I have a MBA, and I do notice, more often than I had expected, that I'm experiencing core shutdown. I do agree with a previous post that it could, at least partially, be related to the video card/driver. If I decide to run a YouTube video while having Outlook open in VMWare Fusion, I'll usually shutdown a core. Other combinations of applications can do it too, but this combo is almost guaranteed.
My question is: Is there a time where core shutdown is good, for example, to preserve the integrity of the hardware? I don't want to go into the Genius bar complaining if all they're going to say is "Well look what you're running! Of course it'll shutdown!"
I think I am getting the well publicized core shutdown with my MBA but I can't be sure. I will be doing a task and things like expose will be as smooth as can be but then all of a sudden it slows to a complete halt, everything lags, expose is jerky, cmd+tab takes ages to switch application and keystrokes such as typing take seconds to appear. For a good 5+ mins the computer becomes totally useless. Is this what a core shutdown does to the computer? Is there an application I can use to monitor how many cores are running? I looked in the activity monitor but couldn't find information about how many cores are running. I have used smc control to monitor my cpu temp and I sometimes turn the exhaust up to max rpm before I watch a video or do something that has been causing the core shutdown (if thats what it is) in an attempt to try and keep the cpu cooler.
I have read about coolbook but I don't fancy paying for an application to stop a fault that shouldn't be happening. Are Apple fixing these faults? Is this a problem with ALL MacBook Airs? I ask this because there seem to be two groups of people. People that don't experience this (or say they don't, maybe don't want to admit a fault with there new shiny toy?) and people who have had 3-4 machines all with the same problem. I would love to know if this is indeed a core shutdown fault and if Apple replace it for me as it is becoming increasingly frustrating and not acceptable for a $1200 computer. Would also like to hear from people that have had the core shutdown fault fixed or replaced from Apple and if it has fixed the problem, or if it still exists.
I was thinking of getting a refurbed MacBook Air and as I had one before and had to return it because the logic board was fried, I was wondering if Apple has fixed these issues? Also, being a refurb would they definitely make sure its not having those heat/core shutdown issues?
It's the last question before I buy the MBA. I have a program that can run under Win or MAC. That's a Picture convert and compile program work with my project. This program needs 100% CPU to and last 15 minutes to work under my old Pemtium M 1.6Ghz notebook. Usually I do my job use my notebook in home or my desktop PC in office. But occasionally I need to do some compile outside the office.
So I really need to know whether the MBA will definitely shutdown one core when the CPU usage is 100% and last 15 minutes? Or maybe you can tell me if the MBA will shutdown when rendering a project in Mayar or 3D Max last 15 minutes. It's important to me before I buy the MBA. I just need a light notebook and I can do some hard job occasionally, but reliable. I like a Fujisu S6510 too, but it is too expensive and heaver than MBA.
I see the numbers of everything from Core 2 Duo, to the slightly faster and cooler Core i3, to the supposedly faster core i5s and i7s. The benchmarks go up accordingly, but I found this does not always equate in a faster experience on most tasks.
Here's my experience so far on processor upgrade:
In one computer trade school re-certification class I am in, we are working with Windows Server 2003 on a Quad Xeon platform and it's incredibly slow.
But in a previous class we had the previous generation server edition on older Xeons, and while not fast, it was much better. On paper the newer multi-core Xeons should have made a difference, but could 2003 server software be that much more bloated than the previous Windows server edition that it would stall like that and make us wish we had the older setup?
I am going to try out the Adobe CS lab and put the new high end Dells to the test there and see if they work better than when we had an older CS version on older Xeon equipped Dells.
I don't know if this is something to do with Dell, or if Apple's increasing processor bumps/generations are going to similarly not make a difference in the speed things appear to go at, whether it's Adobe stuff, server stuff, or anything else that needs power.
I know somebody who plans on a Core 2 Duo, i5 or i7 MBP and I was wondering if the higher end processor is worth it in that case (iMovie being the main program of use).
There's a lot of people wondering if the 13" MBPs would have been a lot better with a Core i3 processor, but everything has been just hangups over perceived old vs. new technology, and really the only thing the Core i3 adds is Hyper-Threading, but it doesn't have Turbo Boost, which helps the Core i5/i7s tremendously. Let's compare using Geekbench since it is cross-platform and one of the few available sources of info...
Core 2 Duo P8600 2.4GHz (~3362)
[URL]
vs.
Core i3 330m 2.13GHz (~3472)
[URL]
Core 2 Duo P8800 2.66GHz (~3700)
[URL]
vs.
Core i3 350m 2.26GHz (~3680)
[URL]
As you can see in both cases, the difference is pretty minimal indeed, and in single threaded applications, the C2D will easily outdo the Core i3 which lacks Turbo Boost and runs at lower clock rates.
And you get a 320M instead of Intel HD graphics with the new 13".
The Geekbench results from the old 15/17" to the new 15/17" are quite an order of magnitude better.
So unless people are expecting Core i5 processors in the 13", sticking to the C2D was actually a good decision, and given the differences between 2.4 and 2.53 isn't so large, one is far better buying the base 13" and then putting the money saved towards a good 7.2k HDD or SSD.
Note - I took averages of the 32-bit numbers and added them.
Note 2 - The C2D Pxxxx are 25W TDP processors, which are more efficient than the Core i3 which are 35W TDP processors. Less heat, better battery life from C2Ds.
I've been debating whether or not to upgrade my 3 year old 15" Macbook Pro that has a 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo (Santa Rosa) to the new 13" 2.4Ghz Macbook Pro. FYI... My current system also has 4GB of RAM. Since both systems are Core 2 Duo, what kind of speed bump am I going to see? Would this be a substantial upgrade?
I'm buying a new MacBookPro but can't decide, due to lack of knowledge, wich one to choose and if there's a noticeble difference between, 15.4" MacBook Pro Notebook Computer 2.2GHz Intel Core i7 Quad-Core4GB of DDR3 RAM500GB 5400rpm Hard DriveAMD Radeon HD 6750M 512MB Graphics15.4" LED-Backlit Glossy Display1400 x 900 Native ResolutionSlot-Loading SuperDrive802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 2.1+EDRFaceTime HD Camera, Built-in MicrophoneMac OS X 10.7 Lion (64-bit)
and the 13.3" MacBook Pro Notebook Computer 2.8GHz Intel Core i7 Dual-Core8GB of DDR3 RAM (2x4GB)750GB 5400rpm Hard DriveIntel HD 3000 Graphics13.3" Glossy Widescreen Display1280 x 800 Native ResolutionSuperDrive, Secure Digital Card SlotFaceTime HD Camera, Omnidirectional Mic802.11n Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 2.1+EDRMac OS X 10.7 Lion
Besides the screen size, one would be considerable faster?
I use Photoshop and beeing a photographer I deal with large files.
Info: MacBookPro 2.66GHz 4GB 1067MHz DDR3, Mac OS X (10.6.2)
The ivy bridge processors are coming out soon (or may already be out). I have heard that macbook pro 13" models might be able to use the new processers due to their lower energy useage. I presume that I will be able to take my mac to an apple store and have it installed. Is this information true?
Info: MacBook Pro (13-inch Early 2011), Mac OS X (10.7.4)
Although i'm hardly impressed by the prices and specs of these 'new' machines I need one so I'm buying!
Just need to know before I make the plunge. Is the i7 variant with the extra GPU ram really worth it? I would use the extra power in my work but I honestly need to know if I'd notice any difference as for a few seconds less waiting it would hardly justify the price.
My iMac 27 late 2010 does not shut down when shut down in the normal way. I have to shut down with the push button. I have tried disconnecting all the usb connected hardware still no use. Can any body help.I have OS Lion 10.7.3?
My system has randomly shut down twice now in the last two days. Dual G5 2.3. I checked the console log, which I know very little about, and it said this:
localhost kernel[0]: ApplePMU::PMU forced shutdown, cause = -122
Two questions-
what's the -122 code mean?
Do you think resetting the PMU would be the solution to this?
I wanted to know if I can replace the upper case of a Core Duo white macbook with that of a Core 2 Duo black macbook? The white one has the distinctive yellowing of the rev A macbooks, so i'd like to make it better whilst making a black/white frankenMac.
Just curious as to how much of an improvement in performance I would see upgrading my system as it states above, since my 2006 machine is 3 years old and getting close to the end of my apple care, figured I would trade it in and upgrade.
I am looking to purchase my first Macbook Pro. I am having a difficult time deciding between a $1749 17" from Amazon that is the older 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo and the $2298 17" (w/ student discount and tax... have to include tax) from Apple that is the newest model. The price difference is $549.
Some things I'm curious about:
1. Intel HD card? Does it really cause that much lag? How is it compared to the nVidia 9400m? I don't mean benchmarks, I mean real life performance.
2. Battery life? Is the battery life in the newest model much better than previous gen?
3. Heat? Is there a difference in heat production between them?
I don't care about gaming, so the 512 300m vs. 512 9600m is no concern.
Does the newest 17" justify the $549 price difference? Are there any other things that I should know between the two?
Has anyone that know if it's possible to upgrade MacPro Nehalem 2.26 to 2.66 Ghz Westmare with the following processors : Intel Hexa Core Xeon? Processor X5650 12M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel? QPI part #:BX80614X5650 ? Could you help me telling if it?s possible to upgrading MacPro Nehalem octa core 2.26 Ghz to Mac Pro Westmare hexa core 2.66 Ghz ?
is it even possible to upgrade an old dual core powermac g5 to a quad core or even an 8 core.
I have a dual core one and i really need to upgrade to a quad or even 8 but it is so expensive to buy a whole brand new one and i was wondering if there was a way to just get a new processor and more ram or what not.
So the older Mac Pro's from 2008 have 2 2.8ghz Quad Core Intel Xeon processors, without hyperthreading, for a total of 8 cores, and the top of the line iMac has a Quar Core i7 2,8ghz with hyperthreading for a total of 8 (virtual) cores.
With the ghz being the same but less "real" cores, but probably newer CPU architecture, which CPU will actually be faster?
I know other threads exist, but they don't have responses specific to me so what's the harm in one more?
So, I am going to be selling my late 2008 15" MacBook Pro this week to get a new 27" iMac and I just need some legitimate advice from those "in the know" on processors.
I plan on having this iMac for about 3 years to do the following tasks:
1.) Record and edit HD cable (1080i) from an Elgato EyeTV HD - will include some encoding of 2+ hour sports game recordings
2.) Some light editing of 720p iPhone 4 clips in iMovie
3.) Surf the web, iTunes, iPhoto, Mail, and all the other standard stuff
Assuming budget is an issue, would you recommend me spending the extra money for a Quad Core i5 iMac or would I be ok based on the info above just going with the base Dual Core i3 model?
Like, will there be a considerable difference in the two machines (factoring in processor and graphics card) that will really be worth the extra $300 - $400 for 3 years of use?
I've upgraded my iMac 4,1 to a core 2 duo processor in order to install Lion although I still get a message from App Store saying that Lion cant be installed on my computer - I have all the basic system requirments - RAM - free space - latest version of Snow Leopard and processor ...
The first Core i7 and Core i5 benchmarks are available. Quite amazing to see how much faster the Core i7 is even compared to the Core i5. (via digg) I'll definitely go for the Core i7 now that I've seen these results.
As I see the new Speedmark 6.5 test scores come out, I''m taken back somewhat.
I'm buying an iMac for my office which is used for internet, email, heavy excel and word. I like to get 4 to 5 years out of my computer so I'm switching to an iMac. That being said I'm buying a refurbished unit, but am wondering if it's worth the extra 4-500 bucks to upgrade from the 3.06 Core i3 to the 2.66 Quad-core i5??
They're both Intel Xeon Westmere's, but I was planning on buying the 8-core today. However, another commentator mentioned the 3.33GHz 6-core Westmere being a faster/better choice than the 2.4GHz 8-Core Westmere. Is this due to the 1 6-Core processor versus 2 Quad-Core processors and how the system utilizes threading, etc of each?
