Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

zephonic

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 7, 2011
1,310
709
greater L.A. area
So Apple is touting OSX' advanced power management as follows:

Mac OS X activates sleep mode on already energy-efficient LED-backlit displays. And it balances tasks across both central processors and graphics processors. Mac OS X never misses a power-saving opportunity, no matter how small. It even regulates the processor between keystrokes, reducing power between the letters you type. That’s just one of many ways Apple manages small amounts of power that add up to big savings.

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/environment.html

While that is all good in principle, I assume that this comes at the expense of performance. When I run heavy tasks I'd want all processing power made available to the processes and not have OSX interfere with power management just to save a few milliwatts.

Can this power management be deactivated completely?

Thanks.
 

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,539
941
I assume that this comes at the expense of performance.
That's the wrong assumption. Those power saving features don't interfere with your Mac processing tasks that you give it. They're focused on wasted energy, not energy consumed for a purpose. Think about those 8 cylinder engines that run on 4 cylinders when idling at a stop light or slowly driving around town, but all 8 cylinders come online if you mash your foot down. Power when you need it, no wasted energy when you don't.
 

zephonic

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 7, 2011
1,310
709
greater L.A. area
I understand the analogy with the engine, but it is an unfortunate one as it is my understanding that the desired effect (reduced fuel consumption) was never really achieved and reliability compromised?

Anyway, OSX must use a finite amount of resources to monitor and manage the power savings. Unless this happens on a separate piece of hardware (there's no mention of that), that means CPU clock cycles, right?

Resources that can then not be allocated to the main tasks, if I understand the matter correctly.
 

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,539
941
... if I understand the matter correctly.
You don't. Go back and re-read the information you quoted. Balancing tasks across both central processors and graphics processors doesn't mean reducing performance. It means one processor isn't sitting idle while another one is running at maximum. Regulating the processor between keystrokes doesn't mean a reduction in performance, either. Most of the time, your CPU is running with very low demands, waiting on input from you. You're not going to reach your Mac's performance limits under normal use, so even if you could disable the power management, you wouldn't see any improvement in performance. That's like wanting to remove the speed limiter on a car that's limited to 155 mph, so you can drive around town at 40 mph and occasionally drive on the freeway at 75 mph. The speed limiter (advanced power management) isn't limiting your use in any way. When you need maximum performance from your Mac, it will deliver it. The power management features won't interfere with that.
 

snaky69

macrumors 603
Mar 14, 2008
5,908
488
I'll side with GGJStudios here, you don't want to be disabling that, all available power is given to the computer when it is needed, heck, it even drains the battery while it's plugged in the AC when it needs more juice to power all cores to the max.
 

zephonic

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 7, 2011
1,310
709
greater L.A. area
Balancing tasks across both central processors and graphics processors doesn't mean reducing performance. It means one processor isn't sitting idle while another one is running at maximum. Regulating the processor between keystrokes doesn't mean a reduction in performance, either.

But the OS handles this, right? And to do that, monitor and regulate, it uses cycles, right? Unless there's a dedicated piece of hardware doing this that I'm not aware of.

Most of the time, your CPU is running with very low demands, waiting on input from you.

Yes, most of the time under normal use.

My idea is to run very resource-heavy virtual instruments like Omnisphere and Kontakt live on stage. CPU/Memory/Disk load will be substantial. I want to know if I can switch of all processes that are not necessary for this single purpose. Including power management.
 

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,539
941
My idea is to run very resource-heavy virtual instruments like Omnisphere and Kontakt live on stage. CPU/Memory/Disk load will be substantial. I want to know if I can switch of all processes that are not necessary for this single purpose. Including power management.
You don't need to disable power management to get maximum performance, and you can't do it, anyway. Just disable any widgets and non-essential apps and processes. There's nothing more you need to do.
 

getz76

macrumors 6502a
Jun 15, 2009
821
0
Hell, AL
My idea is to run very resource-heavy virtual instruments like Omnisphere and Kontakt live on stage. CPU/Memory/Disk load will be substantial. I want to know if I can switch of all processes that are not necessary for this single purpose. Including power management.

How many instruments? What sample and bit rates?

If you are doing non-orchestral, I suggestion doing CD quality (44.1kHz/16-bit) output if you have the sample libraries available. In most venues and most FoH, anything more is a waste. You should be fine; I ran Reason 3 on stage triggered with a Hammond pedal-board with a Dell Latitude X1 years ago; 1.25gB memory and 1.1gHz Core Solo. Never even a hiccup.

I would be more worried about memory than CPU power; make sure you have at least 8gB or memory. Make sure you have an interface with good drivers (think RME or MOTU) and if you are running a lot of instruments, consider a second hard drive (FireWire) to host your sample library.
 

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,539
941
How many instruments? What sample and bit rates?
This should be a lesson in asking for help in the forum. Rather than start with a solution in mind and try to force that solution, start by describing what you're trying to accomplish, and let those with experience offer solutions. This thread would have been better focused toward your needs if the title and your initial question was something like "How do I maximize performance when running Omnisphere and Kontakt?"

How to maximise your MacRumors troubleshooting experience
 

zephonic

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 7, 2011
1,310
709
greater L.A. area
I did not ask for help. I know what is required to run these things and have been doing it for years.

I had one specific question about this advanced power management and that has been answered, thank you.

Tone down the pomp a notch, it won't hurt.
 

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,539
941
I did not ask for help. I know what is required to run these things and have been doing it for years.

I had one specific question about this advanced power management and that has been answered, thank you.

Tone down the pomp a notch, it won't hurt.
It's not "pomp". It's a suggestion intended to help improve your experience in getting answers in the forum. You did ask for help, but you were asking the wrong question.
 

zephonic

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 7, 2011
1,310
709
greater L.A. area

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,539
941
This was the question:

and this was the answer:

Everything else was just...well...you know...good intentions, I guess.
Yes, good intentions. I was simply pointing out that if this had been the question:
"How do I maximize performance when running Omnisphere and Kontakt?"
This would have been the answer:
How many instruments? What sample and bit rates?

If you are doing non-orchestral, I suggestion doing CD quality (44.1kHz/16-bit) output if you have the sample libraries available. In most venues and most FoH, anything more is a waste. You should be fine; I ran Reason 3 on stage triggered with a Hammond pedal-board with a Dell Latitude X1 years ago; 1.25gB memory and 1.1gHz Core Solo. Never even a hiccup.

I would be more worried about memory than CPU power; make sure you have at least 8gB or memory. Make sure you have an interface with good drivers (think RME or MOTU) and if you are running a lot of instruments, consider a second hard drive (FireWire) to host your sample library.
And everything else would have been unnecessary. It was only a suggestion to improve getting answers in the future. Take it or leave it.
 

zephonic

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 7, 2011
1,310
709
greater L.A. area
LOL :D

So to find out what I want to know, I should first consider the answer I do not need in order to learn that what I did not know bears no relevance to the question that wasn't asked? :rolleyes:


I know what is needed to run VI's. No need for answers, hence I didn't ask the "right" question.

I just wanted to know if I could turn off power management. And you answered that, thanks.

And sorry about the "pomp" thing. I was a little piqued but I am sure you meant well.
 

mac00l

macrumors 6502
May 3, 2011
266
0
Good grief!!!!

A simple thank you would had been more than enough. You won't get far with that attitude towards people trying to help.....
 

clickclickw00t

macrumors regular
Jun 28, 2007
186
0
Ultimately, for such large sample libraries, the bottleneck is not your processor or power management, its the hard drive.

Get a 256GB SSD and install the sample libraries on there. You'll see the difference, mainly that they'll load about 10x faster due to the read write speeds...

your current read/write speed: somewhere around 60mbps
with an SSD running at SATA2: around 200mbps or more
With an SSD running at SATA3 ('11 MBP): 500mbps
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.