My informal MacBook iTunes rip speed tests

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 121
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,737member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Don't panic yet.



    This is very unscientific, and we know that the computers are fast.



    If a proper benchmark is shite, you can panic *then*.







    Speaking of which, the iMac has been available for three and a bit days, and still no tests? What's going on?
  • Reply 22 of 121
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    People seem to be forgetting that this simple test targets aspects of iTunes and QuickTime that are core strengths of the G4 and G5 PowerPC chips. I expect that in the coming months, QuickTime will be further optimized to use the new intel chips which will likely benefit XP users too.



    Later today I plan to return to Macworld and test the MacBooks with a standardized file and better control the test environment. That is, if they'll let me.
  • Reply 23 of 121
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,737member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Xool

    People seem to be forgetting that this simple test targets aspects of iTunes and QuickTime that are core strengths of the G4 and G5 PowerPC chips. I expect that in the coming months, QuickTime will be further optimized to use the new intel chips which will likely benefit XP users too.



    Later today I plan to return to Macworld and test the MacBooks with a standardized file and better control the test environment. That is, if they'll let me.




    Er... no. 4.5 x ripping speed is not just due to improperly optimised code. Something is wrong. See the posts about running Windows iTunes on x86. There is no excuse for this abysmal performance.
  • Reply 24 of 121
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr. H

    Er... no. 4.5 x ripping speed is not just due to improperly optimised code. Something is wrong. See the posts about running Windows iTunes on x86. There is no excuse for this abysmal performance.



    Yes...I think we've established over and over again that something *is* indeed wrong.



    And I'm 100% sure that Apple will rectify the problem in the coming months. Believe me.
  • Reply 25 of 121
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    I went back to Macworld today and performed more scientific tests with the new MacBook. I'll post more details later tonight but I'll post my revised iTunes times now.



    I brought the same track I used with my G5 to MacWorld and re-encoded it using iTunes. It was read off the HD from the iTunes library and all other apps were closed.



    Today the MacBook ripped at 20x which is far better than I expected.



    I'm not sure what impacted the previous test and it might have been related to the source file, but this time it was fairly controlled and I'd stand by these results. Again for comparison, an existing G4 PowerBook ripped at 12.5x and my Rev A G5 tower ripped at 25x.



    I'll post more tonight regarding Video transcoding performance using QuickTime Player and H264 iPod content.
  • Reply 26 of 121
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,737member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Xool

    Today the MacBook ripped at 20x which is far better than I expected.





    Phew. Panic over.



    Will be interested to hear of the video encoding speeds.



    Could you ask Apple if they plan to support ATI's hardware encoding?
  • Reply 27 of 121
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Xool

    I went back to Macworld today and performed more scientific tests with the new MacBook. I'll post more details later tonight but I'll post my revised iTunes times now.



    I brought the same track I used with my G5 to MacWorld and re-encoded it using iTunes. It was read off the HD from the iTunes library and all other apps were closed.



    Today the MacBook ripped at 20x which is far better than I expected.



    I'm not sure what impacted the previous test and it might have been related to the source file, but this time it was fairly controlled and I'd stand by these results. Again for comparison, an existing G4 PowerBook ripped at 12.5x and my Rev A G5 tower ripped at 25x.



    I'll post more tonight regarding Video transcoding performance using QuickTime Player and H264 iPod content.




    Could you also try playing a 1080p movie and check the CPU usage as well as look for any dropped frames?
  • Reply 28 of 121
    Yes!!! Thank you and that is good news to hear about you again and the 20x for ripping! Thank you
  • Reply 29 of 121
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    Could you also try playing a 1080p movie and check the CPU usage as well as look for any dropped frames?



    I did and I'll report in later tonight.
  • Reply 30 of 121
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Xool

    I did and I'll report in later tonight.



    Someone on MacNN claims he was able to run three 1080p trailers without a single dropped frame. I can't wait to hear you confirm this.
  • Reply 31 of 121
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    Well, I don't know about MacBook Pro, but my now 3 years old Sony VAIO with a P4 2.4Ghz and 768MB or RAM, using iTunes, rips CDs at 14x.



    So it definitely isn't the chip, as others have pointed out too.
  • Reply 32 of 121
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    Yes...I think we've established over and over again that something *is* indeed wrong.



    I know exactly what the problem is: Intel infested Macs.
  • Reply 33 of 121
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    Well, I don't know about MacBook Pro, but my now 3 years old Sony VAIO with a P4 2.4Ghz and 768MB or RAM, using iTunes, rips CDs at 14x.



    So it definitely isn't the chip, as others have pointed out too.




    I ripped a CD using a new T60 IBM/Lenova Dual Core 1.86GHz. It rips at 24 times so the iTunes in the MacBook was definitely a non-Intel version.The new chips leave the G4's in the dust in EVERY aspect.
  • Reply 34 of 121
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Relic

    I ripped a CD using a new T60 IBM/Lenova Dual Core 1.86GHz. It rips at 24 times so the iTunes in the MacBook was definitely a non-Intel version.



    Read Xool's latest post.
  • Reply 35 of 121
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    I'm putting together comprehensive results for all tests I've performed but its taking slightly longer than planned, sorry guys. I'll get it up here later today, but to whet your appetite I'll say that HD content playback was silky smooth and better than my G5, which says a lot.



    Anyhow, more details later.
  • Reply 36 of 121
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Xool

    I'm putting together comprehensive results for all tests I've performed but its taking slightly longer than planned, sorry guys. I'll get it up here later today, but to whet your appetite I'll say that HD content playback was silky smooth and better than my G5, which says a lot.



    Anyhow, more details later.




    I just unwrapped my new iMac Core Duo (20"), so if anyone would like something specific tested, give a yell. Caveat: It will have only 512MB for the next two days (Newegg time...).



    Picked it up from one of the local Apple Stores. Seems most stores got in at least a couple (I have been calling several bay area stores checking regularly), but most are simply putting them on display. Finally found a small store (which might have helped since they have limited shelf pace) that got in some 20" models (2) and was selling them (they just got them in today, Saturday, around noon).



    They had 1 left at 2PM (Santa Rosa, CA).
  • Reply 37 of 121
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,737member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ciparis

    I just unwrapped my new iMac Core Duo (20"), so if anyone would like something specific tested, give a yell. Caveat: It will have only 512MB for the next two days (Newegg time...).



    Congratulations!



    Could you download a 1080p trailer from Apple, play it, and use activity monitor to gauge processor usage?



    Do you have QuickTime Pro? Or any DV video files?
  • Reply 38 of 121
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr. H

    Congratulations!



    Could you download a 1080p trailer from Apple, play it, and use activity monitor to gauge processor usage?



    Do you have QuickTime Pro? Or any DV video files?




    Okay, I currently have some Google Maps mashups open in Safari (we're doing real-estate searches), with iTunes streaming CBC Radio 3, and I played the X-Men 3 trailer in 1080P, zoomed to fit width (it was too large otherwise).



    CPUs were evenly loaded, and ranged between 25-50% usage while all this was going on. No frame drops were visible. Scrubbing was smooth. I don't have QT Pro.
  • Reply 39 of 121
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,737member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ciparis

    Okay, I currently have some Google Maps mashups open in Safari (we're doing real-estate searches), with iTunes streaming CBC Radio 3, and I played the X-Men 3 trailer in 1080P, zoomed to fit width (it was too large otherwise).



    CPUs were evenly loaded, and ranged between 25-50% usage while all this was going on. No frame drops were visible. Scrubbing was smooth. I don't have QT Pro.




    Nice



    Thank you. Not to worry about QT pro. Hope you enjoy your new machine.
  • Reply 40 of 121
    jherojhero Posts: 10member
    CBC radio!



    Good choice
Sign In or Register to comment.