Parrells quicker than bootcamp on new pro

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by heliocentric, May 3, 2010.

  1. heliocentric Guest

    Nov 26, 2008
    i noticed while doing a video encode that if i allocated all 4 threads on my new i5 pro to parrells (running xp) that it encodes quicker than xp running natively in bootcamp.

    im a bit confused because i always thought the native running of an os would be quicker.

    is apple throttling cpu speed in bootcamp partitions?

    also i never reach the 3.06 that the i5 2.53 is meant to reach through turbo boosting

  2. aslocum macrumors newbie

    Apr 29, 2010
    you will only get 3.06 if only ONE core is in high usage and the rest is relativly low on usage.
    they wont let the cpu clock all cores that high at the same time. so most of the time you will be around ~2.7ghz (that was the most case for my previous i5 2.53 win7 laptop)
  3. heliocentric thread starter Guest

    Nov 26, 2008
    Thanks for the info :)

    but why is parrells quicker than bootcamp?
  4. johnalan macrumors 6502


    Jul 15, 2009
    Dublin, Ireland
    I would like to know this too :)

    also what is the 3d performance like in parralels?
  5. kolax macrumors G3

    Mar 20, 2007
    Probably because XP is ancient and Parallels is boosting it through emulation because Parallels can take advantage of multicores/threads etc. Just a guess..
  6. ReallyBigFeet macrumors 68030


    Apr 15, 2010
    ^ Probably the right answer. Parallels is a Mac app that runs Windows inside of it, and it likely has some optimized code that lets it use more of OSX' native processing capabilities. When you go Bootcamp, you are only running WinXP (or Win7) code and even if there is optimized code in there to take advantage of all 4 cores, you could still be held back by any number of other device drivers that throttle your CPU.
  7. Dozerrox macrumors 6502

    Dec 23, 2009
    It really shouldn't be, there must be a problem with the bootcamp install or something.

    Edit: I thought it was Windows 7, sorry, sounds like a possible theory above.

Share This Page