MacBook CPU throttling: anyone tried this "fix"?

john gordon · Post by **john gordon** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:04 pm

the_planet wrote:
Someone loan me $2500.

Please?

creditcards

kenn michael · Post by **kenn michael** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:03 pm

the only negative difference I've experienced is that booting up the machine is excruciatingly slow now with the kext missing... it's like OSX looks for the kext for about 2-3 minutes!

tonetripper · Post by **tonetripper** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 pm

AdamJay wrote:
yea

Your Macintosh HD -> System -> Library -> Extensions -> IOPlatformPluginFamily.kext

i put System in bold because there is another Library folder under your Mac HD. You want the library folder that is within the System folder

Thanks AdamJay. I realized after I posted that I had misread your original post with the proper path cuz I did, heh, look in the library folder on the HD. So remove it and it stops the throbbing or does this cause the booting up of the machine excruciatingly slow? I guess I want to be absolutly sure that I need to do this.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:12 am

tonetripper wrote:Thanks AdamJay. I realized after I posted that I had misread your original post with the proper path cuz I did, heh, look in the library folder on the HD. So remove it and it stops the throbbing or does this cause the booting up of the machine excruciatingly slow? I guess I want to be absolutly sure that I need to do this.

the negatives:

-removing it will reduce your battery life (20-30%) (but so would running an older mac on "highest cpu" vs. "automatic" all the time)

-and removing it will add about a minute to boot up time. i just timed a reboot and from the startup tone til my desktop was completely displayed - 1 minute, 14 seconds. So i wouldn't call it 'excrutiatingly slow'. YMMV

the positive:

-35% more CPU power in Ableton Live 5.2

i think the positive outweighs the negatives.

tonetripper · Post by **tonetripper** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:27 am

So it's an interesting fix to say the least. I also operate Cubase SX3 in addition to Live, so I'm curious about this because I believe I fixed my P4 2.6 HT machine with a similar fix in the power management. Do you have any concern about the heat from the chip itself as it perhaps burns harder than prior Apple laptop chips? My main concern would be summer? Do I forsake the cooling for the enormously hot laptop in really hot weather? I realize that it is a fairly easy fix, but it also makes me question whether Apple may hold us accountable for removing something that would potentially cure a potential meltdown.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:36 am

tonetripper wrote:So it's an interesting fix to say the least. I also operate Cubase SX3 in addition to Live, so I'm curious about this because I believe I fixed my P4 2.6 HT machine with a similar fix in the power management. Do you have any concern about the heat from the chip itself as it perhaps burns harder than prior Apple laptop chips? My main concern would be summer? Do I forsake the cooling for the enormously hot laptop in really hot weather? I realize that it is a fairly easy fix, but it also makes me question whether Apple may hold us accountable for removing something that would potentially cure a potential meltdown.

It would be the equivalent to running Boot Camp on your Intel Mac all summer.

Cooling is controlled by the firmware, not the software. My macbook pro stays cool when not under heavy use.

john gordon · Post by **john gordon** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:50 am

what! 35% more,you gotta be kiding.i think thats a good reason to do it.does that mean 70 percent more when our dual kiks in.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 1:07 am

john gordon wrote:what! 35% more,you gotta be kiding.i think thats a good reason to do it.does that mean 70 percent more when our dual kiks in.

won't know till that happens.

btw, i got that from testing the macbook with the Live Five Performance Test - before the fix = 43% Peak. After the fix - 28% Peak.

overall gain in performance = 35%

kenn michael · Post by **kenn michael** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:56 am

AdamJay wrote:-and removing it will add about a minute to boot up time. i just timed a reboot and from the startup tone til my desktop was completely displayed - 1 minute, 14 seconds. So i wouldn't call it 'excrutiatingly slow'. YMMV

wow, 1m 14! i really am spoiled!

it felt like an hour... (just kidding.)

Digi V · Post by **Digi V** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:27 am

i'm going to wait for something official (which i pray will come)

DJSK · Post by **DJSK** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:52 am

Once you delete it how do you put it back? I tried to copy the file back in the folder and after rebooting my computer said it wasn't installed properly.

tonetripper · Post by **tonetripper** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:46 pm

Well I've been doing a lot of research on this issue and I spoke to a friend of mine who is web developer and also a Mac enthusiast and he seems to think it's alright to do. He gave me the go ahead. I still am reluctant after everything I've read about the ramifications of doing this mod.

The facts remain clea:
It is a recent induced kernel as of 10.4.5
It affects the heat of the unit.
Powering up takes longer
You, seemingly, gain 30 percent CPU back when operating Live 5.2

My main concern is the heat. I'm wondering if Apple will come up with this mod before I wreck my first ever Apple from overheating. I want this machine to run Cubase (which I use with my PC) and Live(of which I'm a registered owner of both). I push these programs pretty hard with plugins and the like so heat is a bit of a concern in addition to be using this computer for recording audio for film.

Basically I'm still feeling skeptical. I wish someone would alleviate my concerns by telling me that removing this file will absolutely help in speed and not make me feel worried about overheating this machine. Already it gets pretty hot and I'm sure that the duo core intel chips probably burn pretty hard.

I know AdamJay has said it's safe, but there are some concerns even in the apple discussion concerning this issue with certain owners. Although I'm not sure they are using their laptops in the same fashion as some on this site.

gomi · Post by **gomi** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:03 pm

AdamJay wrote:

i think the positive outweighs the negatives.

before you go deleting kext's read the man page for kextunload

steve-o · Post by **steve-o** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:04 pm

gomi wrote:
AdamJay wrote:

i think the positive outweighs the negatives.

before you go deleting kext's read the man page for kextunload

Okay, I read the man page for kextunload on my iMac G5 - after reading the man page I think gomi's suggestion is very wise. Can somebody who has not deleted the kext file do a kextstat on the file and see what other files are dependant on it?

There's also a kextload that can place a kext back (or so that's what I gathered but I'm no unix expert in any way shape or form).

Gomi - if I understand the man pages correctly, (1) kextstat to check the dependancies (2) kextunload to remove the file (3) kextload to place it back? I'm not a programmer, but isn't that a simple script to write?

Becomingmore intrigued about why apple hasn't addressed this issue itself, and the relation to XP....

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:19 pm

tonetripper wrote: Basically I'm still feeling skeptical. I wish someone would alleviate my concerns by telling me that removing this file will absolutely help in speed and not make me feel worried about overheating this machine. Already it gets pretty hot and I'm sure that the duo core intel chips probably burn pretty hard.

my mac has been on for the last 2 days with this "fix"
the only time i've noticed it get any hotter than before is when i was using the CPU at like 85% in Live 5.2

of course using 85% of the CPU wasn't possible before this fix. Live would crap out at about 60-65% because the processor wouldn't throttle up.

and for what its worth, its also pushing a 23" Cinema HD, which is no doubt adding heat to the GPU.