# Will Omnisphere 2 run on my 2.3 Ghz i7 + 16 GB RAM Mac Mini (late 2012)?



## anp27 (Jun 9, 2015)

I just read the minimum specs: a 2.4 Ghz processor or greater. So it's a no go I guess? Anybody here miraculously got Omnisphere 2 working on a 2.3 machine?


----------



## anp27 (Jun 9, 2015)

Anybody at all?


----------



## jaeroe (Jun 9, 2015)

I have it running on a 2.6gHz quad i7 mini 2012. seems like it would have plenty of headroom. if you're running it from on SSD i would think you'd have better luck.


----------



## proxima (Jun 9, 2015)

Clock speed doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of performance these days. I imagine a 3 year old i7 would be able to use Omnisphere just fine, but perhaps you could just contact Spectrasonics? 

Of course, with enough abuse (or enough instances) Omnisphere could kill anything.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 9, 2015)

I can tell you that you need to use Omnisphere.
As far as a slow Mac goes I can't help you.
But I use a fast M.2 and 4GHz i7.
I am so impressed with this synth I will always advise everyone to get this dream come true.

Get a PC built for you and forget the Mac...


----------



## jaeroe (Jun 9, 2015)

I have 6 instances of Omnisphere loaded up and am pretty well loaded up with the rest of the computer on a bunch of demanding Kontakt libraries as well as Zebra, Diva, Bazille, Ace, Alchemy and Hive. It usually performs very well.


----------



## anp27 (Jun 9, 2015)

Thanks for the replies guys, anybody here have a 2.3 i7 running Omnisphere 2? 

I'm going to send an email to Spectrasonics right away.


----------



## anp27 (Jun 9, 2015)

jaeroe @ Tue Jun 09 said:


> I have 6 instances of Omnisphere loaded up and am pretty well loaded up with the rest of the computer on a bunch of demanding Kontakt libraries as well as Zebra, Diva, Bazille, Ace, Alchemy and Hive. It usually performs very well.



Jaeroe, which machine are you using? What processor speed?


----------



## proxima (Jun 9, 2015)

anp27 @ Tue Jun 09 said:


> Thanks for the replies guys, anybody here have a 2.3 i7 running Omnisphere 2?


Again, except within a particular generation of i7, clock speed will not tell you performance. There are _five_ generations of Intel i7 processors. You have an Ivy Bridge (3rd generation) i7 in your (presumably) late 2012 Mac Mini. It's really unfortunate that Spectrasonics listed just a clock speed on their system requirements, as you could have a 3+ Ghz Pentium 4 from like 2005, and that doesn't mean it would run Omnisphere well; one core of your Ivy Bridge i7 would run circles around it.


----------



## jaeroe (Jun 9, 2015)

jaeroe @ Tue Jun 09 said:


> I have it running on a 2.6gHz quad i7 mini 2012. seems like it would have plenty of headroom. if you're running it from on SSD i would think you'd have better luck.


----------



## rgames (Jun 9, 2015)

proxima @ Tue Jun 09 said:


> anp27 @ Tue Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the replies guys, anybody here have a 2.3 i7 running Omnisphere 2?
> ...


I have found that clock speed is, in fact, the dominant CPU factor in DAW performance for a well-configured machine.

For example: my i7 920, i5 2500k and i7 4930k all perform exactly the same (max number of voices, number of plug-ins, number of synths, whatever practical metric you want) when at the same clock speed. Those processors are, what, three generations apart? And vastly different in terms of raw processing power. But modern DAW performance doesn't really depend on processor power - DAW performance depends on the real-time performance of the system, and real-time performance is determined mostly by non-CPU components. The CPU contribution is affected mostly by its clock speed.

Newer processors perform better on benchmarks and processor-intensive tasks like video rendering or computational physics but provide little practical benefit for DAW use (at least not that I've seen demonstrated).

So, bottom line, I think you can expect your 2.3 GHz processor to run like any other 2.3 GHz processor if your intent is to use it as a DAW.

Unfortunately that doesn't answer the question of how well it runs Omnishphere on any given task, it just tells you it's the same as any other 2.3 GHz processor.

rgames


----------



## jcrosby (Jun 9, 2015)

I run it just fine on a 2.4 Ghz 2011 Macbook pro. (16 GB Ram.)

I'm actually running an almost 200 VI "lite" scoring/production template on this laptop with generaly no problems at all (including tons of Play, Kontakt, and 8 part Omnisphere in this same template….) 

Typically fine; it's pretty rare when I'm forced to Bounce In Place…. and more often then not it's a toss up between Play or Omnisphere depending on the cue…


----------



## proxima (Jun 10, 2015)

rgames @ Wed Jun 10 said:


> For example: my i7 920, i5 2500k and i7 4930k all perform exactly the same (max number of voices, number of plug-ins, number of synths, whatever practical metric you want) when at the same clock speed. Those processors are, what, three generations apart? And vastly different in terms of raw processing power. But modern DAW performance doesn't really depend on processor power - DAW performance depends on the real-time performance of the system, and real-time performance is determined mostly by non-CPU components. The CPU contribution is affected mostly by its clock speed.


I mostly agree with you, in the sense that non-CPU components are usually the bottleneck for most people in their overall DAW use. Synths are one of the few items which can be relatively more CPU-intensive. I still dispute the notion that when the CPU _is_ the bottleneck, that clock speed is all that matters. Surely you'll agree that the number of cores matters as well (your i7 4930k has 2 more cores than the other two). More cache, faster memory support, turbo boost, it all matters to some extent, but only when the CPU is the bottleneck. Also - your three processors _do_ have different clock speeds, so to say they have the same performance is to argue that clock speed also doesn't matter.

Bottom line, the OP is almost surely fine. There is nothing magical about a "2.4 Ghz" processor that his/her 2.3 Ghz i7 won't have. But because software is nonreturnable, it's worthwhile checking with Spectrasonics or waiting around here for someone with a less powerful Mac to chime in and say it works fine.


----------



## anp27 (Jun 10, 2015)

jcrosby @ Tue Jun 09 said:


> I run it just fine on a 2.4 Ghz 2011 Macbook pro. (16 GB Ram.)


Hey jcrosby, is that a 2.4 Ghz quad i7?


----------



## rgames (Jun 11, 2015)

proxima @ Wed Jun 10 said:


> Also - your three processors _do_ have different clock speeds, so to say they have the same performance is to argue that clock speed also doesn't matter.


As I mentioned above, the comparison was made at the same clock speed. It was around 3.8 GHz IIRC.

The i5 will run at 4.4 GHz and, at that speed, performs a bit better than the other two because they can't hit that clock speed. Not a lot, but a bit. The CPU usage on the i5 is quite a bit higher than either of the i7s but you can get slightly more voices out of it than the i7s. When the i7s start to crackle they're at something like 20% CPU usage vs something like 50% on the i5. Again, the i5 has higher CPU usage but performs better because of the higher clock speed.

Clock speed is also the reason why you see posts from people with dual-Xeon systems with 32 threads that perform like crap for DAW use: sure, there's a lot of CPU power there but the Xeon clock speeds are a lot lower and, therefore, not as good for DAW use because the real-time performance is a lot worse.

rgames


----------



## jcrosby (Jun 12, 2015)

Yup. Late 2011, 2.4 Quad MBP… (Still on 10.8 )

Running VE Pro 5 and Logic X. (But hosting Omnisphere 2 in Logic without any issues.)

IO buffer size is important working on a laptop. I'm at 256 on the MBP, it's the best balance between playability and efficiency I've found on this machine… Regardless the specs listed should be totally fine… 

(I also haven't gone near 10.9 or 10.10 so I can't speak to whether they'll offer any boost or bottleneck in terms of performance…. all I know is ML has been solid for me and I don't feel a dire need to step into Mavericks or Yosemite for my needs on this machine…)


----------



## anp27 (Jun 30, 2015)

I finally got Omnisphere 2 

Turns out I can run about 50 instances of Omnisphere with a medium patch plus some light weight mixing plugins on my machine, although in reality I would only really use a maximum of 10 Omnis at a clip as a multi output instrument. I set the audio buffer to 256 samples. 

Really happy with most of the sounds so far. Granular synthesis is very CPU heavy and I hope this is something that they improve upon in future updates. Other than that, I hope zero complaints about this thing, I'm just really blown away by it..


----------



## Vastman (Jun 30, 2015)

Hey, anp27... glad you're enjoying it. As Skippy notes (pluginguru), Omnisphere2 can bring literally any cpu to it's knees, and some of his new airwave patches do indeed do that. Just gotta stay away from some of the patches...


----------



## woodsdenis (Jun 30, 2015)

Eric Persing has said in the past that clock speed as opposed to cores is more important for Omnisphere.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (Jun 30, 2015)

Truth is that Omnisphere is quite cpu friendly with normal use. But when you turn on the new granular engine, it's absolutely absurd. If it used only half the cpu that it does now, it would still be many times more cpu use that comparable granular synths out there.

Without using granular, my computer might use 5-10% of a single core. Granular takes up an entire core and causes crackles when playing chords. Granular synthesis has been around a while and never been particularly cpu hungry. So this is disappointing to say the least. I've also heard people say the convolution effect is really demanding. So I guess using both together is out of the question usually. But without those, no worries.


----------



## anp27 (Jun 30, 2015)

Thanks for the insight guys!


----------

