MBP advanced power management - can it be disabled?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by zephonic, May 17, 2011.

  1. zephonic macrumors 65816

    zephonic

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    greater L.A. area
    #1
    So Apple is touting OSX' advanced power management as follows:
    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.
     
  2. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #2
    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.
     
  3. zephonic thread starter macrumors 65816

    zephonic

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    greater L.A. area
    #3
    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.
     
  4. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #4
    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.
     
  5. snaky69 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #5
    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.
     
  6. zephonic thread starter macrumors 65816

    zephonic

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    greater L.A. area
    #6
    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.

    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.
     
  7. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #7
    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.
     
  8. zephonic thread starter macrumors 65816

    zephonic

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    greater L.A. area
    #8
    OK, good to know that.
     
  9. getz76 macrumors 6502a

    getz76

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Location:
    Hell, AL
    #9
    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.
     
  10. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #10
    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
     
  11. zephonic thread starter macrumors 65816

    zephonic

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    greater L.A. area
    #11
    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.
     
  12. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #12
    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.
     
  13. getz76 macrumors 6502a

    getz76

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Location:
    Hell, AL
    #13
    Good luck.
     
  14. zephonic thread starter macrumors 65816

    zephonic

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    greater L.A. area
    #14
    This was the question:

    and this was the answer:

    Everything else was just...well...you know...good intentions, I guess.
     
  15. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #15
    Yes, good intentions. I was simply pointing out that if this had been the question:
    This would have been the answer:
    And everything else would have been unnecessary. It was only a suggestion to improve getting answers in the future. Take it or leave it.
     
  16. zephonic thread starter macrumors 65816

    zephonic

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    greater L.A. area
    #16
    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.
     
  17. mac00l macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    #17
    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.....
     
  18. clickclickw00t macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    #18
    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
     
  19. zephonic, May 17, 2011
    Last edited: May 17, 2011

    zephonic thread starter macrumors 65816

    zephonic

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    greater L.A. area
    #19
    That is definitely part of the plan.

    But this thread was just a question about the advanced power management feature.
     

Share This Page