Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro Audio Update Seen as Fixing Performance Issues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually it's not iTunes. It's ANY software that outputs audio. The issue also affects performance and heat when using Firewire devices. So put your conspiracy theory away and focus on the facts!
before installing, my temps were at 96 degrees while playing audio in itunes, and importing photos into aperture.
I'm pretty happy with that, and it's a good thing because when I installed it, I lost my audio completely, because I'm running a hack pro. 4 x 4ghz is awweessoommmeee.. btw.
I'm pretty happy with that, and it's a good thing because when I installed it, I lost my audio completely, because I'm running a hack pro. 4 x 4ghz is awweessoommmeee.. btw.
Now look at the iMac beating the lalala out of the Mac Pro...
This version of the quad is horrible for the price, one would have to be a fool to buy it.
You do realize that it requires major rewriting to take advantage, and 10.6 hasn't been out all that long, right?
Apple hasn't even released an app that uses GC yet, right?
You shouldn't need it most likely. It shows up for mine, but it already ran 30 degrees cooler than my MP. No point.
Did you even read the article? The fix increases performance on the same machine. And ANY audio playback caused the temp spikes and wasted performance, it had absolutely nothing to do with iTunes (although there's plenty wrong with iTunes).
Relax, don't do it!
We all saw these Mac Pros heating up the room while playing a song on iTunes. With other applications, these Mac Pros are not very good radiators. So, I suppose, iTunes does play a part.
In software enginerring texts the answer is basically "No". And there is some theory to back that up. But you can get very close to zero defects. The example used as the best system yet is always the Space Shuttles main computers as configured during accent (launch)
However there is a cost. NASA invested about 350 man hours per line of code in that software. Mac OS X has literally tens of millions of lines of code.
The problem is not unlike if you were given a 10 foot tall stack of phone books coving most US cities and then asked to check if the numbers are correct. Could you ever, even in theory deliver a correct stack of phone books? I'd say "no" even if yu were to hire a large staff.
So what do now is called "fault tolerance". You design the system so that a bug will not crash it.
In Classical computing anyway. I can't remember which magazine but a University Professor theorised that in Quantum computing, that if they designed a language specifically designed for the Quantum CPU, that if there were any fatal errors possible. That the compile would fail.
I just read about the problem a bit more, and if you're running a hackintosh, there might be an easy fix without losing your audio. It claims the problem happens due to intels speed step. Mine was already disabled for overclocking. So I don't really care.. but if you don't care about the increased wattage, just go into bios and oc a tiny bit and turn speed step off.
MacBook performance with iTunes
Hi, I have a unibody MacBook connected to a LED cinema display and it seems a lot slower when iTunes is playing. Spaces and Exposé get really choppy.
I know the update doesn't apply, but do you guys experience any of this? Any ideas?
Hi, I have a unibody MacBook connected to a LED cinema display and it seems a lot slower when iTunes is playing. Spaces and Exposé get really choppy.
I know the update doesn't apply, but do you guys experience any of this? Any ideas?
Don't joke about that, I showed the iPad videos to two people already and they already want to buy one! They don't even use Apple products!!!
Yes you can. Amen. Mine gets pretty hot driving a large 1080 HDMI 24" monitor and would love to see it cooler. It's already cool but you know what I mean. Lol Aaaaaamen Amen Amen.
Sorry, but that's flat out wrong. This particular bug caused temperature rise with ANY app that was playing audio. That includes all apple apps and all third party apps. If you have this machine and haven't applied the fix, test it out.
The machines even got hot with a FW or USB audio interface just hooked up and no apps even running.
The only reason iTunes played a part was because it was playing audio, nothing at all specific to iTunes.
If you're running a hackintosh, you may not need a fix, it probably doesn't have the bug in the first place. i7 machines seem to be fine, maybe if you have a xeon hackintosh (but I doubt there are many of those).
I work in an all Mac, 1000+ computer school district (save a few PCs for Buildings & Grounds department & Applied tech) so I think we have a good relationship with Apple. We're still running Leopard because it came out so late in the summer, we didn't have the time to create & distribute the new image for all the computers. Plus, we just didn't know how the new version would work with all out other software.
Now to my point: I'd say at least 90% of our Macs (easily over 900 computers) still run 10.5.7. When we updated some of our servers to 10.5.8, that caused a lot of problems w/ administration & Workgroup Manager. The tech department called Apple, and Apple said they are not working on 10.5.9, which is disheartening. We are moving to Snow Leopard this summer, but still. There are still a lot of good PPC Macs out there so it would help.
This reminds me of an article I read... a bit old but cool so I thought I'd share:
They Write the Right Stuff: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html
This reminds me of an article I read... a bit old but cool so I thought I'd share:
They Write the Right Stuff: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html
Hi - thanks for posting the link - very interesting...
Look.. if all you run is iPhoto, don't buy a Mac Pro! I also have a 2.26 Nehalem mac Pro, and I have a 2.4 ghz iMac 24" 2008 that I'll admit is in some respects snappier, at some things...
BUT I also shoot/edit in large quantities of HD footage.. just today for $200 I created a 2 GB SATA striped RAID that I'll use for one project (and bill my client for). The import of my HD footage (from P2 Cards) was nearly twice as fast as what I'd see from FW800, and I can edit multiple streams of HD footage without hangups... try that on an iMac at any speed. The real world working difference at this point between the iMac and MacPro these days are: the ability to add SATA drives, and to update the video card, and a choice of monitor(s).
Things like QT conversions, and 3D renders are WAY faster on the Pro... in fact if it weren't for the slow renders and the hugeness of the HD files we're working with, I could have saved $3G's and stuck with Dual G5...
There will always be something faster just around the corner... as long as I can still use my MacPro to make money (which is why I got it); I'll be OK.
BUT I also shoot/edit in large quantities of HD footage.. just today for $200 I created a 2 GB SATA striped RAID that I'll use for one project (and bill my client for). The import of my HD footage (from P2 Cards) was nearly twice as fast as what I'd see from FW800, and I can edit multiple streams of HD footage without hangups... try that on an iMac at any speed. The real world working difference at this point between the iMac and MacPro these days are: the ability to add SATA drives, and to update the video card, and a choice of monitor(s).
Things like QT conversions, and 3D renders are WAY faster on the Pro... in fact if it weren't for the slow renders and the hugeness of the HD files we're working with, I could have saved $3G's and stuck with Dual G5...
There will always be something faster just around the corner... as long as I can still use my MacPro to make money (which is why I got it); I'll be OK.
I'll give up a few seconds for...
Just to name a few reasons for choosing a Mac Pro over an iMac.
- 4 HDD bay's
- Graphics card choices
- Real RAM expansion
- A ton of ports (FW, USB, Audio)
- And whatever monitor I want to use
Just to name a few reasons for choosing a Mac Pro over an iMac.
What do you mean "+ Cores"?
The high end iMac has as many cores as the low end MP. Which is why it beats it on some benchmarks.
I didn't say you could.
Read my post again.
The high end iMac has as many cores as the low end MP.
The high end iMac has four cores.
The low end MP has four cores.
(both have hyperthreading, providing four more partial cores)
Get it now?