IMac :: Core I7 CPU Usage When Machine Completely Idle
Nov 21, 2009
For those of you with a new i7 iMac, if your machine is completely idle, what does your CPU usage look like in Activity Monitor? I'm routinely seeing Finder consume 70-90% of my CPU. The single CPU bar meter view in the dock is basically pegged most of the time. The graph shows it as system usage. If I open the CPU History window, all 8 threads look like they're just about maxed out.
I have a problem with my iMac 2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (2 GB 667 MHz DDR 2 SDRAM), running OSX 10.6.5. OSX crashes and freezes all the time. Nothing works anymore. Sometimes it just freezes, and I can only move my cursor, but nothing reacts anymore. Sometimes the screen blacks (or sometimes blanks) out or shows the weird moving colours as shown on the photo I just took below: After restart, it often happens again and again. Then the iMac is fine for a couple of days, before it freezes again. Can anyone diagnose the problem from the info above?
I just noticed that my CPU usage in windows 7 running in boot camp on my i5 iMac i newer lower than 30%... One core is almost at max, one is at a third of max, and the two last cores are idle. I've cleaned out in the "processes" tab in Task Manager, so that only the vital functions are running. Does it really take up so much juice to run Windows in boot camp?
I am on the verge of buying my first Mac Pro and have a few questions to those with some insight into the software development world before I make my decision on whether to buy a 1cpu or 2cpu MP.I am buying this computer to last me for many years and because of that wondering alittle about the future of software:-)1) Are software developers in general shifting towards making programs that utilize multiple cores? Will games, business software, leasure software etc. slowly start to be made with multiple cores in mind? Or is the trend that multiple core usage is mostly for professional editing?
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.
My daughter has just got a macbook air 2014 1.4 128gb 4gb ram.I realize these are not power house machines, but are pretty slick, due to the SSD, and hardware/software relationship. What bothers me is that while the computer is doing nothing, and i mean nothing, everything closed down, nothing downloading in the background etc, Activity monitor shows that the memory is using 2.2gb of swap (which i believe means it is needing to use the cpu for support).
the reason i started having a look at this is because she plays sims 3, and whilst it plays ok, jesus, the fan goes full steam and the battery is pretty much dead in one hour, even though the games specs fall well within this systems specs.(So she only plays it plugged in now).The sims thing is fair enough though, if that is the work the computer needs to do to run it, but why is the RAM seemingly not coping while the machine is idle?
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?
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.
My new 21.5" iMac didn't go to sleep automatically when in idle state. I read a lot of posts regarding this issue and tried a few of the possible solutions: resetting the SMC and so on. I finally was able to fix my problem (so far) with the help provided in the following link: [URL]
I currently have a 24" iMac with a 2.8 Ghz Dual Core but I'm looking at buying a Mac Pro.I have been looking at the 2.26 Ghz Dual Quad, will this be faster than the iMac? I'm not really all that hot on clock speed vs cores, could someone with the relevant knowledge inform me which is better?
How quiet should the new 27" iMac's be running? Mine is fairly quiet but not silent. I recall reading a review prior to buying that had said it runs silent, so I'd like to make sure I don't have a defective system. I can hearing a very slight persistent sound. It's so slight I don't know how to describe it accurately--sounds like it could be a bit like a buzzing or a rotating sound. Or perhaps it's just normal operational sound? The HD will also make some sounds like it's reading something even when I'm not really doing anything.
I have a new, week 7, 27" iMac with 2.8 quad core CPU. Activity Monitor shows the "% idle" number jumping anywhere from 49% to 99% (but usually stays around 49%), when I'm actually 99% idle. The "% user" and "% system" numbers are less than 1% when the computer is idle. They just don't add up to 100%. Does anyone else see this? The left top of the computer is hotter than any computer I have had before. This is the third computer that Apple has sent with this problem. Apple Care just says to send it back.
I'm a longtime IT guy but a Mac n00b. My wife just got a 13" MBP and we really like it. I have an external drive that I've been using for Time Machine. When I did the initial time machine setup several weeks ago it said that the computer had around 100GB to back up (lots of photos). It took a while but finally completed. No problems. I looked at the external drive and the amount of disk being used jibed with what I knew it should be using. Fast forward to yesterday. I happened to look at the external drive and instead of 100+GB being used, there was only 14GB on the disk being used. Whoa. I *HAD* stopped a time machine backup earlier in the day because we were doing some things and I didn't want any other processes going on. Could stopping a TM backup (from the TM menu bar menu) cause something like this? I would certainly hope not. It should not have been deleting files at all--we are FAR from using up the entire disk.
I manually started a TM backup last night and it backed up ~ 100GB (I watched it's progress in the menu) and all was well. After it completed I went to the drive via the Finder and verified that disk usage was what I should expect. I just cannot figure out how it went from around 100GB used down to 14GB used and then back up to around 100GB. Frankly, it concerns me quite a bit. Does this make any sense to anyone out there?
do you think the 17 macbook pro is too big for normal computer usage (not talking about professional usage they require the extra size like photographers and video) is it too big for the rest of us? Is the extra screen space and pixels not worth the compromise in size?
Time machine only backs up the changing files in Mac. I want to use Time machine so it can back up my drive completely. From my music to pictures, to Apps to settings. I have a Case sensitive structure and I am about to format it to a non-case sensitive. And I want to back up everything. Is time machine a program for me?
I know this has probably been answered a billion times, but I need the answer for my specific needs. My daily use will be: Web browsing iTunes Watching HD Movies Bit Torrent HandBrake Dvd Burning Windows Parallels Social Networking iPhotoCan someone tell me if I really need the Core i5 2.8ghz, or should choose the Core i3 3.2ghz. Mind you, I dont wanna max out the machine with daily use...but dont want to overkill it.
first, I didn�t know if this thread should be here or in Buying Tips, but anyway. My doubt is about the brand new 27� iMac�s processor, If I should buy a more GHz one, but with only two cores, or should I buy little bit less GHz one, but with four cores.
It really worth pay $200 more? It really worth the four cores? My main needs are run CS4, some Final Cut, maybe Logic Studio, and switch between different OS's (OS X, Windows, and Linux). I think even a 21.5� model would be more than enough, but I just wonder If Quad Core gonna give me more power (I hope so).
I can use an Atom 330 Dual Core based machine as my home server?. I use it to live encode videos through AirVideo to stream to my iPad.. but the encoding is choppy and laggy. I have the chance to buy a 1.8 dual G5 PowerMac - would this be more powerful and encode video faster than the atom??
I'm running 10.6.4 with the newest flash 10.1, and when I load a page on safari or firefox with a flash video on it on my iMac the scrolling on the page doesn't work and the video takes about 5 minutes before I can press play. I have tried running different versions or flash (uninstalling old ones and things) but nothing fixes it.
currently i have a blackbook and imac core duo, 17 ". My macbook beats the imac in everything except graphics. Before i got my imac i seriously considered a g5 dual 2.0, but the money wasnt there. I see an apple refurb dual 2.0 for 1599, and im sure i cud get one a lot cheaper used here or on another board. How much of a performance increase will i see IN APERTURE going to the PM, if any? i would need a good increase to justify it, and eve then im not sure my parents would be ok with me spending a few hundred bucks to upgrade
I have an iMac G5 (Ambient Light Sensor) that runs Leopard pretty slowly, even with 2GB of RAM. Sometimes, it's a pretty severe lag: Type a sentence, twiddle your thumbs, bam, it's all inputted at once. Sometimes, the whole system is non-responsive for 60-120 seconds, before, bam, accepting all your key- and mouse-strokes at once.
Activity Monitor also reports extremely high CPU-usage. I've been using it for a couple of hours this morning and it's been maxed-out or nearly maxed-out basically the whole time.
There aren't any processes that appear to be hogging resources. Sometimes, it's finder / time machine that's using the most. Sometimes it's Safari or Mail.
I'm open to the possibility that it's just time to upgrade, but I was wondering if the forums had any suggestions on how to troubleshoot or reclaim some CPU cycles.