iTunes 2 is wayyy too processor hungry

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 76
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by Cosmo:

    <strong>the finder plays mp3s while in column mode.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>

    Ah I didn't know that.

    <strong> [quote]

    I tested this and foudn the finder to use almost exactally the same amount of processor time as itunes, however it didn't tend to spike, but it also doesn't move onto the next song.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>

    Yes it does.. almost anyhow.. give or take 2-3%

    <strong> [quote]

    How did you compare winamp to the other to mac mp3 players? Top gives you the cpu % for it to be a fair comparison it would have to be done with the same processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    [broken record]Yes I know this.. my point was to point out 3 the major mp3 players that are being used all use the the same amount[/broken record]



    [ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
  • Reply 42 of 76
    [quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:

    <strong>

    [broken record]Yes I know this.. my point was to point out 3 the major mp3 players that are being used all use the the same amount[/broken record]



    [ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    But that is wrong. Audion 2.6.1 uses half the cpu % of iTunes 2.0.2. Audion's 7-10% on my machine is a lot nicer than iTunes 14-19%. Someone else confirm this, please, because it isn't processing for sinewave.



    [ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Uh huh ]</p>
  • Reply 43 of 76
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:

    <strong>

    Finder playing mp3? I didn't know the finder played mp3s.



    [ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    do you even use OS X <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 44 of 76
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    BTW, based on the remarks by others about WinAMp it looks like you are making up your figures



    <a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=33&t=006063"; target="_blank">http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=33&t=006063</a>;
  • Reply 45 of 76
    cosmocosmo Posts: 662member
    Well i went to versiontracker and tested a few random mp3 players.



    The best one i found was called Mint Audio, it seemed to be a decent little mp3 player with enough features and it used between 11-14% of my cpu and it spiked at around 20% when switching songs.



    In terms of cpu usage an app called mpegToaster was the best using only 6-11% of my cpu, however i didn't like the player very much and wouldn't be able to stand using it for very long.



    I also tested UberTunz and siMPle3 Player which used 21-26% and 14-18% respectively, but neither player appealed to me, they both lacked features and had crappy guis.



    I still don't think i will be switching away from iTunes, because of all its great features, but if i were to switch i think i would go to Mint Audio rather than Audion, then again Mint Audio isn't as well known or well tested as Audion.
  • Reply 46 of 76
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    FWIW, QT Player even uses less than iTunes and IMO sounds better as well.
  • Reply 47 of 76
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>BTW, based on the remarks by others about WinAMp it looks like you are making up your figures



    <a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=33&t=006063"; target="_blank">http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic &f=33&t=006063</a></strong><hr></blockquote>



    Of course, the person who mentioned WinAMP didn't mention processor type, speed, amount of RAM, version number, and anything else that would give us any idea of how effecient it is. On my PPro200 w/ 96 MB of RAM, running WinAMP 2.x in Windows2k takes up around 50% processor time. I guess that means that WinAMP must suck.



    Just out of curiousity, applenut, are you ever going to try not being ignorant?
  • Reply 48 of 76
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Morte:

    <strong>



    Of course, the person who mentioned WinAMP didn't mention processor type, speed, amount of RAM, version number, and anything else that would give us any idea of how effecient it is. On my PPro200 w/ 96 MB of RAM, running WinAMP 2.x in Windows2k takes up around 50% processor time. I guess that means that WinAMP must suck.



    Just out of curiousity, applenut, are you ever going to try not being ignorant?</strong><hr></blockquote>





    excuse me?



    you made this statement

    [quote]Anyway, Soundjam/iTunes uses the Fraunhofer codec, which is the original MP3 codec. It's much more effecient than QT's MP3 decoder. <hr></blockquote>



    QT's MP3 decoder has been proven to use less CPU and IMO sounds better. How is Fraunhoffer much more efficient? and I am the ignorant one







    No one ever said winamp was good. but on similar speed hardware it uses less CPU than iTunes.



    when will you stop being an apple ass kicker and admit there is room for improvement? afterall that was the whole point of the thread until you guys started saying how "difficult" MP3 decoding is and how macs don't have enough memory bandwidth to decode them fast. but I'm the ignorant one
  • Reply 49 of 76
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>FWIW, QT Player even uses less than iTunes and IMO sounds better as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Ya, and it skips like mad if you try to do anything else than just listen to the music.



  • Reply 50 of 76
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by The Dude:

    <strong>



    Ya, and it skips like mad if you try to do anything else than just listen to the music.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    does it really? doesn't skip here (...goes and tries to make QT skip)
  • Reply 51 of 76
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by The Dude:

    <strong>



    Ya, and it skips like mad if you try to do anything else than just listen to the music.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    alright, I just tested this



    Meet virgina- Train playing in QT in 10.1.1



    started classic boot, launched 4 apps, and played a preview of a QT movie in the finder and the song didn't skip once. oh and dnet was running in the terminal at the same time.



    so how did you make your statement?
  • Reply 52 of 76
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by Uh huh:

    <strong>



    But that is wrong. Audion 2.6.1 uses half the cpu % of iTunes 2.0.2. Audion's 7-10% on my machine is a lot nicer than iTunes 14-19%. Someone else confirm this, please, because it isn't processing for sinewave.



    [ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: Uh huh ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well considering me and another person did the SAME tests and we BOTH came out with different data than you.. why should we suddenly believe you when we know better?
  • Reply 53 of 76
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>



    do you even use OS X :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes but I never use column mode. BTW Finder takes up just about as much CPU time. Go figure.
  • Reply 54 of 76
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>FWIW, QT Player even uses less than iTunes and IMO sounds better as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Got water in your ears? This isn't even subjective.
  • Reply 55 of 76
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>



    QT's MP3 decoder has been proven to use less CPU and IMO sounds better. How is Fraunhoffer much more efficient? and I am the ignorant one



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Hmm, on my system (a Pismo 400 with OS X 10.1.1 and 256MB of RAM), QT uses up a bit more CPU time than iTunes, with the EQ and Sound Enhancer in iTunes off. The MP3 being played is Hungarian Rhapsody #2, encoded at [email protected] using Fraunhofer. Sound quality in QT is somewhat muddy; the percussive bass and phase variances in the song aren't as sharp as they are in iTunes. Also, QT skips when I start Word up while the song is playing. I'm listening on AIWA HP-X311 headphones. Not the best, but good enough for me to hear differences between decoders.



    The extra CPU usage in QT is probably due to its doing some sound preprocessing for the balance, bass, and treble controls. The skipping is due, I believe, to QT streaming instead of buffering.



    Incedentally, the Finder consumes the same amount of processor time as QT does when playing the same MP3. Not surprising, since it uses QT.





    <strong> [quote]

    No one ever said winamp was good. but on similar speed hardware it uses less CPU than iTunes.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    And here I thought that you were holding WinAMP up as the paragon of all goodness. By the by, Sinewave pointed out that on a P2 400, WinAMP was taking 5%-55% of CPU time. That's not terribly effecient for a system with a processor that is roughly equivalent to a G3-300. Still, WinAMP is a good player, in my experience, but it is no more effecient than iTunes.



    <strong> [quote]

    when will you stop being an apple ass kicker and admit there is room for improvement? afterall that was the whole point of the thread until you guys started saying how "difficult" MP3 decoding is and how macs don't have enough memory bandwidth to decode them fast. but I'm the ignorant one </strong><hr></blockquote>



    No, that's what you want the point of the thread to be. You simply want everyone to fall in line with you and piss on Apple for something that they have little control over. However, people are smarter than that, and they look for the reasons behind the percieved problems. Some things can't be helped, such as the effeciency of MP3 as a format, but other problems, such as the scrolling text bug, have been revealed, and hopefully Apple will fix those.



    Bah. It seems that you lack the basic facilities to read, comprehend, and then post. That, or you're a troll. Either way, I'm done with you.
  • Reply 56 of 76
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by applenut:

    <strong>BTW, based on the remarks by others about WinAMp it looks like you are making up your figures



    <a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=33&t=006063"; target="_blank">http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic &f=33&t=006063</a></strong><hr></blockquote>



    yeah Applenut I am making up the figures WTF would I care what CPU time WinAMP uses?



    Everything is a big conspiracy to you.
  • Reply 57 of 76
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by Morte:

    <strong>



    No, that's what you want the point of the thread to be. You simply want everyone to fall in line with you and piss on Apple for something that they have little control over. However, people are smarter than that, and they look for the reasons behind the percieved problems. Some things can't be helped, such as the effeciency of MP3 as a format, but other problems, such as the scrolling text bug, have been revealed, and hopefully Apple will fix those.



    Bah. It seems that you lack the basic facilities to read, comprehend, and then post. That, or you're a troll. Either way, I'm done with you.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Bing Bing Bing Give this man a cigar



  • Reply 58 of 76
    So I read this whole board and I have one conclusion to make about OS X and mp3s at this point: the software isn't optimized/mature enough at this point. I realize that iTunes is based on SounjamMP but it still isn't where Winamp is on the PC. I have both a Titanium 667 with 512MB RAM and a PC. The PC is a homebuilt 750MHz Athlon with 384MB of RAM. Under Windows 2000 service pack 2, Winamp version 2.77 takes up about 1-2% of the CPU. My total overall usage under Windows 2000 (idling with AIM, WinAmp and a few services open) is less than 5%. I just think that with some more time and development, MacOS X 10.x and it's mp3 abilities will improve. With enough people complaining about the iTunes performance, it will have to change. A third of the CPU time taken up by mp3 decoding is simply unexcusable, even with the eye candy effects enabled. Winamp does scrolling titles and has an equilizer. I don't use the visuals because I don't have screen space, but even so, its a far cry from the 20% iTunes uses on average on my machine.



    I can post screenshots from my Windows 2000 machine with Winamp running to illustrate my point if anyone so desires.



    --bradd
  • Reply 59 of 76
    [quote]Originally posted by bradd:

    <strong>So I read this whole board and I have one conclusion to make about OS X and mp3s at this point: the software isn't optimized/mature enough at this point.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The Finder (which obviously uses QuickTime) uses a fairly low amount of processor time on my computer (533 MHz G4 in a Beige G3, 10.1.1), around 7-ish in top. It normally takes up around 2-3% just idling. This was with the window obscured while I wrote this message, and Carracho waiting around to download something (c'mon queue), top running, Entourage twiddling itself, Explorer, System Preferences running but unopened.



    iTunes (2.0, which does sound better due to the sound enhancer deal and the eq, at least through the mighty built-in speaker) uses up around 12% when shrunken down to the tiny size player (which is what I usually leave it at). It's a bit less without the sound wizardry, but I'm willing to sacrifice that few percent for better sound.



    One thing to keep in mind though is Apple doesn't sell iTunes - it sells computers. They have no real incentive to make it much more efficient so it'll play well on old computers (like mine). They did add the new sound features without noticably impacting performance though, so it's not all bad.



    And the thing with scrolling titles or whatever is that it, like all things OS X (except live window dragging, possibly) that update the screen frequently, requires comparitively massive amounts of CPU time right now. So you can't really hang this on Audion or iTunes specifically. Of course, I don't if that'll ever get fixed either, but Apple will be happy to sell you a faster computer so you won't notice it as much .
  • Reply 60 of 76
    One other thing that I noticed is that iTunes' CPU usage scores for G4s are pretty much equivalent to those of G3s running at the same clock speed, and DP G4s score the same as SP. Is it possible that the Altivec and SMP enhancements in iTunes were removed or broken in 2.0?
Sign In or Register to comment.