View Full Version : Batch Conversion Performance Mac OSX vs Windows 10

01-20-2016, 08:58 AM
Hello guys,

this is my first post in this first in this forum. I wanted to discuss the performance of batch conversion in mac osx vs windows 10.

Mac - 13 inch 2015 retina macbook pro - intel dual core i5 2.7 ghz 5th gen core series cpu - El Capitan, 2.7 - 8gb ram - 256gb ssd
PC - 13 inch 2011 Sony Vaio VPCSB190x - intel dual core i7 2.7ghz 2nd gen core series cpu - Windows 10 Pro - 8 gb ram - 128 gb ssd

When comparing these two computers, the mac is clearly newer gen cpu with faster ssd, ram, and a newer generation processor. Otherwise the systems a similar.

When converting a single album from flac to apple lossless, the macbook is converting around 80x and taking around 1 minute per album, where as that windows machine is pushing 250x and finishing in 15 second. This seems interesting to me that the older computer is destroying the newer one on performance. Is this an issue with mac osx vs windows, or is there something else going on here?

for more information on my settings, i use dynamic conversion to a new directory on the same drive - the same exact settings on both computers

can anyone shed light on this? Im really disappointed that there is such a difference on a newer machine with better specs.

Thank you

01-20-2016, 09:58 AM
In this type of conversion CPU will not come into effect, unless there is an issue in the program (we will check this scenario), the limitation is read / write of the storage.

If you can on the OS X machine, convert to 'Test Conversion' what speed is shown?

01-20-2016, 10:59 AM
When i complete the test conversion, it reached 999.2x.

As for the storage limitation..This would also surprise me bc i have a new 2015 retina macbook with pci express SSD which is getting 700mb read/write speeds on blackmagic disk app. And the old machine is a 4 year old samsung 240 drive on a sata 2 connection, which gets about 150mb and even lesser write speed.

But yea i def am interested in finding a solution! Let me know what you think

01-24-2016, 08:13 AM
I wasnt sure if this thread of issue was dead and there was an obvious answer i was overlooking... or if it was still being looked into? I was just curious what it meant to have the test conversion at 999.2x but my real conversions at 80x on OSX and 250x on a slower windows machine with slower storage?

01-25-2016, 05:20 AM
We are looking into it.

01-25-2016, 06:19 AM
Thanks for the report. As it turns out some of our codecs were compiled without proper optimizations in effect.

I've just posted a new beta version that corrects this issue:

01-25-2016, 08:58 AM
Thank you guys - i appreciate the effort - great program!