macOS Catalina beta build suggests upcoming 'Pro Mode'

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in macOS edited February 2020
Some snooping around in the new macOS Catalina 10.15.3 beta build has unearthed references to "Pro Mode," which could be used to temporarily boost the performance of macOS systems such as the MacBook Pro.




The new mode can be toggled on and off by users, and suggests that it may be designed to boost performance of MacBooks, such as the new 16-inch MacBook Pro.

When toggled on, some strings state "Apps may run faster, but battery life may decrease and fan noise may increase." Additionally, toggling on Pro Mode activates a string that reads "Fan speed limit overridden."

Image Credit: 9to5mac
Image Credit: 9to5mac


It also appears that Pro Mode will likely only work with MacBooks, and possibly only with newer models that boast the new thermal design, such as the newly introduced 16-inch MacBook Pro. Apple may also be gearing up to release another MacBook Pro in the coming months, as suggested by a new regulatory finding.

As noted by 9to5Mac, this is likely done to temporarily improve performance by ignoring the normal power-saving restrictions. Internal fans will run at a higher speed to prevent overheating issues.

Like "Do Not Disturb," Pro Mode will be switched off by the next day.

It's unclear when Pro Mode will be unleashed, if at all. Also unknown is if the new performance-boosting mode will be restricted solely to the MacBook Pro, iMac Pro, or Mac Pro running macOS Catalina.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    DuhSesameduhsesame Posts: 1,278member
    can't wait for PRU users to complain because whatever their strange reasons.
    Soliwatto_cobra
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 28
    mpantonempantone Posts: 2,462member
    People complain about everything here.

    No one can please everyone all the time. Certainly not Apple. LOL
    lkruppStrangeDayswatto_cobra
     3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 28
    thttht Posts: 5,990member
    So uh, no “Turbo” button on the Touch Bar? I’m so old...
    FatmanMplsPeriamjhSoliStrangeDaysrazorpitjkdstevewatto_cobra
     8Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 28
    Fatmanfatman Posts: 513member
    Tht - I thought the same thing. For the younger crowd ... older PC towers (circa 386, 486 era?) had a turbo button - I believe it simply overclocked the processor. I always wondered why you would want it off - to work slower? LOL
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 28
    MplsPmplsp Posts: 4,154member
    Fatman said:
    Tht - I thought the same thing. For the younger crowd ... older PC towers (circa 386, 486 era?) had a turbo button - I believe it simply overclocked the processor. I always wondered why you would want it off - to work slower? LOL
    The first computer I owned was a 486 tower with a 'turbo' button - when I opened it up to install a new video card I found out that the turbo button actually wan't connected to anything! 
    Solihexclockpscooter63dysamoriauraharaminicoffeewatto_cobra
     6Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 6 of 28
    tipootipoo Posts: 1,166member
    Wait, fan speed limit overridden? So it would have to be on fans that were already validated to run at higher speeds than the system lets them, which makes me think it'll be limited to new models they planned this out on. They would have had to have known the fans could run faster but artificially capped them.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 28
    davendaven Posts: 778member
    Or it could be a toggle to disallow the changing of internal storage and components for security. On for sensitive users and off for people who want the ability to modify their storage, ram, etc.

    edit: I take that back. I missed the part about it being temporary and decreasing battery life, etc. 
    edited January 2020
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 28
    thttht Posts: 5,990member
    MplsP said:
    Fatman said:
    Tht - I thought the same thing. For the younger crowd ... older PC towers (circa 386, 486 era?) had a turbo button - I believe it simply overclocked the processor. I always wondered why you would want it off - to work slower? LOL
    The first computer I owned was a 486 tower with a 'turbo' button - when I opened it up to install a new video card I found out that the turbo button actually wan't connected to anything! 
    Woah there, I remember when pushing the turbo button, it changed the MHz number on the front panel of the computer. That’s doing something! Next thing you are going to tell me that those weren’t clock rates being displayed, aren’t you? ;)

    Anyways, this could be bad news vis-a-vis Intel. They are on their 3rd or 4th “turbo boost” technique now. They spent the last two years with thermal velocity boost and destroying what it means to have a TDP. Maybe Apple has finally given up hope and are designing their computers under the assumption that Intel isn’t going to give them increased performance/Watt anymore. It’s more performance means more Watts now, and Intel will be expanding the number of SKUs that are unlocked and can run far above TDP, making a loud performance mode a feature.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 28
    DuhSesameduhsesame Posts: 1,278member
    tht said:
    So uh, no “Turbo” button on the Touch Bar? I’m so old...
    BetterTouchTool bro.
    fastasleepwatto_cobra
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 28
    DuhSesameduhsesame Posts: 1,278member

    tipoo said:
    Wait, fan speed limit overridden? So it would have to be on fans that were already validated to run at higher speeds than the system lets them, which makes me think it'll be limited to new models they planned this out on. They would have had to have known the fans could run faster but artificially capped them.
    I have the 2019 Air, I could get 330cb if I can keep the fan at maximum speed (8000 RPM), I'm using Macs Fan Control.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 28
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,174member
    MplsP said:
    Fatman said:
    Tht - I thought the same thing. For the younger crowd ... older PC towers (circa 386, 486 era?) had a turbo button - I believe it simply overclocked the processor. I always wondered why you would want it off - to work slower? LOL
    The first computer I owned was a 486 tower with a 'turbo' button - when I opened it up to install a new video card I found out that the turbo button actually wan't connected to anything! 
    I remember quite a few PC's that were mainly by independent sellers building their own rigs that never had that "turbo" button connected to anything.  Now that I think of it, I don't ever recall the Turbo button ever working on anything.  Any insights?
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 28
    daven said:
    Or it could be a toggle to disallow the changing of internal storage and components for security. On for sensitive users and off for people who want the ability to modify their storage, ram, etc.
    Sure, despite the titles and descriptions mentioning none of that, and the RAM and storage being soldered to the logic board, that makes perfect sense. 
    StrangeDayswatto_cobra
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 28
    Fatman said:
    I believe it simply overclocked the processor. I always wondered why you would want it off - to work slower? LOL
    It was usually to underclock the processor (when not on turbo) to 4.77Mhz, the clock rate of the original IBM PC and XT (5150/5160). A lot of the early software (notably, games) written for the PC/XT computers implicitly relied on the clock rate for timing and ran too fast when executing on newer and faster processors. Thus, the turbo button enabled the user to slow down the processor to PC/XT speeds for compatibility purposes.
    StrangeDaysthtPetrolDaveCloudTalkindysamoriatenthousandthingswatto_cobra
     3Likes 0Dislikes 4Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 28
    sflocal said:
    MplsP said:
    Fatman said:
    Tht - I thought the same thing. For the younger crowd ... older PC towers (circa 386, 486 era?) had a turbo button - I believe it simply overclocked the processor. I always wondered why you would want it off - to work slower? LOL
    The first computer I owned was a 486 tower with a 'turbo' button - when I opened it up to install a new video card I found out that the turbo button actually wan't connected to anything! 
    I remember quite a few PC's that were mainly by independent sellers building their own rigs that never had that "turbo" button connected to anything.  Now that I think of it, I don't ever recall the Turbo button ever working on anything.  Any insights?
    yeah I had a 286 with one of those.

    A lot of games written for 8088-series CPUs were timed against the speed of the CPU, not the internal clock. This would render an arcade game on a faster game as unplayable.

    The effect was unnoticeable on non-game apps (word processors, whatever) because those old DOS apps really ran pretty fast on anything, as there was no GUI to update. Some sort of complex WordPerfect or Lotus 1-2-3 function would probably be visibly slower if one did a side-by-side benchmark, but not enough people has spare computers lying around to even do a comparison like that.

    One would probably never notice unless they tried to play a game like King's Quest I on a 486, and games were improving at such a rapid clip that nobody cared, definitely not surprising that many buttons weren't hooked up.
    StrangeDaysthtrazorpitPetrolDavedysamoriawatto_cobra
     3Likes 0Dislikes 3Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 28
    MacPromacpro Posts: 19,873member
    It's going to cost $6,000 for this version of macOS/ kidding.
    avon b7
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 16 of 28
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,991member
    mpantone said:
    People complain about everything here.

    No one can please everyone all the time. Certainly not Apple. LOL
    People just complain in general...it's the wonderful society we have today unfortunately. 
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 17 of 28
    kirkc said:
    Fatman said:
    I believe it simply overclocked the processor. I always wondered why you would want it off - to work slower? LOL
    It was usually to underclock the processor (when not on turbo) to 4.77Mhz, the clock rate of the original IBM PC and XT (5150/5160). A lot of the early software (notably, games) written for the PC/XT computers implicitly relied on the clock rate for timing and ran too fast when executing on newer and faster processors. Thus, the turbo button enabled the user to slow down the processor to PC/XT speeds for compatibility purposes.
    Yup. Everything you wanted to know about the turbo button:


    dysamoria
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 18 of 28
    The Fan Speed Overridden message needs to be accompanied by a video clip of Scotty in a little PIP window in the corner, saying "I'm givin' ya all she's got, Captain...I dinna how much more she can take!"
    coolfactorjkdstevewatto_cobra
     3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 19 of 28
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Saw the headline and was hoping it meant users would continue to be able to install software without the signed certificate requirement.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 20 of 28
    dewmedewme Posts: 6,070member
    As long as Apple continues to honor the product warranty I don’t have any issues with the nitro boost mode. I must say that this kind of open loop tinkering seems very uncharacteristic for Apple.

    With any system that is performing a job the key performance indicator is overall throughput for the job being performed. Allowing users to tweak some of the individual performance settings without getting realtime feedback as to the impact on actual throughput for the job at hand is often a game of simply moving the bottleneck from one part of the system to another. The caveats indicated by Apple imply that the bottlenecks are mainly cooling and noise related. Hmmm.

    However, like others have said, the actual user benefit may be the result of the placebo effect. 
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.