PDA

View Full Version : Processing Power Not Reaching Potential?



dangelovich
15th May 2005, 01:40 PM
Hi

I set my new Dual 2.0GHz G5 encoding in iDVD and checked Activity monitor to see what was going on...
The CPU graphs weren't reaching 100%. It appears that the machine isn't using all its power to encode.
The machine only has 512MB RAM right now (another 1GB is on the way...)
I closed down Safari to free up some RAM, and the usage went up a bit...
Right now it's on about 70-80%

Does this mean the mac isn't reaching it's potential without more ram?
Is it normal for iDVD's performance to increase considerably with more ram?

- David

mac_man_luke
15th May 2005, 01:45 PM
I would think that iDvd would use lots of ram and OSX can never have too much ram ;)

snax
15th May 2005, 01:58 PM
Adding more ram will increase performance, yes. 512 would be holding you back. The rule with ram is to get as much as you can possibly afford - consider getting another 1gb.

Rayd
15th May 2005, 02:25 PM
or it could be real simple like in energy saver the CPU is on Reduced :P

dangelovich
15th May 2005, 02:28 PM
Processor performance is set to Automatic.

the_OM
15th May 2005, 03:42 PM
Set it to highest, get yourself some more ram and you'll see an increase.

The more ram the better, especially for something like idvd

mac_man_luke
15th May 2005, 04:17 PM
I wouldnt set it to highest, that will reduce your life of your computer

OziMac
15th May 2005, 04:18 PM
Hey dangelovich - when you put your processor power up to highest, can you listen out and see if you can hear a repetitive beeping noice coming from your tower (at an interval of about 1 second)?

gelfie
15th May 2005, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by mac_man_luke@May 15 2005, 04:17 PM
I wouldnt set it to highest, that will reduce your life of your computer
Oh Bullshit!

dangelovich
15th May 2005, 05:34 PM
I'm not hearing anything now, but last night I could have sworn I could... I didn't know where it was coming from, as it was very faint...
I eventually concluded that it was in my head... I haven't heard it since, but I'll investigate the tower if I do again...

mac_man_luke
15th May 2005, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by gelfie@May 15 2005, 05:32 PM
Oh Bullshit!
Its true, you will get full power out of your mac running it in auto mode instead

gelfie
15th May 2005, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by mac_man_luke@May 15 2005, 06:06 PM
Its true, you will get full power out of your mac running it in auto mode instead
It's not true. Running your mac on "Automatic" does hamper performance. I've noticed it on an iBook especially when playing Divx, where it would drop frames when on Automatic, and run like a charm on Highest. Even scrolling large websites was noticably jerkier with Automatic selected. God help you if they had flash on them too.

BareFeats have a benchmark where the mac mini and emac actually out performed the iMac G5 on a number of tests when the iMac G5 was set to Automatic.

And running your processor at Highest is still running it within specification. It is not going to shorten the life of your processor. Even if it did, the difference in lifespan would be measured in weeks.

The worst thing that's going to happen if you put the processor on highest is that... oh my god... your fans might work a little more often and a little louder.

jerrah
15th May 2005, 06:38 PM
More the point being - how long do you plan on using your computer? I know that it's highly unlikely for me to be using any of my current computers in 50 years time. If by running my computers hard I only got 49 years out of it, or even 47 - it's unlikely to die within the timeframe that I would be using my computer.

What's the average life of a cpu? I'm guessing it's a very long time!

In all my years and all the platforms, I can't say I've ever 'worn out' a cpu.

If the CPU overheats, that's a problem, but I'd daresay Apple would have a cooling solution that can handle the heat generated by the software which they provide running at 100% cpu.

Byrd
15th May 2005, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by jerrah@May 15 2005, 06:38 PM
In all my years and all the platforms, I can't say I've ever 'worn out' a cpu.
You will not damage a CPU by running it at full load, as by setting a G5 CPU to 'highest' performance.

All this talk about damaging CPUs by running them hard - and the "threat" of electromigration on heavily overclocked CPUS - I really do wonder does anyone actually have a CPU that has died on them after 5 - 10 years? Can't say I've ever heard of it happening, including friends that still use old PCs (one mate of mine uses a 1996-era Cyrix P100, and I've still a large amount of 68K Macs I've come across that have died the hard disk developing mechanical strain, not the CPU).

JB

the_OM
15th May 2005, 09:34 PM
It won't harm it at all, I've got an overclocked Duron from 2000 that still goes strong. And most people use the highest setting, like someone above said, it's still running within spcification.

jerrah
16th May 2005, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Byrd@May 15 2005, 07:36 PM
You will not damage a CPU by running it at full load, as by setting a G5 CPU to 'highest' performance.
Why'd you quote me Byrd? :) That's basically what I said. (Well intended to say)

Will not damage a CPU by running it at 100% as long as it's not overheating.

bergerac
16th May 2005, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by jerrah@May 15 2005, 04:38 PM
More the point being - how long do you plan on using your computer? I know that it's highly unlikely for me to be using any of my current computers in 10 years time. If by running my computers hard I only got 9 years out of it, or even 7 - it's unlikely to die within the timeframe that I would be using my computer. What's the average life of a cpu? I'm guessing it's a very long time!

In all my years and all the platforms, I can't say I've ever 'worn out' a cpu.

I've got an old Dual Pentium Pro 180mhz system sitting next to me and that would have to be close to 10years old. Its been overclocked to 233mhz (32% overclocked) and on 24/7 for about 8 of those years and it still rock solid. The only reason its getting retired is that it doesnt support newer hardware and its time for an upgrade.

I can't see how running a CPU within apples specifiations (which the 'highest' setting is, otherwise it would void the warrenty) could possibly shorten the proccessors life enough for it to be noticable, even if newer proccessors run hotter.

mac_man_luke
16th May 2005, 01:42 AM
ok i think i must be wrong i heard it some where, maybe it was something about it being unstable

the_OM
16th May 2005, 08:41 AM
Setting it to highest won't make it unstable either Luke, your just plucking at straws now.

jerrah
16th May 2005, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by bergerac@May 16 2005, 01:06 AM
I can't see how running a CPU within apples specifiations (which the 'highest' setting is, otherwise it would void the warrenty) could possibly shorten the proccessors life enough for it to be noticable, even if newer proccessors run hotter.
"In all my years and all the platforms, I can't say I've ever 'worn out' a cpu."

Here I go being quoted again when I agree. :P

I've got plenty of old computers kicking around too, and I've never had a cpu fail on me except for a big power surge (which stuffs pretty much everything inside a computer).

Instead of 10 years I should have said "Who will be using their computers in 50 years time - then they might have a dead CPU" But even so, I believe most cpu's would still be working in 50 years time if they haven't been heat damaged.

Think about it though - how many people are still using a computer from 10+ years ago. We're talking late 486's and early pentiums. (Not sure of the mac equivilent) I'm only using one machine from that era now a Pentium 133, and it works ok, but after years of service it's not on every day.

I still have early HP machines that still fire up and run ok, I saw a site the other day and noticed several of my machines are now in online museums, and they still work fine. (Except for my Compaq 'Portable' 286 which burst into flames back in the late 90's...)

Compaq Portable III (http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=1064)

My first computer - HP 85 (http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=353)
HP 85 ran at a massive 0.625 MHz, and still fires up fine. :)

Bart Smastard
16th May 2005, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by jerrah@May 16 2005, 09:06 AM
"In all my years and all the platforms, I can't say I've ever 'worn out' a cpu."

Here I go being quoted again when I agree. :P

I've got plenty of old computers kicking around too, and I've never had a cpu fail on me except for a big power surge (which stuffs pretty much everything inside a computer).

Instead of 10 years I should have said "Who will be using their computers in 50 years time - then they might have a dead CPU" But even so, I believe most cpu's would still be working in 50 years time if they haven't been heat damaged.

Think about it though - how many people are still using a computer from 10+ years ago. We're talking late 486's and early pentiums. (Not sure of the mac equivilent) I'm only using one machine from that era now a Pentium 133, and it works ok, but after years of service it's not on every day.

I still have early HP machines that still fire up and run ok, I saw a site the other day and noticed several of my machines are now in online museums, and they still work fine. (Except for my Compaq 'Portable' 286 which burst into flames back in the late 90's...)

Compaq Portable III (http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=1064)

My first computer - HP 85 (http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=353)
HP 85 ran at a massive 0.625 MHz, and still fires up fine. :)
What in dogs name do you do with all these old PC's Jerrah?

Are you aware there's companies who recycle old PC's? The plastics can be ground up to make new plastic stuff. They extract the gold (there's gold in them tha' PC's :D ) from the connectors.
The frame can be melted down and I think they can even get something usefull out of circuit boards.

Stop hoarding, let them go mate. They've served their purpose :)

mac_man_luke
16th May 2005, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by the_OM@May 16 2005, 08:41 AM
Setting it to highest won't make it unstable either Luke, your just plucking at straws now.
Some apple rep told me it wasnt good to run it like that oh well! he musta been wrong!

Insanely
16th May 2005, 02:37 PM
I always thought that the setting was for a laptop. Saving power for battery! I can imagine the clock speed it reduced when the machine's battery is low. I am sure Highest just throws it to it's maximum processing clock speed.