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.
Why Apple doesn't make performance improvements for Mac?
- Thread starter MacSafe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple switched from OpenGL to Metal and they claim that improves performance with animations.
Generally animations don't stutter for me on my Mac. You need to be more specific there.
Generally animations don't stutter for me on my Mac. You need to be more specific there.
no stutter for me. What are you running - hardware - macOs version etc. What animations - etc.
i haven't seen any stuttering animation on my last several macs. as ctharryh asked: what mac are you using?
Every Mac that I used had animation stuttering to some degree (even my 15” 2018 one), they run at high resolutions with a mediocre GPU at best
You won’t really realize that almost every Macbook has animations stuttering until you try a Hackintosh with a real high end GPU where every thing is butter smooth
You won’t really realize that almost every Macbook has animations stuttering until you try a Hackintosh with a real high end GPU where every thing is butter smooth
unless, of course, you're not experiencing stutter on the mac you own (my imac, macbook, or previous macbook pro... for example).
You clearly didn’t try a Hackintosh with high end gpu (or an imac pro with vega 64) so you won’t even notice..
It’s like the 30 fps vs 60 fps when most people claimed that there is no difference (and the human eye can’t see beyond 30 fps and all that ****), you won’t believe it until you experience it yourself (or compare side by side)
i have no need (or desire) to do so, am having a great experience on my imac & macbook. it's a non-issue...
Funny funny, I still don't get this 60/144/240fps thing it's nonsense and proven by double blind a-b-c-d testing repeatedly as a placebo effect. Not even professional gamers can pick out the given frame rate of a monitor past 30fps in play testing. You can ramp out to 600 to 1000fps and it is still impossible for the eye and especially the brain to process or to extract image quality, density or rate of motion beyond the 30fps frame. The multiplication of rates benefits the system in some cases through white paper overhead capacity > though it really only lessens burdens it in real world scenarios because of the current fashion of trying to overdrive it past it's actual performance spec and the only indicator of it actually happening is in benchmarks and on screen displays rattling off a counter of fps.
Otherwise, it's a method to extract cash from your credit card and spend your life over at the geek bench site with people that need the validation they spent ridiculous money on the best card that the next person after them bought too. It's a marketing tactic and a little crazy to bring an industries (windows gaming) marketing campaign into any discussion of what performance is on a Mac. People are having a fit over the Mac Pro starting at 6K. They should have had a fit about the 2080 RTX starting at 1200 - much higher in reality > for a marginal speedbump and some non supported and performance sapping marketing gimmicks (RTX which is just a DXR extension with a couple of dedicated compute units given to it - funny how they don't tout how many and it will drop the oh so holy fps by a third to half) You want to see performance improvements..check out the ray tracing panel at WDC on the dev page where it was easily leveraging at least half to possibly all the CU's to produce the results shown.
Your hackintosh isn't butter smooth, it's a mashup of parts in a Mel Brookes young Frankenstein configuration. some over performing some underperforming - all of them mismatched and running from a really iffy and insecure efi boot dongle. your buttery smooth is probably because the monitor you're using is over processing it's output. I doubt that's even the vega64 helping it because you are going to be hard pressed to make that Vega do more than system default/limits are going to allow.
Otherwise, it's a method to extract cash from your credit card and spend your life over at the geek bench site with people that need the validation they spent ridiculous money on the best card that the next person after them bought too. It's a marketing tactic and a little crazy to bring an industries (windows gaming) marketing campaign into any discussion of what performance is on a Mac. People are having a fit over the Mac Pro starting at 6K. They should have had a fit about the 2080 RTX starting at 1200 - much higher in reality > for a marginal speedbump and some non supported and performance sapping marketing gimmicks (RTX which is just a DXR extension with a couple of dedicated compute units given to it - funny how they don't tout how many and it will drop the oh so holy fps by a third to half) You want to see performance improvements..check out the ray tracing panel at WDC on the dev page where it was easily leveraging at least half to possibly all the CU's to produce the results shown.
Your hackintosh isn't butter smooth, it's a mashup of parts in a Mel Brookes young Frankenstein configuration. some over performing some underperforming - all of them mismatched and running from a really iffy and insecure efi boot dongle. your buttery smooth is probably because the monitor you're using is over processing it's output. I doubt that's even the vega64 helping it because you are going to be hard pressed to make that Vega do more than system default/limits are going to allow.
I've never mentioned anything regarding 144/240HZ
the difference between 60 and 120/144/240 is controversial, but between 30 and 60? com'on man!I don't care about what you say if you can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.
iPad Pro 2nd gen (and 3rd gen) ships with a ProMotion display, and its main goal is to be able to display animations in up to 120hz. I've owned both iPad Pro 1st and 2nd generation, and the difference is HUGE!
And you don't know anything about my Hackintosh config/specs, so I'm not sure where did you come up with all that nonsense about the parts being mismatched and ****.
I own both 27" 2017 iMac and a 15" 2018 MacBook Pro, and a Hackintosh. So that puts me in a position where I can objectively compare between them. You clearly don't own a high-end Hackintosh, but you're still making assumptions and talking nonsense, just pathetic!
...you’re complaining about some slight stuttering on a 6-year-old machine? If you really wanna compare to iOS, that’s like complaining that the iPhone 5S has started to inexplicably slow down!
Well ok then!
Well ok then!
You are correct, it doesn't matter.
There's the reality and then there's marketing.
For the record, I've had both consumer iMacs and Pro Macs including updated Mac Pro's and two iMac Pro's, The iPad is a different thing altogether and it's not in the same species, it's tied to the post processing and image smoothing functions that make the scroll functions seem less strained. It's like oversampling in audio. the higher the rate, the more antialiasing and more post process is necessary to bring it back to human hearing range but it only works when the components are matched and the software is balanced to define and control it properly. The true motion display is an interesting idea but if you dive into the technical brief on it. It's a very close relative to AMD's free sync and I wouldn't be shocked to see it appear in an iMac design somewhere soon. It already exists in the XDR display. you aren't seeing 120 frames or even 60, you're seeing a balancing of post processing and intelligent adjusted workload output. the real magic to those is that it does present a better picture at a lower power consumption because of variable frame rate and post processing, not because of high frame rate in itself.
that's where my comment about the display overdriving comes in.
As far as mismatching > get a breakout component list of your Mac models sometime and go line by line down the list with the component level list of your hackintosh parts. You're going to find they don't match up component for component and that's where the mismatch statement comes from. It takes very very little to throw a curve when what the system expects is there and more when something it didn't expect is there. If it really was a mix and match thing, they wouldn't make closed systems and they wouldn't protect their sourcing or refurbishment supply lines the way they do. it's all proprietary from the ground up. Custom boards, UEFI roms, Custom support chips.> some overlap with available parts - sure but not really the same and even the bootloader veterans will say proceed with patience and caution and don't expect immediate gratification or success and absolutely do not expect 100% compatibility or a 200% improvement in performance with any given application or function.
Just a guess but they might know what they're talking about on that point and I agree with them.
Do some reading on the MacOS kernel and how it interacts with both the efi and the system hardware, it's threading capacity and why it's balanced the way it is. Better still take a look at the hackintosh forums where there's been several long running threads about trying to build system with more than 32 or 48 cores and the lengths they had to go to to make them function meaning boot..sort of (it's really cool stuff in that gene wilder, "Igor...you say you brought me an abnormal brain?" kind of way). most of the extracts and white papers are available in the dev section of apple - I never bothered with a hackintosh because it never offered any advantage over a Mac Pro system in either expandability or in it's ability to use resources and still doesn't. The gap is just getting wider with the new one. The seawall is going to set the standard for the next five years in what the desktops will have to catch up to. It's going to be interesting times to see if the motherboard and component makers take up the challenge on the pc side. I don't think they will.
Back to your original question: The reason it seems like IOS gets the performance lifts is because they are still refining development for that series of processors they update and enhance the silicon every cycle and the last few revs have been dramatic shifts. Intel has not made a change in their fundamental core architecture in nearly 15 years since the original cores were introduced, yes they add things > small things and baby step functionality, but the core silicon remains the same as it's been since they moved away from the Pentium II and itanium projects. What can be refined and exploited now is threading and scheduling and they've done powerful work in that with their core pro apps, but it's not a new architecture and it's going to be that way for a little longer Until Intel unveils their challenge/mate to the ARM series in a true 64 bit architectures without the legacy silicon baked into the die and a path to 128bit. Which according to Intels roadmap is less than 2 years out - if they can get their chip fabs up to speed on a process that makes it feasible. I think that's when you'll see the kind of performance marketing return to the WDC presentations for MacOS at the OS level and the app development level.
To close this, I wasn't making fun of you and I am sorry you took it as that. I do think the hype and the misunderstandings of how these things actually work is a little crazy and we do live in a world where the information is available and it's in anyones best interest to dig in and get familiar with it if they really want to get the best out of it and understand why it gives a given benefit or limitation. It makes better consumers, a better experience in value for money and a much smaller footprint burden on supporting those technologies and their bells and whistles and what is realistically expected.
There's the reality and then there's marketing.
For the record, I've had both consumer iMacs and Pro Macs including updated Mac Pro's and two iMac Pro's, The iPad is a different thing altogether and it's not in the same species, it's tied to the post processing and image smoothing functions that make the scroll functions seem less strained. It's like oversampling in audio. the higher the rate, the more antialiasing and more post process is necessary to bring it back to human hearing range but it only works when the components are matched and the software is balanced to define and control it properly. The true motion display is an interesting idea but if you dive into the technical brief on it. It's a very close relative to AMD's free sync and I wouldn't be shocked to see it appear in an iMac design somewhere soon. It already exists in the XDR display. you aren't seeing 120 frames or even 60, you're seeing a balancing of post processing and intelligent adjusted workload output. the real magic to those is that it does present a better picture at a lower power consumption because of variable frame rate and post processing, not because of high frame rate in itself.
that's where my comment about the display overdriving comes in.
As far as mismatching > get a breakout component list of your Mac models sometime and go line by line down the list with the component level list of your hackintosh parts. You're going to find they don't match up component for component and that's where the mismatch statement comes from. It takes very very little to throw a curve when what the system expects is there and more when something it didn't expect is there. If it really was a mix and match thing, they wouldn't make closed systems and they wouldn't protect their sourcing or refurbishment supply lines the way they do. it's all proprietary from the ground up. Custom boards, UEFI roms, Custom support chips.> some overlap with available parts - sure but not really the same and even the bootloader veterans will say proceed with patience and caution and don't expect immediate gratification or success and absolutely do not expect 100% compatibility or a 200% improvement in performance with any given application or function.
Just a guess but they might know what they're talking about on that point and I agree with them.
Do some reading on the MacOS kernel and how it interacts with both the efi and the system hardware, it's threading capacity and why it's balanced the way it is. Better still take a look at the hackintosh forums where there's been several long running threads about trying to build system with more than 32 or 48 cores and the lengths they had to go to to make them function meaning boot..sort of (it's really cool stuff in that gene wilder, "Igor...you say you brought me an abnormal brain?" kind of way). most of the extracts and white papers are available in the dev section of apple - I never bothered with a hackintosh because it never offered any advantage over a Mac Pro system in either expandability or in it's ability to use resources and still doesn't. The gap is just getting wider with the new one. The seawall is going to set the standard for the next five years in what the desktops will have to catch up to. It's going to be interesting times to see if the motherboard and component makers take up the challenge on the pc side. I don't think they will.
Back to your original question: The reason it seems like IOS gets the performance lifts is because they are still refining development for that series of processors they update and enhance the silicon every cycle and the last few revs have been dramatic shifts. Intel has not made a change in their fundamental core architecture in nearly 15 years since the original cores were introduced, yes they add things > small things and baby step functionality, but the core silicon remains the same as it's been since they moved away from the Pentium II and itanium projects. What can be refined and exploited now is threading and scheduling and they've done powerful work in that with their core pro apps, but it's not a new architecture and it's going to be that way for a little longer Until Intel unveils their challenge/mate to the ARM series in a true 64 bit architectures without the legacy silicon baked into the die and a path to 128bit. Which according to Intels roadmap is less than 2 years out - if they can get their chip fabs up to speed on a process that makes it feasible. I think that's when you'll see the kind of performance marketing return to the WDC presentations for MacOS at the OS level and the app development level.
To close this, I wasn't making fun of you and I am sorry you took it as that. I do think the hype and the misunderstandings of how these things actually work is a little crazy and we do live in a world where the information is available and it's in anyones best interest to dig in and get familiar with it if they really want to get the best out of it and understand why it gives a given benefit or limitation. It makes better consumers, a better experience in value for money and a much smaller footprint burden on supporting those technologies and their bells and whistles and what is realistically expected.
Great question. I feel macOS is 2nd priority for Apple. Their first priority is iOS. Considering macOS only accounts for < 10% of their total revenue, it makes sense that they don’t allocate as many resources as the iOS counterpart. It wouldn’t surprise me if macOS team is only a fifth the size of the iOS team. It’s a shame because macOS far precedes iOS.
The only way to compel Apple to invest more into macOS is to pressure them using direct competition from Microsoft just like how intel was forced to add more cores to desktop, laptop CPUs which was a direct result of competition from amd. When intel didn’t have sizeable competition from amd in pre-2016 era, year-to-year performance gains were marginal at best. Ever since amd introduced Ryzen w/ more cores, intel was forced to respond and that is when we started seeing decent incremental gains and more cores - 6, 8 cores for the last 2 years and we will be seeing 10 cores on mainstream desktop this year. We were stuck on quad core CPUs for God knows how many years. Intel didn’t have any incentive to work hard b/c they were basically dominating a monopoly market. So why bother?
It’s a different story now. Apple is facing increased competitions in the laptop segments and consumers have a lot more choices when it comes to metal enclosure laptops. Apple still has an edge b/c they are the only company that sells laptops w/ macOS which still allows them to charge more. But Microsoft is improving w10 every 6 months and a lot of die hard macOS fans have already migrated over to w10.
I think the recent price cuts on Macs is proof that Apple is acknowledging Windows competitions and the fact that consumers have more choices than ever before. Competition is always good for consumers and bad for companies.
The only way to compel Apple to invest more into macOS is to pressure them using direct competition from Microsoft just like how intel was forced to add more cores to desktop, laptop CPUs which was a direct result of competition from amd. When intel didn’t have sizeable competition from amd in pre-2016 era, year-to-year performance gains were marginal at best. Ever since amd introduced Ryzen w/ more cores, intel was forced to respond and that is when we started seeing decent incremental gains and more cores - 6, 8 cores for the last 2 years and we will be seeing 10 cores on mainstream desktop this year. We were stuck on quad core CPUs for God knows how many years. Intel didn’t have any incentive to work hard b/c they were basically dominating a monopoly market. So why bother?
It’s a different story now. Apple is facing increased competitions in the laptop segments and consumers have a lot more choices when it comes to metal enclosure laptops. Apple still has an edge b/c they are the only company that sells laptops w/ macOS which still allows them to charge more. But Microsoft is improving w10 every 6 months and a lot of die hard macOS fans have already migrated over to w10.
I think the recent price cuts on Macs is proof that Apple is acknowledging Windows competitions and the fact that consumers have more choices than ever before. Competition is always good for consumers and bad for companies.
Last edited:
WTF are you talking about? It's very easy to notice the framerate difference between 30fps and 60+ Ridiculously easy.
At least 3D games (not VR). I can't comment about 144/240fps, but 30 vs 60+ It's day and night.
I am not saying the games have to be 60+, but to claim (bs claim btw) that gamers can't tell them difference...just wow.
Already covered above., Wow is exactly the right word for the arguments about it a lot of the time.
You're right on several points. Intel is facing pressure on the processor front and that's going to end up in a pricing and competitive cores war on the horizon (amd still is about 2 generations behind in IPC right now and infinity fabric isn't a substitute for on chip interconnect, but it is challenging them on the low end. They still lag behind on high end and professional applications implementations. So, intel still has the edge in that regard) but it will be enough to force them to jump ahead again as they did with their core strategy. My best bet would be they jump directly past sunny cove and go to their 64bit non legacy burdened designs somewhere in the next two years if they can get their 7nm/5nm process under control.
The real benefit is that these pushes on dram/memory/flash and the supply side..Apples obviously redone their supply side and let's see if that doesn't push the processor costs of the Mac Pro and the upcoming iMac/macbooks down too on the price side. That's going to be real ground level benefit. I think if the upgrades on the CTO Mac Pro comes down to "realistic prices, that's going to be your real indicator about how concerned Intel really is.
I can't comment on IOS vs MacOS dev group sizes. I can say that MacOS/XCODE is the cornerstone of the development and the appstore strategy. So it is absolutely vital to their quarter on quarter App Store sales percentage and that's not going away any time soon (and there is no Xcode roadmap to develop on the iPad itself beyond swift playgrounds on the horizon.
There has been some, but they are inconsistent. Apple is largely at the mercy of the great conglomerate Intel. If they can figure out cold fusion, and quantum computing at normal chip temperatures, they will corner the market and control the world, well, and the 'known universe'. Quite a feat...