Hackintosh VS 15" MacBook Pro early 2011

krypticos

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 9, 2007
237
0
hello all i wasnt truly sure where to place this because it has to deal with mavericks and imovie version 10 and a macbook pro and a hackintosh. anyways let me stop wasting time.

so i have a i7 2600k, 16gb ram,500gb hdd 5400rpm, 2x gtx 660 ti hackintosh and a 15" macbook pro early 2011 with 16gb of ram.

my question is rendering the same video with the same edits and the same every thing. the hackintosh with everything working just like a mac pro should. takes 5min and 45sec to render the video. where as the macbook pro takes 1min and 38sec to render the same thing. why is that.

grant before i bought my macbook pro a week or so ago my hackintosh was crazy fast to me compared to my old 2007 whitebook. so seeing that the hack took 6 min to render the video i was expecting the mbp to take 7 min or so and it doesnt its like 5 times faster and this just blows my mind. sorry if this is in the wrong place and for it being a kinda stupid nonsense question was just curious.

Thanks for your time all
 

yjchua95

macrumors 604
Apr 23, 2011
6,725
230
GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
hello all i wasnt truly sure where to place this because it has to deal with mavericks and imovie version 10 and a macbook pro and a hackintosh. anyways let me stop wasting time.

so i have a i7 2600k, 16gb ram,500gb hdd 5400rpm, 2x gtx 660 ti hackintosh and a 15" macbook pro early 2011 with 16gb of ram.

my question is rendering the same video with the same edits and the same every thing. the hackintosh with everything working just like a mac pro should. takes 5min and 45sec to render the video. where as the macbook pro takes 1min and 38sec to render the same thing. why is that.

grant before i bought my macbook pro a week or so ago my hackintosh was crazy fast to me compared to my old 2007 whitebook. so seeing that the hack took 6 min to render the video i was expecting the mbp to take 7 min or so and it doesnt its like 5 times faster and this just blows my mind. sorry if this is in the wrong place and for it being a kinda stupid nonsense question was just curious.

Thanks for your time all
If your MBP has an SSD, that may be the reason why it's much faster.
 

krypticos

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 9, 2007
237
0
If your MBP has an SSD, that may be the reason why it's much faster.
sadly no these numbers are from before i installed my ssd. so both the desktop and the laptop was on a 5400 rpm drive. now with the ssd i have everything for imovie stored on the hdd anyways lol.
 

yjchua95

macrumors 604
Apr 23, 2011
6,725
230
GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
sadly no these numbers are from before i installed my ssd. so both the desktop and the laptop was on a 5400 rpm drive. now with the ssd i have everything for imovie stored on the hdd anyways lol.
Well...pulling my thought out of thin air, perhaps it's because of drivers?

Maybe your dual 660-TI setup isn't optimised for OS X since OS X doesn't officially support SLI?
 

krypticos

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 9, 2007
237
0
Well...pulling my thought out of thin air, perhaps it's because of drivers?

Maybe your dual 660-TI setup isn't optimised for OS X since OS X doesn't officially support SLI?
very true and i thought that also. the drivers for the video cards are from nvidia and the hack sees them as 660 ti card.

it just really threw me for a loop because with imovie supporting opencl now i figured the hack would fly through a render. grant compared to imovie 9 it does but compared to the macbook it doesnt lol.

i just really thought this was interesting discovery lol. i have done a fresh install with a 7200 rpm drive and ran the tests again and i got the same results. im wondering if its not the cpu in a way or maybe with a supported gpu it is able to utilize it better. i mean the 6490m that is in my mbp is nothing special lol.
 

yjchua95

macrumors 604
Apr 23, 2011
6,725
230
GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
very true and i thought that also. the drivers for the video cards are from nvidia and the hack sees them as 660 ti card.

it just really threw me for a loop because with imovie supporting opencl now i figured the hack would fly through a render. grant compared to imovie 9 it does but compared to the macbook it doesnt lol.

i just really thought this was interesting discovery lol. i have done a fresh install with a 7200 rpm drive and ran the tests again and i got the same results. im wondering if its not the cpu in a way or maybe with a supported gpu it is able to utilize it better. i mean the 6490m that is in my mbp is nothing special lol.
But overall, don't you think that Hackintoshes are so much more time consuming to setup, and also future updates may not be applicable to it?

I tried building a Hackintosh once, and ran into all sorts of problems (Ethernet not working, audio not working, etc etc until I patched the kexts). I mean, why not just buy a Mac direct and save all the complexity? :D
 

krypticos

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 9, 2007
237
0
But overall, don't you think that Hackintoshes are so much more time consuming to setup, and also future updates may not be applicable to it?

I tried building a Hackintosh once, and ran into all sorts of problems (Ethernet not working, audio not working, etc etc until I patched the kexts). I mean, why not just buy a Mac direct and save all the complexity? :D
well if you do what most do now then building a hackintosh is really easy. take my hack for instance i wanted a 100% mac compatible and gaming pc secondary. so i bought parts that was known to work 100% with mac other than my video cards. when it comes to updates i dont have anything to worry about. i download the combo update and install it. most of the time the only thing that breaks is the audio kext and that is 2 click of the mouse and its fixed.

now for someone that isnt into computers as much as me yes buying a mac is easier and probably better. for me though i wanted to learn more about os x and how it worked and wanted to build my own mac pro.

granted this thread isnt about it being a hackintosh per say its more of how come my mbp renders faster than my hack. when the hack has the much beefier hardware, and that it was a shock when the mbp did render 5x faster.

----------

but since i have my mbp my hack hdd doesnt get turned on much anymore haha because its 99% gaming pc usage now. my mbp is used for capture and rendering of video now.
 

TheEnthusiast

macrumors regular
Aug 22, 2013
146
3
It's probably because you didn't choose the best parts or you lack the necessary drivers. I have gone this route before and the hackintosh was faster than a comparable Mac. I also know people who report the same findings. The key is choosing the most compatible parts since that's one downside to hackintosh machines; only certain parts work well.
 

krypticos

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 9, 2007
237
0
since i have my mbp my hack hdd doesnt get turned on much anymore haha because its 99% gaming pc usage now. my mbp is used for capture and rendering of video now.
 

p3ntyne

macrumors 6502
Jan 10, 2014
406
3
Sydney, Australia
But overall, don't you think that Hackintoshes are so much more time consuming to setup, and also future updates may not be applicable to it?

I tried building a Hackintosh once, and ran into all sorts of problems (Ethernet not working, audio not working, etc etc until I patched the kexts). I mean, why not just buy a Mac direct and save all the complexity? :D
Try MultiBeast next time...
 

Gav Mack

macrumors 68020
Jun 15, 2008
2,192
17
Sagittarius A*
iMovie uses open-cl now which is really optimised for AMD GPU's. I own a Mac Pro 2008 with a gtx 680 but only occasionally use premiere for video but I understand to get the most out of iMovie/FCPX they are trying twin AMD cards.

As far as rendering and video cards with hacks go you might be better off asking Tutor in the Mac Pro section:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1333421

Mind blowing rendering stuff!
 

cosmicjoke

macrumors 6502
Oct 3, 2011
484
1
Portland, OR
If your MBP has an SSD, that may be the reason why it's much faster.
nearly same rig i7-2600k @ 4.5ghz, gtx 680, 16gb 1600mhz, 256gb crucial m4, 8tb of 7200rpm drives yadda.....

and experience much faster renders than my 2.7ghz/16gb ram/512gb ssd ivy 15" rmbp...... like nearly twice as fast....

methinks you've done something wrong, can you tell me what geekbench 64 bit results give you? maybe you're using the wrong smbios or something...
 

krypticos

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 9, 2007
237
0
nearly same rig i7-2600k @ 4.5ghz, gtx 680, 16gb 1600mhz, 256gb crucial m4, 8tb of 7200rpm drives yadda.....

and experience much faster renders than my 2.7ghz/16gb ram/512gb ssd ivy 15" rmbp...... like nearly twice as fast....

methinks you've done something wrong, can you tell me what geekbench 64 bit results give you? maybe you're using the wrong smbios or something...

i dont own geekbench so i can only run the 32bit version. my score with that is about 11500 if memory serves me right. there is a chance i have something set wrong.
 

cosmicjoke

macrumors 6502
Oct 3, 2011
484
1
Portland, OR
i dont own geekbench so i can only run the 32bit version. my score with that is about 11500 if memory serves me right. there is a chance i have something set wrong.
Well, I'd say there's a high chance that something is wrong because it's illogical that your macbook would outperform that gear, and I can verify mine does not.

But your geekbench score sounds about right i'd imagine for 32bit running at stock.... can you try transcoding something w/ handbrake, like the same xvid file to mp4 on both the 2600k and mbp and see how that goes?