Macbook Pro performance test result

hivemind · Post by **hivemind** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:09 am

ok so all this fascinating talk has gotten me thinking...

if i understand this speedstepping thing, the CPU is basically clocking itself down until the second core reaches a certain threshold of busyness.

so let's fast-forward to Live 6, where both cores will be functioning. let's say you are performing a set which begins at a level of CPU demand below this speedstep-cancellation threshold. then at some point during the set, you exceed this threshold... would this not cause some sort of a glitch as the CPU clocks itself upward? or would this be seamless?

thanks, and please correct any false assumptions i have made.

h...m...

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:57 am

hivemind wrote:ok so all this fascinating talk has gotten me thinking...

if i understand this speedstepping thing, the CPU is basically clocking itself down until the second core reaches a certain threshold of busyness.

so let's fast-forward to Live 6, where both cores will be functioning. let's say you are performing a set which begins at a level of CPU demand below this speedstep-cancellation threshold. then at some point during the set, you exceed this threshold... would this not cause some sort of a glitch as the CPU clocks itself upward? or would this be seamless?

thanks, and please correct any false assumptions i have made.

h...m...

any glitch would be because of a lack of cpu, not the act of increased cpu clocking itself - at least this is what i have discovered in my tests of getting the cpu to step up to full blast.

Pitch Black · Post by **Pitch Black** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:53 am

So, erm, is anybody pounding on apple's door for the of return this feature? If so where do we add our voices?

I mean, they did take the audio input off the powerbooks for a generation before putting it back again - "by popular demand" to quote Jobs directly.

I don't wanna MacBook Am.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:30 am

Pitch Black wrote:So, erm, is anybody pounding on apple's door for the of return this feature? If so where do we add our voices?

I mean, they did take the audio input off the powerbooks for a generation before putting it back again - "by popular demand" to quote Jobs directly.

I don't wanna MacBook Am.

some emails have been sent....

hivemind · Post by **hivemind** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:43 am

AdamJay wrote:any glitch would be because of a lack of cpu, not the act of increased cpu clocking itself - at least this is what i have discovered in my tests of getting the cpu to step up to full blast.

so does this mean that if the CPU reverts to speedstepping mode that the CPU might glitch? if so, that could be just as bad if, say, a plug-in is causing Live to fluctuate around the speedstepping threshold. i hope that that is not the case!

forge · Post by **forge** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:21 am

warpus wrote: Dude, not caught up in benchmarks. Some folks like to keep working (ya know, making tracks) while your burning a CD of your music. PCs just can't do that.

????

erm..what are you basing that outrageous statement on? I have a 3 year old athlon 2200 notebook and I used to do that all the time

THe whole speed step issue is the bain of the audio world and there MUST be control user end of it and I'm highly dubious of the reasoning behind removing it - true the heat etc has to be monitored etc otherwise you just blue screen (or EFI equiv.) - I'm interested if once this is sorted out whether anyone gets blue screens etc when running at full throttle for a while - I mean the speed step technology is there for a reason so it obviously gets hot - I'm just wondering since IBM seemed to go on the principle of sacrificing performance for more stable temperature how the Intel ones will go set to "always on" for any serious amount of time...

I'm getting overheating since I moved to the tropics and use Eski Ice blocks wrapped in kitchen towel propped under it until I can afford a laptop cooler stand!!

v1brat10n5 · Post by **v1brat10n5** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:34 am

hivemind wrote:if i understand this speedstepping thing, the CPU is basically clocking itself down until the second core reaches a certain threshold of busyness

just tried it out on my dual 2 macbook - adam's speedtest runs at about 44% with just live running. activity monitor shows live using 59% of one cpu

now when i add another app running at 136%
live drops down to 34%
and activity monitor shows live using 49% of one cpu!

i'll post the pc speed test results after i install xp ; )

Digi V · Post by **Digi V** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:39 am

bottom line is everyone has their opinion, all of us in here will want our macbooks for our own reasons but there are too many variables we have yet to know.

for now make the best purchasing decision you can. if it is in the best interest of ableton/apple macbook users to have the cpu control feature on or off we'll know soon but right now its just too early to tell.

my opinion? i think these macbooks are fast, real fast. can they do what i need it to do? def. will they improve? definitely but they by far are the best apple laptops ever offered.

HOWEVER this is a LAPTOP , remember this folks, this is a MOBILE COMPUTER.

if you need to record and manipulate vocals, drums, guitar, bass, keyboard, yada yada yada yada all in real time then mix in pro tools, then do this and do that and do this and do that THEN BUY A TOWER NOT A LAPTOP.

thats the best advice i can give. i dont see a major artist writing and recording an album on a laptop, sorry , i just haven't.

v1brat10n5 · Post by **v1brat10n5** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:09 am

AdamJay wrote:step up to full blast

i personally think 34% totally rocks

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:32 pm

Digi V wrote:
HOWEVER this is a LAPTOP , remember this folks, this is a MOBILE COMPUTER.

if you need to record and manipulate vocals, drums, guitar, bass, keyboard, yada yada yada yada all in real time then mix in pro tools, then do this and do that and do this and do that THEN BUY A TOWER NOT A LAPTOP.

Why?
the macbook performs as good as a dual G5 2.5ghz

I have no use for a tower. They're big, take up space, and generate too much heat/consume too much power.
I've got a large HD in the macbook that is no slower than what comes in the PowerMac. For additional storage there's gigabit ethernet attached hard drives available. The memory controller and ram itself is faster than i can get in a tower... and the list goes on and on.

Why on earth should i get a tower for multi-track recording?
I use a pair of Metric Halo 2882's w/ DSP on the MacBook, and along with my Lynx Aurora 16 i can input and output 36 channels @ 24/48khz, or 28 channels @ 24/96khz.

I think the days of the Desktop are limited, my friend.

glitchrock-buddha · Post by **glitchrock-buddha** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:41 pm

AdamJay wrote:
Digi V wrote:
HOWEVER this is a LAPTOP , remember this folks, this is a MOBILE COMPUTER.

if you need to record and manipulate vocals, drums, guitar, bass, keyboard, yada yada yada yada all in real time then mix in pro tools, then do this and do that and do this and do that THEN BUY A TOWER NOT A LAPTOP.
Why?
the macbook performs as good as a dual G5 2.5ghz

I have no use for a tower. They're big, take up space, and generate too much heat/consume too much power.
I've got a large HD in the macbook that is no slower than what comes in the PowerMac. For additional storage there's gigabit ethernet attached hard drives available. The memory controller and ram itself is faster than i can get in a tower... and the list goes on and on.

Why on earth should i get a tower for multi-track recording?
I use a pair of Metric Halo 2882's w/ DSP on the MacBook, and along with my Lynx Aurora 16 i can input and output 36 channels @ 24/48khz, or 28 channels @ 24/96khz.

I think the days of the Desktop are limited, my friend.

I fully agree. These laptops are fully capable of replacing a desktop, providing they are running at full capability. This will be my one-stop rig, and that's why the things gotta be going full speed.

grb

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:00 pm

the whole reason i bought this was for something powerful enough to replace a desktop in my studio, but also to retain that power when i need to go out and do a remote recording gig.

In the studio, i'll have it with a 20" or 23" Cinema Display (i still cannot decide), the Metric Halo's, Lynx Aurora 16, DAC-1, and a Big Ben.
and maybe a used digi 002 for PT compatibility, come May when Digi makes the transition.

and on remotes i'll have it with one Metric Halo, a Swissonic AD96, and 12 channels of quality microphone preamplifiers.

i don't think i'll ever buy a desktop again.

HD1 · Post by **HD1** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:02 pm

hey adam, how much of a difference does big ben make to your recordings ? and how do you typically use it...

cheers!

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:22 pm

RopeyPunter wrote:hey adam, how much of a difference does big ben make to your recordings ? and how do you typically use it...

cheers!

its the master clock for everything.
when using more than 2 digital devices, you should go with a dedicated clock anyways. it also clocks my Kurzweil Rumour.

as you add digital devices that are slaving off one of the device's internal clock... jitter becomes a problem. The Big Ben as a dedicated master clock tightens everything back up.

as far as audible improvement, it gives greater detail and transient response to all my digital gear.
it didn't have as drastic an improvement on the Metric Halo's as it did the Lynx Aurora 16. But the overall combined improvement is noticable. The best way i can describe it is its like upgrading to the next level of converters. Which in this case would be near Lavry quality overall.

kanker · Post by **kanker** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:28 pm

Adam who?