What is The Fastest Powerbook equal to on a PC laptop
-
Guest
Alex,
Your comment on Mac OS optimization is very interesting. What do you think about the fact that live seems to be performing so much worse than in Win? Is it possible that it performs better on an 800 Mhz G3 than on an 800 Mhz G4?
And that the G4 would be outperformed by a Pentium of the same clock speed?
And, do you think it can be optimized to a degree that the bottlenecks often reported by Tibook useres disappear?
Thanks in advance
Your comment on Mac OS optimization is very interesting. What do you think about the fact that live seems to be performing so much worse than in Win? Is it possible that it performs better on an 800 Mhz G3 than on an 800 Mhz G4?
And that the G4 would be outperformed by a Pentium of the same clock speed?
And, do you think it can be optimized to a degree that the bottlenecks often reported by Tibook useres disappear?
Thanks in advance
-
ak
This isn´t true.
a 850 Mhz Pentium3 has about the speed of the fastest G4 Laptop.
I tested this with ableton live.
a 2 or 2,5Ghz Pentium4 outperforms a 1Ghz PPC several times,
not only due the processor speed also bus and RAM speed helps
a lot.
best regards
ak
a 850 Mhz Pentium3 has about the speed of the fastest G4 Laptop.
I tested this with ableton live.
a 2 or 2,5Ghz Pentium4 outperforms a 1Ghz PPC several times,
not only due the processor speed also bus and RAM speed helps
a lot.
best regards
ak
Alex Reynolds wrote:What application are you running?
x86 and PPC are two different processor sets that are good at solving two different sets of problems, so the answer really depends on what you're doing.
Roughly speaking, a 1 GHz PPC processor is equivalent -- very roughly -- to a 1.8 to 2 Ghz Pentium IV. Hardware optimizations help improve this ratio to more like 1:3.
When a program isn't optimized and is written poorly, PPC suffers badly. That ratio drops to 1:1, roughly.
-Alex
-
Alex Reynolds
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 5:48 am
- Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Contact:
Blame Ableton's developers. They probably wrote an audio engine for Windows and then wrapped code around it so that they could write a Mac version, ala Office 6. This makes software easy to port but doesn't help much in the way of efficiency.
Another problem unrelated to processor speed but still an issue is that Live does not cache clips in memory, so there is constant disk I/O that also drains valuable points from the system bus and CPU. This hurts laptop musicians in particular, because laptops have slow internal hard drives.
A big part of what differentiates a G3 from a G4 is the Altivec processing unit, which is specialized for the kind of floating point calculations that are the basis of digital sound processing.
Without optimization, there's not a whole lot of difference between a G3 and a G4, with a little improvement on the PB from a faster system and memory bus. This is why Live performance numbers for the iBook and PowerBook are about the same.
Ableton Live's audio engine or plug-ins do not take advantage of Altivec and it looks doubtful that we will ever see optimization for it.
The Windows users probably make Ableton far too much money to care about improving performance for what is likely a vocal but minority share of Mac users.
About all we Mac users can hope for is either a change in position from Ableton after v2 is released, or a change in ownership that would result in a better Mac product.
Nonetheless I am still going to pay for version 2 of Live. But I don't like that this constant and really pointless performance gap will remain. I think v2 will be the last version I pay for, unless there is a change or some amazing feature that will not be in a 2.x update.
Just some honest thoughts,
-Alex
PS. I am getting closer to releasing my (free) GUI RAM disk utility for OS X ("Fluffy Ram") -- stay tuned. This may help a little with the disk I/O issue, by allowing you to access clips from a RAM-based volume that is faster and will drain less battery life.
Another problem unrelated to processor speed but still an issue is that Live does not cache clips in memory, so there is constant disk I/O that also drains valuable points from the system bus and CPU. This hurts laptop musicians in particular, because laptops have slow internal hard drives.
A big part of what differentiates a G3 from a G4 is the Altivec processing unit, which is specialized for the kind of floating point calculations that are the basis of digital sound processing.
Without optimization, there's not a whole lot of difference between a G3 and a G4, with a little improvement on the PB from a faster system and memory bus. This is why Live performance numbers for the iBook and PowerBook are about the same.
Ableton Live's audio engine or plug-ins do not take advantage of Altivec and it looks doubtful that we will ever see optimization for it.
The Windows users probably make Ableton far too much money to care about improving performance for what is likely a vocal but minority share of Mac users.
About all we Mac users can hope for is either a change in position from Ableton after v2 is released, or a change in ownership that would result in a better Mac product.
Nonetheless I am still going to pay for version 2 of Live. But I don't like that this constant and really pointless performance gap will remain. I think v2 will be the last version I pay for, unless there is a change or some amazing feature that will not be in a 2.x update.
Just some honest thoughts,
-Alex
PS. I am getting closer to releasing my (free) GUI RAM disk utility for OS X ("Fluffy Ram") -- stay tuned. This may help a little with the disk I/O issue, by allowing you to access clips from a RAM-based volume that is faster and will drain less battery life.
-
stubby
-
Guest
Apple did not include a free GUI-based mechanism to manage RAM disks under OS X.
As Yon pointed out, there's the command line, but I'm working on something that does this via GUI, as well as allow quick archives/restores so the user can get up and running quickly...
(Though, now that I'm nearly finished writing it, I can see why someone would charge money for it.)
-Alex
As Yon pointed out, there's the command line, but I'm working on something that does this via GUI, as well as allow quick archives/restores so the user can get up and running quickly...
(Though, now that I'm nearly finished writing it, I can see why someone would charge money for it.)
-Alex
My Ti Experience has been, I'm sorry to say, negative. This is what I've had to go through, fortunately with the conclusion that it wasn't worth getting it at this point in time:
I'd already decided to get the Powerbook and went to the shop to pick it up. He was going to sell me the MOtu 828 as well - everything went fine until I proposed that we copy a Live session I'd done on my PC to see if they were compatible. So I started LIve up with my song, and got the same terrible dropouts and 116% CPU meter readings as on my old 600 Mhz PIII - well, not the same but only very, very slightly better - This made me think again, and I left without purchasing the Powerbook.
I was aware of the performance shortcomings in Live, but this was just inacceptable for a machine that would have set me back some 3,000 €.
Fortunately, my dealer has contacted Ableton, who are now working on the problem with my Live file, and he also tried the same song without internal plug-ins - he replaced them all with TC ones, which made performance drop significantly.
As V2 is supposedly not optimised for the G4 chip, I have not much hope that things will get better. If Ableton do find out that there's a problem with the file or offer some other kind of solution, I will gladly purchase the PB because it ran wonderfully otherwise.
I think that a laptop bought at this point in time should have no problem playing 13 files simultaneously with one compressor on each track, 2 autofilters and one send reverb on "First Class".
What do you guys think? Would you agree?
Have all a nice day!
formaat
I'd already decided to get the Powerbook and went to the shop to pick it up. He was going to sell me the MOtu 828 as well - everything went fine until I proposed that we copy a Live session I'd done on my PC to see if they were compatible. So I started LIve up with my song, and got the same terrible dropouts and 116% CPU meter readings as on my old 600 Mhz PIII - well, not the same but only very, very slightly better - This made me think again, and I left without purchasing the Powerbook.
I was aware of the performance shortcomings in Live, but this was just inacceptable for a machine that would have set me back some 3,000 €.
Fortunately, my dealer has contacted Ableton, who are now working on the problem with my Live file, and he also tried the same song without internal plug-ins - he replaced them all with TC ones, which made performance drop significantly.
As V2 is supposedly not optimised for the G4 chip, I have not much hope that things will get better. If Ableton do find out that there's a problem with the file or offer some other kind of solution, I will gladly purchase the PB because it ran wonderfully otherwise.
I think that a laptop bought at this point in time should have no problem playing 13 files simultaneously with one compressor on each track, 2 autofilters and one send reverb on "First Class".
What do you guys think? Would you agree?
Have all a nice day!
formaat
-
Alex Reynolds
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 5:48 am
- Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Contact:
The performance of Live v2 under OS X seems to have gone from bad to worse.
8-9% to run Live without any clips playing -- on a high-end laptop with 3/4ths of a gig of memory -- is not a good sign. Since it crashes running VST plug-ins I don't have a way to test "real-world" performance.
This should serve as *proof positive* that Live's performance problems are not the fault of Apple's operating system or hardware.
I don't wish to take anything away from the gushing reviews others have given v2, as well as the standing ovations to Ableton.
But at this point, I'm not even sure I would want to spend money on it. The quality of the beta has been underwhelming in many respects, and what has been shown so far doesn't bode well for the final product. I wouldn't have minded waiting for a better beta.
Is this harsh? Maybe, but I'm a paying customer and I'm not kissing ass or backing down from asking for the improvements that are important to me.
We need the foundation to be solid before adding "cool" features.
-Alex
8-9% to run Live without any clips playing -- on a high-end laptop with 3/4ths of a gig of memory -- is not a good sign. Since it crashes running VST plug-ins I don't have a way to test "real-world" performance.
This should serve as *proof positive* that Live's performance problems are not the fault of Apple's operating system or hardware.
I don't wish to take anything away from the gushing reviews others have given v2, as well as the standing ovations to Ableton.
But at this point, I'm not even sure I would want to spend money on it. The quality of the beta has been underwhelming in many respects, and what has been shown so far doesn't bode well for the final product. I wouldn't have minded waiting for a better beta.
Is this harsh? Maybe, but I'm a paying customer and I'm not kissing ass or backing down from asking for the improvements that are important to me.
We need the foundation to be solid before adding "cool" features.
-Alex
Alex,
this is shocking news. I literally feel like I've avoided a major misinvestment.
Actually, I would have bought the PB on the grounds that the new version would have been optimized, if not for the PowerPC then for all platforms to the same degree... hearing that the opposite is true is a big disappointment.
this is shocking news. I literally feel like I've avoided a major misinvestment.
Actually, I would have bought the PB on the grounds that the new version would have been optimized, if not for the PowerPC then for all platforms to the same degree... hearing that the opposite is true is a big disappointment.
-
yon
> But at this point, I'm not even sure I would want to spend money on it.
no one is asking you to. this is a free beta release.
> I wouldn't have minded waiting for a better beta.
this is in your hands. Wait longer; until the
release if you would like. like we said, don't
use the beta for production purposes. That
is not what it is for.
the beta gives us a chance to get feedback
about bugs and features of Live2 from anyone
who chooses to check it out and respond,
while Live2 is being finalized.
> Maybe, but I'm a paying customer and I'm not kissing ass
we are not into having our asses kissed by you.
if you feel you won't be happy with live2, don't
pay for the upgrade.
yon / ableton
no one is asking you to. this is a free beta release.
> I wouldn't have minded waiting for a better beta.
this is in your hands. Wait longer; until the
release if you would like. like we said, don't
use the beta for production purposes. That
is not what it is for.
the beta gives us a chance to get feedback
about bugs and features of Live2 from anyone
who chooses to check it out and respond,
while Live2 is being finalized.
> Maybe, but I'm a paying customer and I'm not kissing ass
we are not into having our asses kissed by you.
if you feel you won't be happy with live2, don't
pay for the upgrade.
yon / ableton
As a reaction on Format's and Alex's replies, here are a few of my findings:
On a pc Athlon XP 1800 i got these results with the demo session:
Live 1.5 stopped: 1%
Live 2.0b stopped: 2%
Running Scene 1 in 1.5: 11%
Running Scene 1 in 2.0b: 17% (!)
Though on a Mac G4 400Mhz in OS9 I get:
Live 1.5 stopped: 6%
Live 2.0b stopped: 8%
Running Scene 1 in 1.5: 36%
Running Scene 1 in 2.0b: 36% (!)
I think these results are not bad at all, for a beta. On top of that, the VU-meters run much smoother in 2.0b, so graphics speed has improved.
No chance to test OSX yet.
I'm not really worried about performance issues looking at this beta. And taking Yon's reply in mind, let's not treat this beta as a final product when
it comes to performance. That wouldn't be fair.
-Maxim
On a pc Athlon XP 1800 i got these results with the demo session:
Live 1.5 stopped: 1%
Live 2.0b stopped: 2%
Running Scene 1 in 1.5: 11%
Running Scene 1 in 2.0b: 17% (!)
Though on a Mac G4 400Mhz in OS9 I get:
Live 1.5 stopped: 6%
Live 2.0b stopped: 8%
Running Scene 1 in 1.5: 36%
Running Scene 1 in 2.0b: 36% (!)
I think these results are not bad at all, for a beta. On top of that, the VU-meters run much smoother in 2.0b, so graphics speed has improved.
No chance to test OSX yet.
I'm not really worried about performance issues looking at this beta. And taking Yon's reply in mind, let's not treat this beta as a final product when
it comes to performance. That wouldn't be fair.
-Maxim
-
Muaix
Yon, being so negative toward Live users won't help anything.
Maybe you should just listen to his gripes and use them to try and make a better product. I'm a mac/live user, and i know i'd like to see v.2 run better on a G4. You even said it yourself. The point of the beta is to point out the problems. So listen to the aforementioned problems without responding in a crass manner.
> Maybe, but I'm a paying customer and I'm not kissing ass
we are not into having our asses kissed by you.
if you feel you won't be happy with live2, don't
pay for the upgrade.
yon / ableton
Maybe you should just listen to his gripes and use them to try and make a better product. I'm a mac/live user, and i know i'd like to see v.2 run better on a G4. You even said it yourself. The point of the beta is to point out the problems. So listen to the aforementioned problems without responding in a crass manner.
> Maybe, but I'm a paying customer and I'm not kissing ass
we are not into having our asses kissed by you.
if you feel you won't be happy with live2, don't
pay for the upgrade.
yon / ableton
-
Alex Reynolds
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 5:48 am
- Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Contact:
hey alex...
question:
have you tried doing actual comparisons with other audio software?
waves?
ni?
cubase plugins?
logic plugins?
bomb factory?
other bi-platform virtual instruments?
all software that claims Altivec optimizations. if what you say is true, then I guess everyone of these companies is to blame for bad coding? I hardly think so...
I have done the tests, with various speed Mac's ranging from 450MHz all the way to dual 1GHz and every result so far has shown that the same speed PC is generally equal to the same speed Mac. A 1GHz PC is as fast as a 1GHz Mac in terms of polyphony, plugin count, and other audio intensive FPU related tasks. So far, Photoshop is the only application that shows any advantage on a Mac over a PC. But are we making music or editing images of grandma making cookies?
I use both platforms, and just bought a Tibook (1GHz, cause the rest are to slow and not worth the money), which makes 4 computers now in my studio (2 PC, 2 Mac) At the end of the day, I love the Mac experience over Windows, the OS feels better, easier to maintain and manage, but with the same soundcard connected, they both sound the same. However, ultimately they are more expensive, which still boggles my mind beyond belief....
anyways...it's all in how we use it, no matter the tools. some people need speed, some people need ease, other people just need a big ol fatty
It's all relative to one's own needs. And as long as it keeps the heads noddin and the asses shakin...then it's 100% all good.
cheers.
question:
have you tried doing actual comparisons with other audio software?
waves?
ni?
cubase plugins?
logic plugins?
bomb factory?
other bi-platform virtual instruments?
all software that claims Altivec optimizations. if what you say is true, then I guess everyone of these companies is to blame for bad coding? I hardly think so...
I have done the tests, with various speed Mac's ranging from 450MHz all the way to dual 1GHz and every result so far has shown that the same speed PC is generally equal to the same speed Mac. A 1GHz PC is as fast as a 1GHz Mac in terms of polyphony, plugin count, and other audio intensive FPU related tasks. So far, Photoshop is the only application that shows any advantage on a Mac over a PC. But are we making music or editing images of grandma making cookies?
I use both platforms, and just bought a Tibook (1GHz, cause the rest are to slow and not worth the money), which makes 4 computers now in my studio (2 PC, 2 Mac) At the end of the day, I love the Mac experience over Windows, the OS feels better, easier to maintain and manage, but with the same soundcard connected, they both sound the same. However, ultimately they are more expensive, which still boggles my mind beyond belief....
anyways...it's all in how we use it, no matter the tools. some people need speed, some people need ease, other people just need a big ol fatty
It's all relative to one's own needs. And as long as it keeps the heads noddin and the asses shakin...then it's 100% all good.
cheers.