work. and as you know Live being a non-multithreaded audio engine application... its very difficult to do that.
when i fire up Xbench to force both cores to turn the speedstep OFF the performance gains are tremendous.
i was just testing an .als for a friend that was hitting 44% on my MacBook Pro 2ghz
when i fired up Xbench to get the TRUE cpu%, it was 26-27%.
thats a pretty damn big discrepency...
i've tried all the cpu applets i can find on macupdate.com and versiontracker.com to see if i can turn this speedstep off but no luck yet.
it may require going into the EFI (macbook's version of a BIOS), waiting for an applette to adjust processor energy savings that we USED to have on portable macs, or lastly... waiting on Apple to fix this.
so i hope you can see why people CARE.
When you buy a machine thats 4x as fast as a G4 1.5ghz.. but you're only getting 60% of its capabilities in Live 5.2beta... the $2900 after hd/ram upgades and tax i spent becomes a very VERY big chunk of change (as if it weren't already).
Yea, the macbooks are fast. agreed.
but they really can be much faster once we get this speedstep thing sorted.
i can see the concern but i cant understand the "need".
these laptops are fast, you can tell by just using it.
its an easily made assumption to say "this laptop can handle live"
so aslong as it can handle what you're doing to the fullest then what is the urgency?
you have made me think though... this chip isn't functioning at its fullest capacity, there have been complaints about people not hearing fan noise, or not noticing the fans go on at all. this could be a direct effect of the cpu not exactly running at the speed necessary for the fans to truly kick in.
these machines are really quiet, it has people second guessing it.
regardless its the best mac i've owned to date.
these laptops are fast, you can tell by just using it.
its an easily made assumption to say "this laptop can handle live"
so aslong as it can handle what you're doing to the fullest then what is the urgency?
you have made me think though... this chip isn't functioning at its fullest capacity, there have been complaints about people not hearing fan noise, or not noticing the fans go on at all. this could be a direct effect of the cpu not exactly running at the speed necessary for the fans to truly kick in.
these machines are really quiet, it has people second guessing it.
regardless its the best mac i've owned to date.
the first thing one should understand about Live is no two people use it the same.
so your uses may be more or less than others uses or my uses. But that doesn't negate the fact that these machines aren't performing to their fullest.
I guess because i operate sometimes at 96khz. running 32 tracks out of Live via Metric Halo 2882's with DSP, and a Lynx Aurora 16... i need all the CPU i can get.
add to that when i'm doing a mix and tracking a vocalist doing overdubs, i'd rather see my CPU @ 50% than 79% if i paid for a pair of 2ghz processor cores.
I didn't pay for a pair of 1.2ghz processor cores, but thats all the performance i am getting.
I just want all the power i paid for.
and prospective buyers will want no less.
that said, i love this thing too!
got all my audio damage UB plug's working, and Automat. its lovely.
so your uses may be more or less than others uses or my uses. But that doesn't negate the fact that these machines aren't performing to their fullest.
I guess because i operate sometimes at 96khz. running 32 tracks out of Live via Metric Halo 2882's with DSP, and a Lynx Aurora 16... i need all the CPU i can get.
add to that when i'm doing a mix and tracking a vocalist doing overdubs, i'd rather see my CPU @ 50% than 79% if i paid for a pair of 2ghz processor cores.
I didn't pay for a pair of 1.2ghz processor cores, but thats all the performance i am getting.
I just want all the power i paid for.
and prospective buyers will want no less.
that said, i love this thing too!
got all my audio damage UB plug's working, and Automat. its lovely.
Nice to hear. So if you use it at full load, it actually performs like it should? Do I understand correctly?AdamJay wrote:
that said, i love this thing too!
got all my audio damage UB plug's working, and Automat. its lovely.
When comparing with current G5 desktop computers, how well would you say does the MacBook perform in comparison, doing audio work? If a new dual-core G5 is 100%, how much power does this laptop give you in comparison?
no, it doesnt perform correctly.FORMAT wrote:Nice to hear. So if you use it at full load, it actually performs like it should? Do I understand correctly?AdamJay wrote:
that said, i love this thing too!
got all my audio damage UB plug's working, and Automat. its lovely.
When comparing with current G5 desktop computers, how well would you say does the MacBook perform in comparison, doing audio work? If a new dual-core G5 is 100%, how much power does this laptop give you in comparison?
you cant put it under full load cause we cant put enough processing on the 2nd core.
i cant comment on G5 comparisons until this speedstep thing gets sorted out...
OK I see-- once again, the "desktop or laptop" question is slowly gaining importance for me. And if that laptop outperformed a G5 desktop, i'd definitely get it.AdamJay wrote:no, it doesnt perform correctly.FORMAT wrote:Nice to hear. So if you use it at full load, it actually performs like it should? Do I understand correctly?AdamJay wrote:
that said, i love this thing too!
got all my audio damage UB plug's working, and Automat. its lovely.
When comparing with current G5 desktop computers, how well would you say does the MacBook perform in comparison, doing audio work? If a new dual-core G5 is 100%, how much power does this laptop give you in comparison?
you cant put it under full load cause we cant put enough processing on the 2nd core.
i cant comment on G5 comparisons until this speedstep thing gets sorted out...
-
glitchrock-buddha
- Posts: 4357
- Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:29 am
- Location: The Ableton Live Forum
Digi V, I was simply moving this thread back so that the macbook talk moved away from the performance test, which we were cluttering with babble.
As Adam Jay said, these are important things right now, especially to those of us wondering which machine to switch to. I had almost decided to go PC laptop, but don't want to give up Logic. My plugs use a lot of power, and the differences we're talking about in efficiency are huge, and will affect a purchase that is intended to last a very long time. Since I'm on a powerbook, the thing just doesn't cut it, and I need to switch ASAP. I like to know exactly what I'm getting into, and when someone claims 20-24%, then 30% when others say 40% on a benchmark for the same machine, it does require clarification. You had me thinking it was the live beta which was cause of the inefficiency, which would have been an unfortunate assumption on my part. If you are not interested in sharing information for comparison because you believe the thing is just plain fast that's fine, but understand that it does matter for many of us.
AdamJay, if apple realizes that they want to give the option back of performance setting, do you think it would be simple OS update? or built into the computer? I ask because the last rev powerbooks also didn't have the setting, even on the same OS and chip, as the previous ones, which did. I could see it being one of those apple things "woops, we didn't mean that, we'll put that back (for the second rev macbook on)".
cheers,
grb
As Adam Jay said, these are important things right now, especially to those of us wondering which machine to switch to. I had almost decided to go PC laptop, but don't want to give up Logic. My plugs use a lot of power, and the differences we're talking about in efficiency are huge, and will affect a purchase that is intended to last a very long time. Since I'm on a powerbook, the thing just doesn't cut it, and I need to switch ASAP. I like to know exactly what I'm getting into, and when someone claims 20-24%, then 30% when others say 40% on a benchmark for the same machine, it does require clarification. You had me thinking it was the live beta which was cause of the inefficiency, which would have been an unfortunate assumption on my part. If you are not interested in sharing information for comparison because you believe the thing is just plain fast that's fine, but understand that it does matter for many of us.
AdamJay, if apple realizes that they want to give the option back of performance setting, do you think it would be simple OS update? or built into the computer? I ask because the last rev powerbooks also didn't have the setting, even on the same OS and chip, as the previous ones, which did. I could see it being one of those apple things "woops, we didn't mean that, we'll put that back (for the second rev macbook on)".
cheers,
grb
Professional Shark Jumper.
-
ejectorset
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:01 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
- Contact:
adamja,
but couldnt you get the load up high enough if live supported multi-threading and multiple procressors/cores ???
it seems like then when you needed the extra power it would be used.
im just curious if you are sliding the blame (or frustration, whatever you want to call it) towards apple or ableton?
but couldnt you get the load up high enough if live supported multi-threading and multiple procressors/cores ???
it seems like then when you needed the extra power it would be used.
im just curious if you are sliding the blame (or frustration, whatever you want to call it) towards apple or ableton?
13" 2.0 gHz core 2 duo macbook, live 6, korg poly 800 (w/ moog slayer mod), roland rs-09, rhodes mark 1A stage piano, mattel synsonics analog drum machine