MacBook Air :: How To Tell If Both Cores Are Running
Mar 15, 2008Any specific window to access on the Air to see if one core has shut down?
View 6 RepliesAny specific window to access on the Air to see if one core has shut down?
View 6 RepliesI Have been agonizing over which Mac Pro would optimize the performance of my Digital Audio Workstations, Pro Tools in particular. Honestly, I have been back and forth with deliberating that now I am burnt out,
I hear Mixed Reviews on the New Nehalem 2.26 GHz Mac Pro Octo. I have also come to believe that 8 Cores Benefit Video More Than Audio, the diagnosis being that 8 Cores Is Overkill for audio. Is Pro Tools A Multi-Threaded App. And What Mac Pro Would Be Best For Audio?
Assuming all cores are maxed out, how would the performance of the virtual cores stack up against physical cores (say, in the instance of a i7-620m)?
View 2 Replies View RelatedThe Sandy Bridge version of MacbookPro's isn't likely to use the quad core version but instead a dual core version with hyper-threading much like the existing lineup offers.According to current Sandy Bridge listings:
[URL]Sandy_B...ile_processors the quad core Sandy Bridge mobile CPU is 45W TDP while the current i7 processor used in MBPs today is only 35W.
Due to size constraints and Apple's push to have 8+ hours of battery life they will be incapable of continuing to offering 8 or more battery hours if the switch to Sandy Bridge 45W quad cores is chosen.
The current 35W offering of Sandy Bridge is only a dual core with hyper-threading. There's still expected to be some improvement in performance as early benchmarks by Anandtech are showing a 10-30% performance boost per core on the desktop variants.
MBP 13" and regular Macbooks should see the switch to Sandy Bridge dual cores due the the integrated IntelHD 200 graphics(which appears to be on par with an ATI 5450) eliminating the need for a discreet Nvidia 320M in lower end models.
I just received my new MBP with i7 processor.
What I understood is that the os should recognize 8 cores because of the 4 cores with multi threading. The system profiler however, only shows two.
Was I misinformed or is something up with the hard/software?
I am trying to use my MBP 8,2 with two of my four cores shut down in order to preserve battery life. Is this at all possible through 3rd party apps?
Info:
MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.7.4)
I hear people saying stuff like " to bad that 8 cores wont be used" Or " 8 cores can actually be slower and 2 cores"
How is that?
Wouldn't a 8 core 2.8ghz be faster than the 4 core 2.8ghz in the mac pro?
What would the 8 core be good for? Or doing what puts those 8 cores to use?
And finally is the 8 cores worth getting?
People that use lightroom, can you look at your CPU usage for all 4/8 cores and tell me what the usage is when your importing/searching/doing whatever and if there is any point in me getting 8 instead of 4 cores (Save myself �300 and get 8gb ram vs 4Gb!)
System will be on 300Gb Velociraptor and data on a 1TB Samsung F1, so lets say IO won't be that bottlenecked.
What kind of PPD can we expect?
Hopefully some of you guys will puts its power to the MaCrumors Folding effort!
Hi, I have a question to Owner of the New Mac Pro Nehalem (4 Cores):
How many CPU you see in After Effects CS4?
Which would be faster and why?
Two 3.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors
One 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
I have the option to buy the first one (used) for $1,900 OR buy the 2nd one brand new from for $2,999
I used to have an Apple application that sat in the menu bar. It gave you the option to select how many processors/cores you wanted to utilize. You could turn off the others.
Does anyone know what's it called and where to find it?
Which, if any, of the video editors make use of all eight cores of the Mac Pro? I haven't tried the pro apps yet, but CPU utilization for iMovieHD was only about 200% on the one project I have done on my new 2.8 Octo. It seems like this would be widely-known information, but I was unable to find it on Apple's site, and my extensive search of this forum was unavailing.
View 7 Replies View RelatedAre the incremental steps in processor options worth it? are they significant enough to notice performance increases? especially heavy files in photoshop
Also is the 8800 GT worth getting over the 2600 XT. and can one have two 8800's (or is that too much power draw). I am assuming you can have one of each (1x 8800 + 1x 2600) so you can run 3 spanning 30's. Any drawbacks in have spanning screens with different spec cards?
Are there any producers or audio engineers out there who have an opinion on which of the new Mac Pros would be best for a DAW using Pro Tools LE? I'm not able to find much information on whether having more cores or a higher clock speed is beneficial.
View 17 Replies View RelatedWhen I export a QT video in Final Cut Pro, I look at iStat and my CPU usage is total around 25%, with that usage being spread evenly through the cores. Is there a way to get it to take absolute full advantage of the processors, or is it doing its best job?
I have the new octo 2.8 MP.
I'm looking at replacing my ancient G5 tower with a new Mac Pro, and looking at the options, obviously I have to decide between the single CPU quad-core or the 2 CPU "eight-core" solution.
View 3 Replies View RelatedPerhaps my Google skills are fail today, but I can't find anything there or on Microsoft's site about whether the Windows 7 Home editions retain the just-one-processor (with however many cores) rule. Anyone know if I'll be able to access all eight cores on my Mac Pro with Win 7 Home Premium?
View 5 Replies View RelatedI am in the market for a Mac Pro for all my FCP editing. I found a guy who can get me a great deal on a brand new 8 core 2.8GHz Mac Pro, but it is the older version before the "Nehalem" chips.
This computer will be right around the same price as purchasing a brand new quad core 2.93GHz Nehalem Mac Pro.
So what I need to figure out is, what is more important, more cores, or faster newer processor?
I have seen some images posted of the cores being monitored to show their usage but I don't know what people use to see this activity. Are there any free apps that you can install on the Mac Pro to monitor usage of the cores?
View 16 Replies View RelatedJust got a Mac Pro with a single 2.93 GHz Quad-Core Xeon (Nehalem) and it's all working fine, but I'm wondering why this 4-core machine shows 8 cores in Activity Monitor - 8 columns in both the floating CPU windows.
I'm sure the answer's obvious, but it's late in the evening and I did search around the forum threads a little bit before posting.
Just got my i7 iMac the other day. Not all apps use all cores (as expected), but I'm interested to understand this one. Export MPEG2 (TS stream) from EyeTv to AppleTv format (I think it uses quicktime but can't tell).
Check out the pic. Now there are 4 real cores, but OSX is showing the 8 virtual cores. Anyway, given there are 4 cores, what does it imply to have around 50% total utilisation? Two threads? Four threads?
I notice that BOINC (einstein@home) only gets up to total utilisation when its running 8 threads. Does this mean that EyeTv (quicktime) is asking for number of cores and then creating that many threads? EyeTv is only showing one line time in Activity Monitor at around 400%.
Can these utilisation graphs actually be trusted when the 8 cores are virtual?
Warning:SUID file "system/Library/CoreS...has been modified and will not be repaired? What does this mean and how can I fix it?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have a Macbook running Leopard and an iMac running Tiger. I am looking to upgrade Leopard to Snow Leopard and Tiger to Leopard. If I were to purchase Snow Leopard and install it on the Macbook, would I then be able to use the copy of Leopard that came with the Macbook on the iMac? I am not trying to use 2 copies of the same thing on different machines, I just want to put a new os on one machine and move the existing one to another.I am reluctant to purchase the Mac Box Set version of Snow Leopard for the iMac because I do not want or need iLife and iWork.
View 2 Replies View RelatedMy Macbook Pro (from mid-2010) has recently started running EXTREMELY slowly, and the fan continuously runs loudly. From other posts, I have checked my activity monitor to see if any process is taking up a lot of the CPU % and have found that nothing seems high, except the kernel_task which, from what I understand, is supposed to be high. I have also attempted to reset the SMC which didn't fix the problem either. I have taken my computer to the genius bar 3 times now, and they keep telling me nothing is wrong (because it works perfectly there), but when I get it home the fan comes back on, and everything runs slowly.
Info:
MacBook Pro (13-inch Mid 2010), OS X Mavericks (10.9.2)
My Mac feels as if it is running slower these last couple of months. I have thought of pursuing a commercially available "clean up" product, but thought I would try the community first and also for pointers using the Mac's own internal diagnostics or system improvement capabilities. Any and all advice is most welcome. I have a 250GB hard drive that is half full, I always update to latest revisions and have an extra high-speed internet connection. Computer is not heavily loaded with apps and typically using Firefox for browsing. (MS Office for Mac as well, but usually limited to one program such as MS Word or Excel at a time.) No heavy graphics utilization. Videos from the internet load slowly and some are choppy. Even scrolling just doesn't seem "brisk".
Info:
MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.7.3), 2.53/4GB Ram
Perhaps my Google skills are fail today, but I can't find anything there or on Microsoft's site about whether the Windows 7 Home editions retain the just-one-processor (with however many cores) rule. Anyone know if I'll be able to access all eight cores on my Mac Pro with Win 7 Home Premium?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI've had an iMac for just about a year and over time I guess I just didn't notice but the machine always ran very quietly. At the same time the back of the computer would heat up so bad that it would nearly burn my hand if I left it there. Well last week I decided to upgrade to Lion from Snow Leopard and when I did the install failed and froze up the hard drive. I took the computer in to the apple store and they determined that it had to have a new hard drive installed because the old one (only a year old) had a physical malfunction (was broke). So anyway I have my iMac back and get it started up, backed up from time machine, and then finally get Lion istalled - and now all of the sudden I notice that the fans in the computer are CONSTANTLY blowing - I can hear them spinning and can hear the air venting out of the back of the computer - and the computer is STILL really hot on the backside of the screen.
So now I am wondering if the originial problem was the computer heating up and if that may have broken the otherwise good hard drive? Also now that I have a new hard drive - should I be concerned about the fans being on ALL the time? I mean they never go off. Even when I leave the computer for hours and come back to it and the screen is asleep the fans are STILL buzzing away at top speed. Here is the stats on the computer at the time that I'm typing this note - there are no other programs running than Firefox and Mail. Also - I don't know what the optical drive is exaclty - but if it's the DVD drive (superdrive) - there is nothing in the DVD disc drive
Info:
iMac, Mac OS X (10.7.3)
my 4 year old IMac 2.4ghz intel core 2 duo with 2gb running 10.7.3 has been running really slow since I installed photoshop CS4 and upgraded to lion ( I have 137gb of free space on hard drive) I mean it wont quit out of photoshop I always have to do a force quit and most applications run really slow. Do I need a new computer , what should I go for to have a smooth running mac?Was thinking of a new IMac 27-inch: 2.7GHz with 4gb memory.
Info:
iMac (20-inch Mid 2007), Mac OS X (10.7.3)
This is the first time I've tried OWC memory. So far, so good - the Mac recognizes the RAM and boots okay. Everything I've tried thus far post-upgrade works. I am a happy camper now - my Mac was a bit sluggish due to running out of physical RAM running Parallels.
View 1 Replies View Related