# Imac i9 real world performance?



## Dayvi (Oct 22, 2019)

Hi,
the release of the new Mac Pro is near....
So, I need some advice on real world performance from you guys. 
I know the imac i9 is very popular in the music production world, maybe someone of you is running one and can give some real-world experience. The imac i9 is a potential machine, if it fits my workload, there are logic benchmarks over at gearslutz but I feel this are not very representative numbers and don’t really help if the machine fits my needs.

I’m using mostly VI’s like CSS, CSB, Spitfire stuff etc… I would be very interested in how many kontakt tracks (loaded with VI's like i mentioned before) you can run at once in Logic Pro X with a relatively small buffer (≤128) and what your kontakt buffer settings are, if you stream form ssd’s or even nvme ssds.
The imac i9 is not cheap but maybe the better option, although it will be a maxed-out system if I buy one (Memory and Storage Upgrade by myself) and there is no room for further needs.


Thanks,
Dayvi


----------



## Pier (Oct 23, 2019)

I don't know about the i9 iMac, but I own a 2017 5K iMac with an i5 7600K. Performance wise it's fine for my use case but the thermals are not great. It hovers around 50ºC on idle most of the year. As soon as I start using some virtual synths the CPU work load goes to a constant 20-30% and the temps to 70ºC so I start hearing the fan because it's right in front of me. Maybe if the iMac wasn't an all-in-one I could hide it away somewhere but as it is I find that very annoying.

If you live in a colder region maybe you won't have this problem, but I live in central Mexico which is not that hot but no too cold either.

This is my first iMac and I love it for programming, designing, browsing, etc, since these produce CPU peaks and not constant work loads, but I would not buy one again for audio.


----------



## Sarah Mancuso (Oct 23, 2019)

The i9-9900k is a great processor for DAW work, but it tends to run hot, which can be a problem with the iMac's closed-in design. I've heard of thermal throttling issues happening with the i9 iMacs, which means they're having to throttle performance in order to keep from overheating.


----------



## AndyP (Oct 23, 2019)

I have the i9 and haven't had any thermal problems yet.
But .... I additionally use 2 MacPro with VEP for VI so the load on the iMac is relatively low.

I do smaller projects completely on the i9, but even there I haven't nearly reached the limit yet.
40-50 instrument tracks were no challenge.

The fans I have heard so far only if larger files were unpacked.

I use pretty much everything from Kontakt to play.


----------



## Pier (Oct 23, 2019)

AndyP said:


> I use pretty much everything from Kontakt to play.



In my case I mostly use virtual synths so the load on the CPU is much higher.


----------



## Dayvi (Oct 23, 2019)

AndyP said:


> I have the i9 and haven't had any thermal problems yet.
> But .... I additionally use 2 MacPro with VEP for VI so the load on the iMac is relatively low.
> 
> I do smaller projects completely on the i9, but even there I haven't nearly reached the limit yet.
> ...



Okay thanks for your feedback,

i want to get rid of my VEP Windows machine, because I absolutely hate the workflow, tbh it is not a dedicated server that runs 24/7 but making sure that the VSL Server is running before opening up the logic project is a step I would love to go away. Also, the workflow, with a fixed template where I can’t change mic positions on the fly as I need without making complex midi automations or changing the template is a thing I don’t like. I know vsl is a good way and workflow for a lot of people but not for me.

I want to run the libraries all on the machine I’m working on. So, you have 40-50 demanding VIs running on the imac i9… this is quite impressive. So as we speak the limit at the moment is RAM not cpu, is this correct?



Pier Bover said:


> In my case I mostly use virtual synths so the load on the CPU is much higher.



Any problems(System overload msgs), or just higher cpu load?
The most demanding synth i have is Serum, with 2x 16 voices on the osc with some wavetable manipulation/automation is very demanding on my i5 at the moment


----------



## AndyP (Oct 23, 2019)

Pier Bover said:


> In my case I mostly use virtual synths so the load on the CPU is much higher.


Diva is a CPU killer, that is true. Virtual synths are different from sample players. So, you are right!


----------



## AndyP (Oct 23, 2019)

Dayvi said:


> So as we speak the limit at the moment is RAM not cpu, is this correct?


Depends on ... 

Pier is right, some synths rather cause cpu problems. I've installed 72 GB RAM and I'm happy with it right now.

It may well be that I am selling a MacPro and upgrading the RAM to 128 GB. But at the moment I don't see any need for action.

I have often activated many tracks in VEP, and therefore had a high RAM need. But that's not really necessary anymore.

I use relatively few virtual synths, therefore my cpu is mostly relaxed.


----------



## Dayvi (Oct 23, 2019)

AndyP said:


> Depends on ...
> 
> Pier is right, some synths rather cause cpu problems. I've installed 72 GB RAM and I'm happy with it right now.
> 
> ...



So let's say a project like this should be possible with the imac i9?


----------



## AndyP (Oct 23, 2019)

Dayvi said:


> So let's say a project like this should be possible with the imac i9?



No problem!


----------



## Dayvi (Oct 23, 2019)

AndyP said:


> No problem!


so the performance is very similar to a 12core mac pro (trashcan). That is very surprising.


----------



## Pier (Oct 23, 2019)

Dayvi said:


> Any problems(System overload msgs), or just higher cpu load?The most demanding synth i have is Serum, with 2x 16 voices on the osc with some wavetable manipulation/automation is very demanding on my i5 at the moment



Only higher CPU load, higher temps, and fan noise. Of course when pushing the CPU too high I get audio dropouts and crackles but that is expected.

I don't use Serum. Diva is probably the most intensive synth I have but my bread and butter are usually Hive 2 or Zebra 2.

I made a little benchmark with Hive 2 default preset (a bass with lots of effects and unison). 1 note for 1 bar and duplicated tracks in Live 10 to see how many I could get without dropout at 256 samples of buffer.

In my 5K iMac with an i5 7600K I got 40 tracks. In my gaming machine with a i5 6500 I got 35 tracks. We'll see how it goes with my Ryzen build I'm about to finish.


----------



## Pier (Oct 23, 2019)

Dayvi said:


> so the performance is very similar to a 12core mac pro (trashcan). That is very surprising.



In single-core the iMac destroys the trashcan (almost double the performance). In multi-core it's similar.



Mac Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser



It's not surprising considering the trashcan is 6 years old and the 9900K is probably one of the best Intel CPUs for audio.

It has to be said that Geekbench benchmarks are somewhat short but from some videos I've seen the i9 iMac doesn't seem to throttle.


----------



## Dayvi (Oct 23, 2019)

The i9 in the imac has a bit lower base clock and also turbo clock than the retail i9 9900k. That’s for sure, Geekbench benchmarks sadly do not really correspond how they perform in audio task… But yea it seems the imac i9 is indeed a valid option for my needs.


----------



## Pier (Oct 23, 2019)

Dayvi said:


> The i9 in the imac has a bit lower base clock and also turbo clock than the retail i9 9900k.



Huh I didn't know that. On Apple's website it's advertised as 3.6Ghz base clock and 5Ghz turbo boost the same as Intel's ARK website.









Product Specifications


quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.




ark.intel.com


----------



## Dayvi (Oct 23, 2019)

Pier Bover said:


> Huh I didn't know that. On Apple's website it's advertised as 3.6Ghz base clock and 5Ghz turbo boost the same as Intel's ARK website.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can clearly see apple is doing some magic with power delivery...

On load the cpu spikes to nearly 5 ghz and immediately drops down. Very interesting video. But I don’t know how this affects audio production, I think it would benefit it because we often have short cpu spikes and then dropping down again.


----------



## Pier (Oct 23, 2019)

Great video!

But yeah, I would not buy another iMac for audio regardless.

It's a shame Apple does not want to make a tower desktop that is not super ultra high end like the upcoming Mac Pro and forces users to get an iMac or a Mini with laptop components.


----------



## Dayvi (Oct 23, 2019)

Pier Bover said:


> Great video!
> 
> But yeah, I would not buy another iMac for audio regardless.
> 
> It's a shame Apple does not want to make a tower desktop that is not super ultra high end like the upcoming Mac Pro and forces users to get an iMac or a Mini with laptop components.



I’m very unsure about the imac i9. Getting the 1tb internal ssd is very expensive, on the other hand expanding storage via usb is cheap, but low performance and thunderbolt nvme enclosures are 150€ and more. Storage is a big problem I think.

With the new Mac Pro you can stuff in nvme stick after nvme stick, with a cheap pci card.

But hell is the new Mac Pro expensive. For this you could buy two iMac i9 with maxed out internal ssd storage over the next 10 years… but the mac pro will last 10 years at least so maybe it is the better choice.

I doubt if I buy an iMac i9 today that I can work with it the next 10 years. Replacing it after 5 years with a better on seems realistic. Also the point that linus brought up, dust accumulation over the years will reduce the performance of the cpu and maybe even to livetime.

I’m sure the mac pro can handle it, maybe change the cpu or add ram but at least I have the possibility to do so.

This is not an easy choice at all. And I do not think about return on investment anytime soon here. :D


----------



## Pier (Oct 23, 2019)

I agree, the iMac is no Land Rover and will not last 10 years. The dust problem is real. I want to open my iMac to clean it and replace the thermal paste for liquid metal but it's still under Apple Care.

Another aspect to consider that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that if you use TB3 the CPU temps will increase about 10ºC. I've experienced this on all Macs I've owned with TB. Starting with TB1 on the MBP 2011, TB2 in the 2015 MBP, and a couple of weeks ago with TB3 on the 2017 5K iMac when connecting an SSD with a TB3 enclosure. USB3 doesn't produce this heat increase, but it's capped at about 500MB/s which is fine for most use cases unless you are working with RAW video or huge sample libraries.


----------



## AndyP (Oct 23, 2019)

Dayvi said:


> I’m very unsure about the imac i9. Getting the 1tb internal ssd is very expensive, on the other hand expanding storage via usb is cheap, but low performance and thunderbolt nvme enclosures are 150€ and more. Storage is a big problem I think.


What works very well is to choose the 2 TB fusion drive and leave the library on external hard disks. 
the 2 TB fusion drive is a good alternative as it has 128 GB flash memory. Since I never have system and librarys on the same hard drive as most users, this is not a noticeable loss of speed!

The smaller fusion drives < 2TB are not recommended, because they only have a very small flash memory.

I'm happier with external hard drives anyway, except for my MacPros. But they also have a USB-C card, so the speed is very good.
I would buy a smaller SSD in the iMac if the computer is only used for audio applications. This saves money, I don't see any real disadvantages and it's better to invest in an external case.

Ram installation on the iMac i9 takes 1 minute.


----------



## jcrosby (Oct 24, 2019)

Pier Bover said:


> Huh I didn't know that. On Apple's website it's advertised as 3.6Ghz base clock and 5Ghz turbo boost the same as Intel's ARK website.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The 9900k imac will never hit or maintain 5 Ghz. Apple kneecaps its performance because it would throttle if it tried hit the boost clock inside a thin, poorly ventilated case like the imac's. This isn't theory, _PC fanboys_ throwing shade on Apple or anything else, it's just basic physics... The 9900k runs very hot under load, too hot for it to steadily hit the boost clock inside a case like the imac's...

Apple shouldn't be isolated for misleading its customers though,_ some _PC manufacturers have done the same for years... (Though Apple tends to fluff their numbers the most...) A thin case is the worst possible design for something that needs to give off heat in order to shine... (FYI I'm not a Windows fanboy by any means, just someone slowly cutting the Apple cord due issues like the stuff mentioned above...)


----------



## Dayvi (Oct 24, 2019)

jcrosby said:


> The 9900k imac will never hit or maintain 5 Ghz. Apple kneecaps its performance because it would throttle if it tried hit the boost clock inside a thin, poorly ventilated case like the imac's. This isn't theory, _PC fanboys_ throwing shade on Apple or anything else, it's just basic physics... The 9900k runs very hot under load, too hot for it to steadily hit the boost clock inside a case like the imac's...
> 
> Apple shouldn't be isolated for misleading its customers though,_ some _PC manufacturers have done the same for years... (Though Apple tends to fluff their numbers the most...) A thin case is the worst possible design for something that needs to give off heat in order to shine... (FYI I'm not a Windows fanboy by any means, just someone slowly cutting the Apple cord due issues like the stuff mentioned above...)



the i9 in the iMac performs very well under the circumstances it runs at. You are absolutely right, it is not the perfect place, but to be honest, apple did a not so bad job at it. They get a lot of performance out of it and it is very silent. Try that with a windows build. I had to replace two fans with noctua fans in my windows machine to get it to a noise level that is acceptable and the CPU is already AIO water-cooled. Most custom cases have no cooling concept at all, you just throw random fans and aios all over the place to cool the components as efficient as possible. There is no real airflow concept in this cases.


I’m not an apple or windows fanboy and I have a lot of experience in building pcs. I trust in Apple that the new Mac Pro will be a silent machine with a lot of power… they always got a great/silent cooling concept… also the mac pro(trashcan) is ok until you put the top GPU’s in.


----------



## jcrosby (Oct 24, 2019)

Dayvi said:


> the i9 in the iMac performs very well under the circumstances it runs at. You are absolutely right, it is not the perfect place, but to be honest, apple did a not so bad job at it. They get a lot of performance out of it and it is very silent. Try that with a windows build. I had to replace two fans with noctua fans in my windows machine to get it to a noise level that is acceptable and the CPU is already AIO water-cooled. Most custom cases have no cooling concept at all, you just throw random fans and aios all over the place to cool the components as efficient as possible. There is no real airflow concept in this cases.
> 
> 
> I’m not an apple or windows fanboy and I have a lot of experience in building pcs. I trust in Apple that the new Mac Pro will be a silent machine with a lot of power… they always got a great/silent cooling concept… also the mac pro(trashcan) is ok until you put the top GPU’s in.


Definitely won’t disagree... it’s not that apple’s engineering is poor, so much as the corporate sides insistance on ‘thin’ and ‘sleek’ and 'fashionable'.

Noctaua fans are well worth the money. They consistently come out on top on all fronts; performance, acoustics, etc... Really excellent company.


----------



## cakin07970 (Oct 31, 2019)

I too have been eyeing up this i9 iMac but wanted to understand it's performance with regards to music production - most importantly it's real-time performance (because that is what is most important for a system experience).

Highest clock speed first and then cores after that. It may be different for other users and their workflows I guess - but that's a separate debate.

Over at macrumours there's a long thread about it's CPU performance with regards to throttling and/or power limitation etc. Depending on your perspective and the choice of words, the iMac i9 doesn't throttle but the power has been limited. So as the poster above rightly said it will never hit 5Ghz because the power has been limited otherwise it wouldn't be able to be cooled in it's design.

Here's a test that I think is interesting to us which limited the number of cores and their speeds and perhaps you could draw a rough real-time performance calculation from that comparatively to a standard 95w 9900k and an unrestricted 9900k from intel. Here's what I could find - albeit the non apple 9900k results are cores not threads (perhaps it's the same??)

iMac i9 9900k
1 thread 4.7–4.8 GHz
6 threads 4.5 GHz 2749
8 threads 4.2 GHz 3391
12 threads 4–4.1 GHz 3829
16 threads 3.8–3.9 GHz 4069

95w restricted 9900k standard from intel.
1 core 5 GHz
2 core 4.8 GHz
3 core 4.8 GHZ
4 core 4.8 GHz
5 core 4.7 GHz
6 core 4.7 GHz
7 core 3.6 GHZ
8 core 3.6 GHz

Unrestricted 9900k (with proper cooling)
1 core 5 GHz
2 core 5 GHz
3 core 4.8 GHZ
4 core 4.8 GHz
5 core 4.7 GHz
6 core 4.7 GHz
7 core 4.7 GHZ
8 core 4.7 GHz

_Source for info: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/2019-imac-i5-vs-i9-cooling-and-throttling.2174314/page-7_

Linus Tech Tips said there's about a 20% performance loss using benchmarks in the i9 iMac.

Any thoughts on real-time and real-world performance with this in mind?

Let's stick to this iMac model and the original post rather than suggest Hackintosh or a PC build for now.


----------



## Dayvi (Oct 31, 2019)

cakin07970 said:


> I too have been eyeing up this i9 iMac but wanted to understand it's performance with regards to music production - most importantly it's real-time performance (because that is what is most important for a system experience).
> 
> Highest clock speed first and then cores after that. It may be different for other users and their workflows I guess - but that's a separate debate.
> 
> ...


Do we really need boost frequency all the time for music production?

My experience is no, there are quite often cpu spikes, this is something the iMac i9 can handle, because it can boost to nearly 5ghz for a short period. If you bounce a project, who cares if it takes 20 sec's longer.


The main concern for me is, performance degradation over the years as dust builds up and cooling gets less efficient. The i9 is getting very hot (~90°C) and with bad cooling it will thermal throttle.
I did not open my 2013 iMac up and see how much dust buildup there is…

So for me it is still a very hard decision iMac i9 or mac pro 2019. The new Mac Pro is for Pro’s and I don’t make my money with music, so the argument it will pay for itself is not true in my case. On the other hand, now I have the money to buy one, if I really did music for a living it will even harder to get one with this big price tag.

If I calculate 7000€ / 10 years, it is 60€ per month. I think this is not that bad. Sure for 7000€ I can buy 2 iMac’s in the same timeframe, but performance wise I think it will end up the same.


----------



## cakin07970 (Oct 31, 2019)

Dayvi said:


> Do we really need boost frequency all the time for music production?
> 
> My experience is no, there are quite often cpu spikes, this is something the iMac i9 can handle, because it can boost to nearly 5ghz for a short period. If you bounce a project, who cares if it takes 20 sec's longer.
> 
> ...



Ah well as for dust in the long run, unfortunately I've no idea at what speeds you'll hit with either a boost clock or the highest spike you'll get with that as a factor, sorry. Download an app called Macs fan control to manually control the speed to cool it maybe.

Why not use some of that spare change to service your iMac over the years?

There's good threads that have discussed this issue and the Mac Pro and I'd suggest that single core performance/speed is still the most important factor in the overall performance of a music production system - but there is room to allow for specific use cases like type of music, synths, libraries, track count etc.

In that case, the i9 iMac is probably the best option for such tasks, imo.

Open your heaviest project and intel power gadget and play along with either a heavy synth, complicated scripted kontakt library etc and see if your CPU is spiking up and down or staying constant...until you stop. It might only spike and fall if you're just playing a keyboard alone but I would have thought that if you're playing back a reasonable amount of previously recorded data (MIDI, Audio etc) - whilst recording data simultaneously - then the CPU will be spiking for prolonged periods of time until you stop. In that case, you want the fastest single core performance/speed to deter clicks and pops because you're hitting the real-time performance issues, not CPU limitations if you're CPU is still relatively unused.

I would like to figure out if the i9 iMac is worth buying in terms of real-time performance or wait until they do a redesign with a hopefully better cooling system hoping that the single core performance and speed is still their fastest available.


----------



## Dayvi (Oct 31, 2019)

cakin07970 said:


> Ah well as for dust in the long run, unfortunately I've no idea at what speeds you'll hit with either a boost clock or the highest spike you'll get with that as a factor, sorry. Download an app called Macs fan control to manually control the speed to cool it maybe.
> 
> Why not use some of that spare change to service your iMac over the years?
> 
> ...


I don't think apple is ever doing an imac with a better cooling solution. They have the imac pro for that... the heat and power usage of cpu's will go down with the next generations because intel is going to 10 and 7nm and this will automatically reduce heat and power usage.

Hoping that apple will solve the cooling problem, is not a great idea. You can also see it with the macbook pros, they are thermal throttling.


----------



## cakin07970 (Oct 31, 2019)

They thermal throttle from the outset though don't they? Not necessarily because of dust. That might make it throttle worse though.


----------



## Dayvi (Oct 31, 2019)

cakin07970 said:


> They thermal throttle from the outset though don't they? Not necessarily because of dust. That might make it throttle worse though.


The imac i9 does not thermal throttle per se, but as you already said apple is limiting the power delivery so the cpu won’t boost to max all the time, this results in a cpu that does not thermal throttle but have up to 20% lower performance than an i9 in a windows machine in some cases.

Macbook pros however do thermal throttle as far as I’m aware of.


----------



## cakin07970 (Oct 31, 2019)

Yeah that's what I meant. Let me know how it goes if you get the i9 iMac


----------



## Dayvi (Dec 11, 2019)

i bump this thread. Apple released the New Mac Pro. 
We know the upgrade prices and they are eye watering.

I think the base nMP will run a bit faster than the imac i9 because it has no thermal restriction. But is it worth double the price?


----------



## AndyP (Dec 11, 2019)

I use the iMac i9 and am absolutely satisfied. I didn't notice any thermal problems either (except when unpacking large rar files).


----------



## Dayvi (Dec 11, 2019)

AndyP said:


> I use the iMac i9 and am absolutely satisfied. I didn't notice any thermal problems either (except when unpacking large rar files).



do you mind sharing some infos on what kind of projects you work on?
Track count, vi based?, synth heavy?


----------



## AndyP (Dec 11, 2019)

Dayvi said:


> do you mind sharing some infos on what kind of projects you work on?
> Track count, vi based?, synth heavy?



iMac i9, 72 GB 

There are 2 use cases:

Case 1 i9 DAW Standalone:
- Cubase 10 Pro
- few soft synths (no diva, zebra ...)
- Kontakt, Play, Engine, Spitfire, UJAM ...
- various cubase effects on several buses, + 3rd party effects
- few audio tracks, more VI

Case 2 DAW, VEP Master:
- Template currently contains approx. 600+ tracks
- 90% VEP tracks

100 VI tracks with the above mentioned VSTi are unproblematic, I rarely use more active tracks at the same time yet.

I use few softsynths, and the ones I use need few resources.

Projects: Orchestral, Hybrid, Trailer, Heavy Metal, experimental crossoverwhateverthismeansorisinreality


----------



## Dayvi (Dec 11, 2019)

AndyP said:


> iMac i9, 72 GB
> 
> There are 2 use cases:
> 
> ...



oh wow, thank you for the detailed information. Looks very promising and maybe enough for me over the next 5 years.


----------



## Pier (Dec 11, 2019)

AndyP said:


> iMac i9, 72 GB
> 
> There are 2 use cases:
> 
> ...



Isn't the i9 overkill for that use case?

It sounds like you are mostly reading samples from RAM.


----------



## Dayvi (Dec 11, 2019)

Pier Bover said:


> Isn't the i9 overkill for that use case?
> 
> It sounds like you are mostly reading samples from RAM.



Huge sample libraries can be demanding because you have a lot of voices to playback.
See the new JunkieXL Brass Library.... 13gb memory and over 500 voices.


----------



## BassClef (Dec 11, 2019)

I am using a late 2014 iMac with the 4Ghz processor and 32 GB RAM. I'm a rookie/hobbiest with VI, but I also use my PC extensively for photographic storage and processing. I have budgeted for a new PC and was looking at the iMac Pro over the iMac i9... quieter and cooler performance among other things. However, I have never liked the limited upgrade paths of the iMacs. Since the Mac Pros were released yesterday, I was comparing that platform to the iMac Pro. Excluding the Monitor situation, they are not far apart.

I am at a point now where I want to expand memory and storage. (currently 32GB Ram and 2TB of external SSDs) With a Mac Pro, you get features that help a PC last and meet your needs for many years:

1) Max cooling
2) quiet running
3) easily upgradable memory
4) easy installation of multiple internal M.2 NVMe drives
5) easy upgrading of GPU

Also... the iMac monitor is uncomfortably high on my desk for my progressive eyeglass lenses, due to the 3 to 4 inches of between the actual display area and the bottom edge of the iMac. A separate monitor can be lowered.


----------



## Nate Johnson (Dec 15, 2019)

AndyP said:


> iMac i9, 72 GB
> 
> There are 2 use cases:
> 
> ...



Your Case 1 scenario sounds like my current workflow. Very little synthesizer action, BUT I do manipulate audio heavily in Alchemy and Reaktor, in combination with Spitfire stuff. Multiple instances of Alchemy seem to play nice, even on my current under-powered system, but Reaktor can be a bitch if I'm running a lot of blocks. Even in standalone (which is how i use it 99% of the time). My average track count is under 30, but that's at least partially to avoid CPU failures. Which _has_ forced me to be more creative....but I'm getting off topic here. Whats really annoying is running out juice during mix down. All I use are stock Logic plugins - whatever I saved in CPU with minimizing track counts, I immediately eat up with just EQ!

Can you comment on where Case 1 tops out? Track count/instances/whatever? 

And just curious, in regards to your workflow - Do you always start in standalone and if the projects gets out of control switch to the bigger rig?


----------



## AndyP (Dec 15, 2019)

tomorrowstops said:


> Can you comment on where Case 1 tops out? Track count/instances/whatever?
> 
> And just curious, in regards to your workflow - Do you always start in standalone and if the projects gets out of control switch to the bigger rig?


To be honest, since the i9 is my mainframe I haven't exhausted the CPU yet. Runs pretty well so far despite many tracks. Buffersize in Cubase is between 128 and 256 depending on the project.
Sometimes Kontakt libraries that use TM intensively make some stress (heavy usage of short strings for example). If I turn it off it will run again.
I have only managed to produce a few crackers by using the Ethera libraries with many multis intensively. After I set the buffer to 512 it was good again.

Sometimes I use the MacBook as an additional VEP slave for exotic plug-ins that I didn't install on the iMac.

Since I have the iMac I rarely switch on the MacPros to use the EW and VSL libraries. In the meantime I have built several templates for different purposes, but currently I tend to work differently with smaller, more special templates. 
If I need EW or VSL I plug the dongle into the iMac.
In almost all cases I use VEP Pro for VI, which works better than in Cubase, even if I work standalone on the i9. It puts less strain on the CPU.

I will upgrade the iMac to 128GB, and maybe buy a 16 inch MacBook Pro with 64GB. I should get by with that in all cases and can sell the MacPros.


----------



## Nate Johnson (Dec 16, 2019)

AndyP said:


> To be honest, since the i9 is my mainframe I haven't exhausted the CPU yet. Runs pretty well so far despite many tracks. Buffersize in Cubase is between 128 and 256 depending on the project.
> Sometimes Kontakt libraries that use TM intensively make some stress (heavy usage of short strings for example). If I turn it off it will run again.
> I have only managed to produce a few crackers by using the Ethera libraries with many multis intensively. After I set the buffer to 512 it was good again.
> 
> ...



Thank you for that insight. To me it sounds like the i9 iMac would be ideal for my needs, even with room to grow. 'Small and special' would be a pretty accurate description of my sessions.


----------

