phiol

My apple macbookpro ssd 8g ram i7 13" (year 2011)laptop is dying and am planing on getting new Computer.

It would be primarily to use Jitter and interactive & generative video work.

I was thinking the macpro desktop but it's an expensive decision.

I was also thinking I could maybe change for a PC.

I believe I would get more bang for my buck with a PC.

Bottom line is, I am only interested in getting

a good computer that best serve Jitter and the physics world it offers.

I am really curious to know your opinions

My apple macbookpro ssd 8g ram i7 13" (year 2011)laptop is dying and am planing on getting new Computer.
It would be primarily to use Jitter and interactive & generative video work.
I was thinking the macpro desktop but it's an expensive decision.
I was also thinking I could maybe change for a PC.
I believe I would get more bang for my buck with a PC.

Bottom line is, I am only interested in getting
a good computer that best serve Jitter and the physics world it offers.
I know nothing about gaming computers.
Would that be my best bet?? 

I am really curious to know your opinions 

best-computer-graphic-card-etc-for-jitter

Pretty sure a desktop PC with a 1 gig graphics card will suffice.

I have a macbook pro from 4 years ago, 1 gig radeon card, works like a charm though it is on the pricy side, for me portability is paramount and I picked Mac for its stability.

512 mb card should do the job as well, suppose it depends on what your using as content.

Lots of films = need lots of RAM, lots of open gl means less ram and a better card as Open GL is all calculated on your GPU.

Pretty sure a desktop PC with a 1 gig graphics card will suffice.
I have a macbook pro from 4 years ago, 1 gig radeon card, works like a charm though it is on the pricy side, for me portability is paramount and I picked Mac for its stability.
512 mb card should do the job as well, suppose it depends on what your using as content.
Lots of films = need lots of RAM, lots of open gl means less ram and a better card as Open GL is all calculated on your GPU.


It would be interesting to set up a benchmark test for this. One or a couple of openGL-heavy Jitter patches. Then share our results with each other to compare.

Myself I use a mid/high-end Nvidia GTX 670 gaming graphics card for my multi-display openGL Jitter work. I'm sure I'm not nearly using it to its full capabilities but I like to know that the bottleneck is not in the hardware I'm using but in my own coding. Its CUDA support is handy for GPU accelerated video editing in Adobe Premiere as well and I like playing a game every once in a while.

I came to the same conclusion that performant Apple gear is too expensive for me. Started building my own Hackintosh systems a couple of years ago. Now some of the software elements I use are Windows-only so it was easy for me to put in another SSD with Win7 on it and get on with it. I have one system with an i7 2600k CPU and I'm just building me a new one with an i5 4690k. Together with the big video card they're shredding for Max/Jitter work.

Of course, inefficient patching will destroy any system's performance. Only fast hardware isn't the magic bullet. Need patching skills to match it.

Myself I use a mid/high-end Nvidia GTX 670 gaming graphics card for my multi-display openGL Jitter work. I'm sure I'm not nearly using it to its full capabilities but I like to know that the bottleneck is not in the hardware I'm using but in my own coding. Its CUDA support is handy for GPU accelerated video editing in Adobe Premiere as well and I like playing a game every once in a while.  

I came to the same conclusion that performant Apple gear is too expensive for me. Started building my own Hackintosh systems a couple of years ago. Now some of the software elements I use are Windows-only so it was easy for me to put in another SSD with Win7 on it and get on with it. I have one system with an i7 2600k CPU and I'm just building me a new one with an i5 4690k. Together with the big video card they're shredding for Max/Jitter work. 

Of course, inefficient patching will destroy any system's performance. Only fast hardware isn't the magic bullet. Need patching skills to match it.


Hey thanks a lot for the tips guys. I really appreciate it.

I also wonder what Rob Ramirez thinks is best the physic behavior to run smoothly.

As mentioned, I have a mbp 13" 2.7Ghz Intel core i7 / 8G Ram 1600Mhz DDR3/

I openned it up a few months ago and changed the HD for a ssd, took out the cd drive

http://store.mcetech.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=OBSXGB-UNB&Category_Code=STORHDOPTIBAY&Product_Count=0

and used my original HD to put in the optibay so now 2 HD(s). Having a ssd a main Hd, what a crazy difference.

Everyhting I do , I try to keep on the GPU side.

For vids I used vade's optimized video technique w. the uyvy to [jit.gl.slab @file cc.uyvy2rgba.lite.jxs]

Basically my stuff is very similar to what silicat does. 

Interactivity using the kinect and loads of pngs for stop-motion animation nodes linked to jit.physics.

(quite honestly I don't know if the physics object using the cpu or gpu)

Little things like keeping the jit.gl.videoplane/gridshape @dim 2 2 for my png(s) is quite helpful on CPU.

Also, for stop motion, it's better to generate it in realtime w. all images (with png subject postions) loaded in tons of jit.gl.textures

and have a counter flip through each images than to use a "baked" method. i.e. built your stop motion in "final cut pro" then use a

jit.gl.pix lumakey technique in Jitter to maintain a cutout of the background.

Also, I've noticed that for node motion (transform :positon/scale/rotatexyz) control ,

using the anim.drive & path seems to run and lot smoother than using MSP to ->[snapshot 33], to create motion.

I would be happy to do bench marking patches for GPU, CPU

What do you suggest would be a good for this.

-loads jit.gl.nodes going through generative shadder chains?

Hey thanks a lot for the tips guys. I really appreciate it.
I also wonder what Rob Ramirez thinks is best the physic behavior to run smoothly. 

As mentioned, I have a mbp 13" 2.7Ghz Intel core i7 / 8G Ram 1600Mhz DDR3/
Graphics Intel HD Graphics 3000 512 MB.
I openned it up a few months ago and changed the HD for a ssd, took out the cd drive
and popped in one of these :
http://store.mcetech.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=OBSXGB-UNB&Category_Code=STORHDOPTIBAY&Product_Count=0
and used my original HD to put in the optibay so now 2 HD(s). Having a ssd a main Hd, what a crazy difference. 

Everyhting I do , I try to keep on the GPU side.
For vids I used vade's optimized video technique w. the uyvy to [jit.gl.slab @file cc.uyvy2rgba.lite.jxs]

Basically my stuff is very similar to what silicat does. http://vimeo.com/61475043
Interactivity using the kinect and loads of pngs for stop-motion animation nodes linked to jit.physics.
(quite honestly I don't know if the physics object using the cpu or gpu)

Little things like keeping the jit.gl.videoplane/gridshape @dim 2 2 for my png(s) is quite helpful on CPU.
Also, for stop motion, it's better to generate it in realtime w. all images (with png subject postions) loaded in tons of jit.gl.textures
and have a counter flip through each images than to use a "baked" method. i.e. built your stop motion in "final cut pro" then use a
jit.gl.pix lumakey technique in Jitter to maintain a cutout of the background.

Also, I've noticed that for node motion (transform :positon/scale/rotatexyz) control ,
using the anim.drive & path seems to run and lot smoother than using MSP to ->[snapshot 33], to create motion.
And is more CPU friendly as well.

I would be happy to do bench marking patches for GPU, CPU
What do you suggest would be a good for this. 

-jit.multple w. large matrix dimensions?
-loads jit.gl.nodes going through generative shadder chains?

No graphics advice here, but DA-YUM that silicat stuff is impressive. Magical and seamless integration between movement and media.

Oh yeah forgot to ask you guys, (since coming from the music world I've never bought or even seen graphic cards)

Do you have to install them internally or is it like a soundcards and are external.

Andro did you install you 1 gig radeon card

Oh yeah forgot to ask you guys, (since coming from the music world I've never bought or even seen graphic cards)
Do you have to install them internally or is it like a soundcards and are external.

Nope, card was built into my macbook pro.

This is a large, higher-end graphics card: 

http://cdn4.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GTX-770.jpg

Plugs into a PCIe 16x slot of your computer, internally. With laptops your stuck with whatever was installed by the manufacturer.

Those 2 would make sense. I'd keep video out of it as HD/CPU/PCIe/etc bottlenecks come into play then.

The render window should have fixed dimensions as different display resolutions would skew the results. Window sync should be off so that the fps isn't capped by the display refresh rate.

I'd also add one with a very large window, a situation like when using a TripleHead2Go for multiple display outputs. 3 x 1920x1080= 5760x1080

This is a large, higher-end graphics card: http://cdn4.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GTX-770.jpg
Plugs into a PCIe 16x slot of your computer, internally. With laptops your stuck with whatever was installed by the manufacturer.

I would be happy to do bench marking patches for GPU, CPU
What do you suggest would be a good for this.

Those 2 would make sense. I'd keep video out of it as HD/CPU/PCIe/etc bottlenecks come into play then.
The render window should have fixed dimensions as different display resolutions would skew the results. Window sync should be off so that the fps isn't capped by the display refresh rate.

I'd also add one with a very large window, a situation like when using a TripleHead2Go for multiple display outputs. 3 x 1920x1080= 5760x1080


In the end I decided to buy the fastest MBP. Need the portability.

-NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M with 2GB of GDDR5 memory and

I'll to patching in Jitter like I do for MSP (i.e. where chain are muted [vst~ ](disable 1) & [poly~ ] [thispoly~] (mute 1) )

I guess if I put all chains gl objects @automatic 0 and gate the bang going to the chain

all physics chains @enable 0 when not in used.

Thanks for the tips DTR,
will try a few test and get back to you. 

It has 2 graphics cards
-intel Iris Pro Graphics
-NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M with 2GB of GDDR5 memory and
automatic graphics switching

I guess it will do for now.
I'll to patching in Jitter like I do for MSP (i.e. where chain are muted [vst~ ](disable 1) & [poly~ ] [thispoly~] (mute 1) )

I guess if I put all chains gl objects @automatic 0 and gate the bang going to the chain
all physics chains @enable 0 when not in used. 

The Gpu and CPU should stay @ a low.
Do you have better suggestions ? 

" I've come to the conclusion that at least with AMD drivers, Windows 7 performance was far superior than Mac OS X 10.8 using the same computer.

I would definitely use a custom built Windows machine for that purpose and choose a nice graphics card.

Regarding the benchmark utility, I would concentrate on 2 features: draw calls performance with high poly count geometry and shader processing performance (a gaussian blur cascade with 10 to 20 instances). These 2 should be different benchmarks, because one result would influence the other without us being able to know where the bottleneck is.

I second DTR's suggestions and add that the qmetro should be configured to a very low value like 2.

In the topic "Particle system benchmark" I've come to the conclusion that at least with AMD drivers, Windows 7 performance was far superior than Mac OS X 10.8 using the same computer.
I would definitely use a custom built Windows machine for that purpose and choose a nice graphics card.

Regarding the benchmark utility, I would concentrate on 2 features: draw calls performance with high poly count geometry and shader processing performance (a gaussian blur cascade with 10 to 20 instances). These 2 should be different benchmarks, because one result would influence the other without us being able to know where the bottleneck is. 

I second DTR's suggestions and add that the qmetro should be configured to a very low value like 2.


SHoot Just read you post Pedros, thanks a lot though :-)

Mac vs. PC mmm. I know I was just not ready for the sex-change.

SHoot Just read you post Pedros, thanks a lot though :-)
I will try all of these suggestions.

Mac vs. PC mmm. I know I was just not ready for the sex-change. 

With openGL Jitter is of utmost importance to be strict about what happens on the CPU and what on the GPU. Channeling matrices back and forth between between CPU and GPU kills performance. So once your chain is operating in GPU territory (jit.gl objects, generally) you wanna keep it there and for example not process matrices with jit.op/expr objects. Use equivalent jit.gl objects or shaders instead.

Jit.pwindow's in the chain are another way to kill performance. Of course they're very useful for monitoring during development but be sure to disable them when in performance mode.

In the topic "Particle system benchmark" I’ve come to the conclusion that at least with AMD drivers, Windows 7 performance was far superior than Mac OS X 10.8 using the same computer.

I got curious and tested it too. I see some fps differences but not huge - and contradictory between point and tri_grid modes - between OSX 10.8.5 and Win7pro on my system. I used the 2nd patch in the thread.

Nvidia GTX670 2GB (latest Nvidia drivers on Win7, OSX-included drivers on OSX)

In the topic "Particle system benchmark" I’ve come to the conclusion that at least with AMD drivers, Windows 7 performance was far superior than Mac OS X 10.8 using the same computer.
I would definitely use a custom built Windows machine for that purpose and choose a nice graphics card.

WIN7
Points mode = 110fps
Tri_grid mode = 70fps

OSX
Points mode = 105fps
Tri_grid mode = 80fps

Nvidia GTX670 2GB (latest Nvidia drivers on Win7, OSX-included drivers on OSX)
i7 2600k CPU
8GB RAM
Max 6.1.8


I'm also curious about different performances. Would be nice to have a reference. Why don't we make a patch and post the results?

Have you read the previous posts in this thread?

got around to it now. A bit odd results, maybe someone with the macbook can confirm?

Macbook Pro Retina - Geforce GTX750 2GB - i7 2.3 Haswell, 16 GB ram,

Win 8.1 - both 32 and 64bit
125 point mode
30 tri-grid

Mac Os 10.9.5
100 point mode
28 tri-grid 

Tested on the 2 patches from pedro santos' s thread

Patch 1 performance (w. Rob Ramirez's @cache_mode immediate)

Did you guys try what Rob Ramirez suggests in the thread:

the trick is to set the jit.gl.gridshape @cache_mode attribute to "immediate" and enable @displaylist.

with those settings, i get performance comparable to max 5. hope this helps.

As noted, I saw a small difference in patch 1 w. @cache_mode attribute to "immediate"

MacBookPro OS X 10.7.5 (early 2011)
processor 2.7 Ghz i7
Memory 8G
SSD Hardrive
Intel HD Graphics 3000 512 MB graphics

DTR For your results In patch 1,
Did you guys try what Rob Ramirez suggests in the thread:
the trick is to set the jit.gl.gridshape @cache_mode attribute to "immediate" and enable @displaylist.
with those settings, i get performance comparable to max 5. hope this helps.
As noted, I saw a small difference in patch 1 w. @cache_mode attribute to "immediate"


It's good to know that the difference between Mac and Windows isn't so extensive as it was in my case...

It could be related to the drivers being more optimised, as they are more recent graphics cards (I was using an AMD Radeon 4870 1 GB, by the way).

Or it could be that Nvidia's drivers are more optimised in OS X.

Anyway, what's really strange is DTR's and MRMAARTEN's results discrepancy... strange...

It's good to know that the difference between Mac and Windows isn't so extensive as it was in my case...
It could be related to the drivers being more optimised, as they are more recent graphics cards (I was using an AMD Radeon 4870 1 GB, by the way).
Or it could be that Nvidia's drivers are more optimised in OS X.

Anyway, what's really strange is DTR's and MRMAARTEN's results discrepancy... strange...


Yeah the discrepancy is really strange, esp. when a 2011 macbook gets even faster fps on the tri grid. I think I'll pay the genius bar a visit!

MRMAARTEN, could it be that the difference is in the way you tested? Original window size or fullscreen?

Theoretically, the tri-grid mode should be more expensive with a larger window size because it needs to paint more pixels... just a thought...

MRMAARTEN, could it be that the difference is in the way you tested? Original window size or fullscreen?
Theoretically, the tri-grid mode should be more expensive with a larger window size because it needs to paint more pixels... just a thought...


hey guys, i think i have some (non-fabricated hopefully) memories not so long ago of some dude talking about non-official OSX graphic card drivers, working better than the native ones... does that ring a bell for anybody ?

Hi Pedro, I tested on the standard small window (320x240?) In full screen it is much worse I see now. I really think there is something wrong with my laptop. (I already had suspicions but they were vague). It is good to have tests like this and numbers that reflect a kind of standard use, so you can also check to see it there is something wrong with the hardware!

just to be sure this is the patch I used:

Hey guys, not sure that patch is entirely suitable to do comparative tests. I was just curious to see if I'd notice Mac vs Win differences like Pedro Santos did. It could be a good base for one of the benchmark patches we're talking about. Maybe with some changes like fixing the window size. Also, that patch has CPU (jit.p.x, matrix operations, channeling the matrix to the GPU) elements before the GPU part. We should be clear about what we want to test with each patch: just openGL GPU or combined system performance of GPU+CPU+memory+HD etc.

Btw, fullscreen 1920x1080 I get around 20fps in tri_grid mode.

Concerning GTX670 vs GTX750M (M for mobile/laptop version, less powerful than the equivalent model numbers in the desktop range), these are entirely different beasts hé. Desktop vs laptop. High vs mid level. You'd expect to see differences.

But one thing you'd wanna check is Menu>Options>OpenGL status. Does it list your GTX750m as renderer, or the Intel HD x000 graphics? Maybe it doesn't switch to the discreet card as it should?

I agree DTR. Fixing the window size is the obvious one (maybe 640x480 is a good guide)?

What was in the patch of Pedro that made such a big difference between Mac and PC, can we see the patch?

I think what we tested now was CPU and CPU/ GPU. Those are valuable numbers. We just need one more chain that generates in jit.gl.pix and/ or gen?

Edit: realize that jit.gen is not on GPU so I looked at an other example patch

https://cycling74.com/forums/sharing-is-hairy-brains-gen-particles/)?

https://cycling74.com/forums/sharing-small-generative-jit-gl-pix/)?

Once we agree on the patches we can make a good interface so the tests are uniform. We then can post the results in a new clean thread (Results GPU CPU tests)?

One more thing about the original question: it might be that my findings are skewed because of the defect my Macbook Pro Retina GTX 750M seems to have but I think I can sum up some advantages and disadvantages having worked with it.

- good screen (big real estate etc), good keyboard, good OS and all that (less messing with drivers etc)

- 2 thunderbolt/ mini display ports and HDMI: this means 3 external displays can be run! Also fast SSD raids can be hooked up to the Thunderbolt ports and they even daisy chain to external monitors! (so you can put the monitor at the end of the chain.)

- the 2880x1600 screen makes the GPU work a bit harder for just the screen. The screen is going some scaling in OS X (showing 1920x1200 for instance), if you turn this off with ResX then you win performance but work with tiny text.

- in a pc gaming laptop you can find a faster GPU like 850M or 860M (with DDR5). This seems a step up (

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=2143&gid2=1715&compare=geforce-gtx-860m-2gb-vs-geforce-gt-750m-2gb-gddr5).

 I saw a MSI laptop with that GPU for €1400. It only has two screen outputs (HDMI and mini display port or VGA) and only USB3.0, no thunderbolt. But USB 3.0 is also fast. I am now considering getting this laptop (although I find windows a drag to work in). Anybody has experience with MSI or lenovo laptops? (e.g. these ones: 

http://www.notebookcheck.net/MSI-reveals-GS60-Ghost-and-GS70-Stealth-gaming-laptops-with-GeForce-GTX-870M-860M-graphics.114176.0.html)

- price performance: going full circle, maybe the MBPr is good enough for year to come, has a better user experience, maybe with a good windows laptop you get better bang for buck and raw performance?

I agree DTR. Fixing the window size is the obvious one (maybe 640x480 is a good guide)?
What was in the patch of Pedro that made such a big difference between Mac and PC, can we see the patch?

Edit: realize that jit.gen is not on GPU so I looked at an other example patch
Maybe like the patch Wesley Smith made (https://cycling74.com/forums/sharing-is-hairy-brains-gen-particles/)? 

Corrected example path from LLT (https://cycling74.com/forums/sharing-small-generative-jit-gl-pix/)?

One more thing about the original question: it might be that my findings are skewed because of the defect my Macbook Pro Retina GTX 750M seems to have but I think I can sum up some advantages and disadvantages having worked with it.
Advantages:
- good battery live
- compact
- good screen (big real estate etc), good keyboard, good OS and all that (less messing with drivers etc)
- 2 thunderbolt/ mini display ports and HDMI: this means 3 external displays can be run! Also fast SSD raids can be hooked up to the Thunderbolt ports and they even daisy chain to external monitors! (so you can put the monitor at the end of the chain.)

Disadvantages:
- the 2880x1600 screen makes the GPU work a bit harder for just the screen. The screen is going some scaling in OS X (showing 1920x1200 for instance), if you turn this off with ResX then you win performance but work with tiny text.
- in a pc gaming laptop you can find a faster GPU like 850M or 860M (with DDR5). This seems a step up (http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=2143&gid2=1715&compare=geforce-gtx-860m-2gb-vs-geforce-gt-750m-2gb-gddr5). I saw a MSI laptop with that GPU for €1400. It only has two screen outputs (HDMI and mini display port or VGA) and only USB3.0, no thunderbolt. But USB 3.0 is also fast. I am now considering getting this laptop (although I find windows a drag to work in). Anybody has experience with MSI or lenovo laptops? (e.g. these ones: http://www.notebookcheck.net/MSI-reveals-GS60-Ghost-and-GS70-Stealth-gaming-laptops-with-GeForce-GTX-870M-860M-graphics.114176.0.html)
- price performance: going full circle, maybe the MBPr is good enough for year to come, has a better user experience, maybe with a good windows laptop you get better bang for buck and raw performance?


I agree DTR. Fixing the window size is the obvious one (maybe 640×480 is a good guide)?

1. VGA 640x480? It's 2014, lets make it HD 1920x1080 ;) (all joking aside, I'd like these tests to be close to real world situations. I think most of us like to run HD, at least)

2. It's the one you tried. The difference between OS's seem bound to worse ATI drivers on OSX. Which we shouldn't generalize, perhaps it's just with that particular model/generation of ATI cards.

I agree DTR. Fixing the window size is the obvious one (maybe 640×480 is a good guide)?
What was in the patch of Pedro that made such a big difference between Mac and PC, can we see the patch?

2. It's the one you tried. The difference between OS's seem bound to worse ATI drivers on OSX. Which we shouldn't generalize, perhaps it's just with that particular model/generation of ATI cards.


I didn't notice one of the cards is Mobile. That makes sense, then...

Regarding that patch, I agree that it is not a good general benchmark example. It was only meant to showcase a bug/lack of optimization in jit.gl.multiple.

That patch is very CPU limited. If you turn off the jit.gl.mesh geometry rendering you probably won't notice a huge difference, but if you change the dim of the particle system from 100000 to 10000 you will see the fps go way up. So, the main bottleneck here is the CPU and not the GPU...

Anyway, I think the benchmark should measure at least 4 components:

The resolution could be in HD (1280 x 720) in order to accommodate both laptops and desktops easily.

The routine could be automated, cycling through each test for x seconds and capturing an average of the framerate for each one.

These values could be stored in a text file or a GUI that could be easily copy/pasted to the forum including captions.

Regarding that patch, I agree that it is not a good general benchmark example. It was only meant to showcase a bug/lack of optimization in jit.gl.multiple.
That patch is very CPU limited. If you turn off the jit.gl.mesh geometry rendering you probably won't notice a huge difference, but if you change the dim of the particle system from 100000 to 10000 you will see the fps go way up. So, the main bottleneck here is the CPU and not the GPU...

Anyway, I think the benchmark should measure at least 4 components:CPU processing:Regular jitter matrix operations
Physics processingGPU processing:geometry rendering
shader processing

These should be as isolated as possible.
The resolution could be in HD (1280 x 720) in order to accommodate both laptops and desktops easily.
The routine could be automated, cycling through each test for x seconds and capturing an average of the framerate for each one.
These values could be stored in a text file or a GUI that could be easily copy/pasted to the forum including captions.


sounds like an excellent idea Pedro to automate the capturing of the FPS etc automatically! I am still learning a lot of the details of Max/ Jitter so I can't get involved with developing the tests themselves but I would like help on the capture/ write to text file bit (if needed).

It would be nice if the test are also doable for older hardware, so we have a good overall view of scores. It is a comparative test anyway. To get any meaning from them, so you don't want the numbers to max out too fast or too soon. Maybe 1280 720 is fine. And let's do the full screen test also and put the screen res in the results. Let's keep the test to one monitor for ease of use?

sounds like an excellent idea Pedro to automate the capturing of the FPS etc automatically! I am still learning a lot of the details of Max/ Jitter so I can't get involved with developing the tests themselves but I would like help on the capture/ write to text file bit (if needed). 

Ok, I guess 1280x720 is suitable. Though I insist on a multi-screen test as well (I use 4 projectors and 1 monitor in my main projects). NB: one doesn't need all the display hardware for it. It's enough to make a large render window, doesn't matter if it doesn't fit on your 1 laptop screen. I 'll happily make such a patch, with multiple jit.gl.camera's for the multiple display views and so on. Though only after the 1st of november.

Would be great to have the automated logging. I can't contribute much patching till november though.

DTR, ok if the multiscreen test can also be performed on a single screen setup then it is good to include it! I think a test patch like this will be very interesting for future reference (for hardware decisions among other things), so unless someone else does it before, after nov 1 is great :)

I'll work something out with the logging and saving, and post when I have something.

finally got a new mac and redid the benchmark patch and strangely,

I'm getting very similar result to MrMaarten in the 2nd patch.

finally got a new mac and redid the benchmark patch and strangely,
I'm getting very similar result to MrMaarten in the 2nd patch. 

Mac Os 10.9.4
fps 96 point mode
fps 27 tri-grid 

On my old 2011 mac I got
Mac Os 10.7.5
fps 65-95 point mode
fps 50-60 tri-grid

yeah it is very weird. It might me a single thread thing were the numerical Ghz only matters or something.

I also did the test on a 2008 i7 2.7Ghz (Hackintosh) and got 55fps for the tri_grid (70 for the points). And a 2010 2.9 Ghz Hackingtosh of my friend got 75fps!

I also ran the test in the apple store and got also 70fps on a new Macbook Pro retina. I think a 2.5 i7 (I didn't check because I thought the difference was to big to be justified by 200Mhz). Mine is a 2.3 Ghz i7.

Then I demanded for a replacement logic board because I had already issues with it where I could really put my finger on (drops during vj-ing that were unusual). But now the test comes back the same! :(

I haven't had time to go back to the store and test the theory with lower clocked i5 etc.

I think I will go tomorrow to check the other laptops. The test works as a standalone on a USB stick.

I also did the test on a 2008 i7 2.7Ghz (Hackintosh) and got 55fps for the tri_grid (70 for the points). And a 2010 2.9 Ghz Hackingtosh of my friend got 75fps! 

Then I demanded for a replacement logic board because I had already issues with it where I could really put my finger on (drops during vj-ing that were unusual). But now the test comes back the same! :( 

I haven't had time to go back to the store and test the theory with lower clocked i5 etc.
I think I will go tomorrow to check the other laptops. The test works as a standalone on a USB stick.


best computer (graphic card etc..) for Jitter