# Buy a Mac Pro now or should I wait?



## Shantar (Feb 16, 2009)

Basically, I´ve saved up about 7000USD to buy myself a new Mac Pro. I really want to buy a state of the art computer this time, but I fear Apple will release a new set of Mac Pros anytime soon with improves cpu etc... I just wondered if it would be wise of me to wait a few months or if I should just jump right into it and get me one now. I just don´t want to know that if I waited 6 more months I could have bought their new line of Mac Pros. It´s no hurry for me buying a new computer, I just have to limit myself to working on my MBP which really limits my compositions and creativity. Waiting for something that might come out this year or maybe the next or the next after would be stupid I know.. Is there anyone here that knows anything about a future Mac Pro release date? I read "early 2009" at some Mac-forum but nothing official from Apple at this time..

-C


----------



## Colin O'Malley (Feb 16, 2009)

http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/

I generally watch this when I'm buying and it is usually pretty accurate. According to the buyers guide, Mac Pro's were updated 405 days ago and the average update happens every 217 days. Troels is right, it's not like the new ones are going to change your life from the current gen, but I'd probably wait if you can. 

Colin


----------



## Shantar (Feb 16, 2009)

Thanks Troels. I did a search just now and there seems to be no info about a new Mac Pro, just rumors...

I´m still a bit uncertain about how much RAM I should get though. Would OS Leopard be able to utilize 32 GB RAM? When Kontakt goes 64-bit, will I be able to use Mac Pros maximum amount of RAM if I use Kontakt in standalone mode with Cubase 4? All this info and my own uncertainty about the tech-stuff is killing my inspiration and will to write music...


----------



## Colin O'Malley (Feb 16, 2009)

Folmann, 

I'm shadowing all your forum posts, regardless of the topic. If Troels posts Colin will follow....

Colin


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 16, 2009)

Hey Shantar,

what I learned during all my years while working with computers is, that there will be ALWAYS new stuff a few weeks/months ahead. If you wait for a new generation, then there will be an even newer generation of computers and this is a neverending cycle. Of course if someone announced something which is already done and on it's way to the resellers etc. then I would wait, but apart from that? No 

I found some decent ways to work around the 64bit problem and I am able to use all of my 8GB of RAM and looking forward to upgrade to 16GB soon.

1. OS X got a very cool audio card routing system incl. setting up virtual soundcards and therefore make use of standalone version wrapped into the sequencer (Jack OS, Soundflower. I would recommend Soundflower with Clock set to SF itself, otherwise you might encounter sizzles and noise after a few minutes of using)

2. VSL Ensemble makes use of external RAM and therefore doesn't use the RAM of your sequencer. That means like +2 GB for your work

3. Bidule etc. can hold another 2GB of RAM and you can integrate it to your sequencer with Rewire. +2GB

4. If you use Cubase you can also wrap up older Kompakt libs such as EWQLSO Gold etc. to make also use of external 2GB ... so +2GB more! 

5. Yeah yeah, beat me all to death but I have big sucess with PLAY in Logic. I can load up like 3,5GB or so in Logic until it starts to get unstable and crashes (as any other sampler too)

So all in all you are able to make use of a lots of RAM and therefore you won't be limited in terms of creativity process.

My current template isn't the biggest around, but I have all what I need so far to write some decent basic stuff. It currently hosts VSL Ensemble, PLAY, Kontakt via Bidule and EXS. No crashes, no glitches, just creative and easy work process.

Only thing you have to take care of is to load Bidule separately from your project. But you can set Bidule to like default template with all your stuff. Therefore you just have to save it once to your project folder and you're set.


... and just in case 64bit might hit K3, VSL and PLAY soon, you will have lots of freedom though, but until that these are some good workarounds.

Besides all as far as I can read on Colins experiences, there is Audioport by AI which seems to run flawless. So lots of options there until 64bit is out without rwasting additional RAM


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Feb 16, 2009)

Shantar,

for several reasons I'd wait a little. There are a lot of rumors and nothing official but I think that the rumors can be trusted.

The next MP will be based on Core i7 Server-class CPU that are "imminent":
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/11/mac ... -imminent/

These CPUs are said to bring a significant performace boost especially at low latency settings. Also new will be DDR-3 RAM that will run in groups of three and this also is said to improve RAM Access times. 

As you're on Cubase which still isn't 64-Bit on Mac and probably won't be for at least half a year - there's no hurry anyway.

A good reason to buy right now is that the new model will probably be more expensive due to the new RAM architecture and CPU.

But I am waiting for the new thing and then my Mac (for the first time... >8o )

Greets,
Andreas


----------



## Shantar (Feb 16, 2009)

Thanks Alex for the info. Just one more question though: When Kontakt 3 goes 64 bit, would I be able to use it as a VST within C4 or would I have to use it as a standalone in order to utilize the maximum amount of RAM? Cubase 5 is going to be 64 bit for MAC but not until a future update, I´ve read. Why can´t software developers try to be up to date with computer h/w? :/


----------



## Shantar (Feb 16, 2009)

Andreas, I´m tempted to do so; to wait for the software to catch up with the hardware so that I don´t have to worry about 64 bit or not 64 bit. At least I could spend my next months saving up even more to make sure I can afford whatever price they decide to put on the new line of MP.


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 16, 2009)

Shantar @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> Thanks Alex for the info. Just one more question though: When Kontakt 3 goes 64 bit, would I be able to use it as a VST within C4 or would I have to use it as a standalone in order to utilize the maximum amount of RAM? Cubase 5 is going to be 64 bit for MAC but not until a future update, I´ve read. Why can´t software developers try to be up to date with computer h/w? :/



Sorry, forgot to mention that. As far as I know there isn't even a release date or a rumor that 64bit will be available on OSX. I was kinda tired of Steinberg leaving their MAC customers "in the dark" and changed to Logic and I am more than happy. Still no 64bit thought, but it runs so much smoother, but sorry I lost track )

Basically everything has to be 64bit to make 64bit work 100%. Means if Cubase would be 64bit and Kontakt3 too, then you are able to run more than 2GB. If you have Cubase on 64bit but still 32bit Kontakt it would be wrapped and still use 2GB, but I doubt you can run a 64bit sampler inside a 32bit sequencer


----------



## Shantar (Feb 16, 2009)

Thanks for clearing that up for me.  I appreciate. I feel kind of stupid asking all these silly questions on a forum like this. (One would expect I should know these things) I´ve been working with music on computers for 10 years but I have to admit I´m really far behind when it comes to all this technical stuff, haha  OK, so 64 needs 64 to be 64. Thats 64x3=192 and I get it now.  hehe, just kidding!


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Feb 16, 2009)

I think Steinberg has to re-program the whole thing as apple changed some carbon framework for a cocoa framework, or whatever...it's really too bad as the whole 64-bit thing is pretty close.

Alex, you figured out some great workarounds - BUT: I don't want no more workarounds, I rather work with what I have and then switch to a system that needs no workarounds ... ah when will this day finally come :cry:


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 16, 2009)

mcmace @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> I think Steinberg has to re-program the whole thing as apple changed some carbon framework for a cocoa framework, or whatever...it's really too bad as the whole 64-bit thing is pretty close.
> 
> Alex, you figured out some great workarounds - BUT: I don't want no more workarounds, I rather work with what I have and then switch to a system that needs no workarounds ... ah when will this day finally come :cry:



I know, I think Apple is the main problem here, but well. I think they just focusing on Windows versions first, since you can see that Cubase is definitely Windows oriented. When I opened Logic and worked with it for a few days I couldn't believe how fluid everything can be )

Well, regarding the workarounds. The only workaround is Bidule 
As for PLAY and VSL you simply load your stuff and go as with K3 or any other sampler. The difference is that VSL loads external RAM only but is used as a VSTi. So basically there is not difference. It is just a matter what you use generally.

I all the time used Kontakt only, since it was THE sampler, but as I figured how RAM friendly EXS is, I loaded all stuff which is not legato script related (such as crescendi or TS1 in general) into it and save lots of power. Same with PLAY.

Try to load 16 fully packed Kontakt instances into your sequencer ... at least after the 4th or 5th instance it starts whining )


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Feb 16, 2009)

So basically it's going to be a big improvement to use a Mac even without Cubendo being 64-bit!?! Kontakt 3.5 should be here within the next few months, so will the Mac Pros probably and THAT'S going to be the time when you get daily emails from me about how get this darn thing running :D


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 16, 2009)

mcmace @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> So basically it's going to be a big improvement to use a Mac even without Cubendo being 64-bit!?! Kontakt 3.5 should be here within the next few months, so will the Mac Pros probably and THAT'S going to be the time when you get daily emails from me about how get this darn thing running :D



Then we still need the sequencer also at 64bit and then the sky is the limit ... hopefully!


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Feb 16, 2009)

Yeah and the the HDs are the next bottleneck, but then when there are only flash-drives...then there will be something else :D

What a luck it is that I am still able to make music with my old Core 2 Duo PC!


----------



## Shantar (Feb 16, 2009)

Guys, I have a final question. I´ve read that OS Leopard is 64 bit, is this correct? A couple of my friends told me you could not run 32-bit software on 64 bit OS. Is this correct? If so, it would be impossible to run Cubase 4 on a Leopard OS since C4 is 32? I think this sounds incorrect. These, my friends, are running a studio but I don´t consider them very reliable in terms of computer knowledge. They´d just talked to a computer "expert" who´d told them this... I always thought you could run 32 bit in a 64 bit environment but then it would be 32 bit and not 64? Get it? Are there anything else I should know with regards to using 32 bit on 64 bit and vice versa?


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 16, 2009)

Leopard is a 64bit OSX, but you can run 32bit software on it.
Currently EVERYONE who is on Leopard does that, since there is NO sequencer on 64bit or hardly any other software.

Logics EXS sampler got kinda of a 64bit function since it uses also external RAM somehow (not sure exactly how, but it does).

I don't know about Windows, but regarding OSX what your friends told you is plain wrong.
Before they assume something like it, they should at least have just spend like 5 minutes in the Cubase forum and check out the OSX section. You see tons of threads about Leopard and Cubase 4.

Besides that I worked with C4 on Leopard since it's release.


... and hopefully I never meet such a computer expert


----------



## Shantar (Feb 16, 2009)

Hehe.. Thanks againg Alex. I´ll stay away from this expert as well.  They´re not using Cubase, btw, they are using Protools, and they´re not on Mac but on PC. Anyways; I´m glad I got that cleared up...


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 16, 2009)

Shantar @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> Hehe.. Thanks againg Alex. I´ll stay away from this expert as well.  They´re not using Cubase, btw, they are using Protools, and they´re not on Mac but on PC. Anyways; I´m glad I got that cleared up...



You welcome. Maybe that would be something good for my next tutorial on my website


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 16, 2009)

Shantar @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> Basically, I´ve saved up about 7000USD to buy myself a new Mac Pro. I really want to buy a state of the art computer this time, but I fear Apple will release a new set of Mac Pros anytime soon with improves cpu etc... I just wondered if it would be wise of me to wait a few months or if I should just jump right into it and get me one now. I just don´t want to know that if I waited 6 more months I could have bought their new line of Mac Pros. It´s no hurry for me buying a new computer, I just have to limit myself to working on my MBP which really limits my compositions and creativity. Waiting for something that might come out this year or maybe the next or the next after would be stupid I know.. Is there anyone here that knows anything about a future Mac Pro release date? I read "early 2009" at some Mac-forum but nothing official from Apple at this time..
> 
> -C




check out www.macrumors.com

and other sites there seems to be a new mac pro coming out on the end of march. 
new design and new intel processor thats is way faster. 
most of the stuff in the site they nailed it. and i think is time for a new mac pro. 
im in the same boat, ready to buy but waiting till the end of march. (feb is very short 

and apple will never say it will release something new in advance because then no one wil buy the older version.


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 16, 2009)

gsilbers @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> ... and i think is time for a new mac pro.



Just to be curious, but this sounds as you already have a Mac Pro and want to get a new one? Did you already maxed out your "old" one. I have one of the first generation and still it doesn't make efficient use of all cores and RAM


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 16, 2009)

Wayyn is right.

You can't really time Apple product releases any more than you can time the stock market, so the answer is always the same: if your present computer is getting strained to the point that you need a new one, then you upgrade. Otherwise you wait.

The thing is, the present 8-core machines have plenty of power that the software we use isn't harnessing as well as it could yet. And I believe that we've passed a threshold where each new machine made the previous one look silly.

Going back to 1985, I used to upgrade Macs every couple of years. My past two machines were okay for 3 and 3-1/2 years respectively. And I sold the last one, a 2x2.5GHz G5, for almost half what I paid for it.

Now, I'm not saying that the 8-core I'm using now isn't way ahead of the G5, just that the next generation probably isn't going to blow it away.

Also, you don't need $7000 for a Mac unless you choose the 8x3.2GHz one and buy your RAM and drives from Apple. If you get your drives and RAM elsewhere and stick with the 8x2.8, you'll end up spending half that.


----------



## Shantar (Feb 16, 2009)

So you are telling me I should buy a 8x2.8 instead of 8x3.2? Is it really not worth it getting the fastest cpu? I was planning on buying hard drives from Apple, but not the RAM. It would be nice to be able to not spend all my savings on a new Mac. The one I tried configured on Apple Store was approx. 5600USD. This is with only 2 GB RAM, but with 4 HD of 750GB each, and of course the fastest cpu available. However, configuring a similar Mac Pro without the extra HDs and 8x2.8 brings me down to only 2849USD, which is bloody cheap!  I´m very confused now. I guess I would like to know if there would be a very notable difference between what I could expect from a 8x2.8 versus a 8x3.2


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 16, 2009)

I personally don't think it's worth $1600 for the faster processors, no. And the standard-issue 1TB drive they're selling is $300 vs. $90 - $130 elsewhere.

RAM is thousands of dollars (literally) cheaper elsewhere. For example:

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory


----------



## Shantar (Feb 16, 2009)

Hmmm.... I´m going to reconsider spending all that money. Thanks for your input Nick.  After all, the extra $$$$ saved would be nice to have if I should want to buy some new libraries.  Regarding HDs: Are there any specific hard drives I should choose or would any SATA drive do? Taking into consideration I´m going to stream from HD I would need a solid HD.


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Feb 16, 2009)

As you're in Europe check out http://www.cyberport.de (www.cyberport.de)
They have a "Mac Pro Configurator" and they even put 1,5 TB drives in it if you want.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 16, 2009)

The main thing with hard drives is to avoid Seagates - but only at the moment, not forever. They have a bad batch of firmware, as discussed in another thread here.


----------



## Leon Willett (Feb 16, 2009)

mcmace @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> As you're in Europe check out http://www.cyberport.de (www.cyberport.de)
> They have a "Mac Pro Configurator" and they even put 1,5 TB drives in it if you want.



can you link that "Mac Pro Configurator", please? I'm having trouble navigating the german site


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 16, 2009)

I have been watching Mac Rumors as well. Since it's true that having that extra processing power isn't really necessary might it still be a good idea to wait since the price of the current Mac Pros will come down? Nick?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 16, 2009)

Absolutely.

It's always a little bit of a gamble. Maybe a new machine will come out right after you buy yours, maybe you'll time it right, maybe you'll wait and wait for a new machine that isn't a lot better than the previous model, maybe the new machine will force you to update all your software and hardware....you know how it goes with Mac purchases.


----------



## Aaron Dirk (Feb 16, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Feb 16 said:


> you know how it goes with Mac purchases.


Usually it's money well spent  

My 8 year old powerbook is a few days away from retirement (no kidding :lol
The only app that gets used on it these days is Bias Peak
but even with just that, it still gets used a lot
I paid $3600 for it new, man did I ever get my monies worth!
Shortly after I picked it up, the G4 Powerbooks rolled out.
That's ok, I was still lavished in envy for the time being
and I had no regrets for not waiting for the newer ones


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Feb 17, 2009)

> can you link that "Mac Pro Configurator", please? I'm having trouble navigating the german site



http://www.cyberport.de/default/7612/1037/0/0/mac-pro-konfigurator.html (http://www.cyberport.de/default/7612/10 ... rator.html)


----------



## kgdrum (Feb 17, 2009)

yes these posts about future Mac Pro's are speculative,but it would be very hard for me to believe Apple wouldn't embrace this technology,as it offers so much future potential.
I do think the reason (yes I am speculating)Snow Leopard was announced so soon is, Apple saw the writing on the wall and decided they need to change and fix Leo to take advantage of the new Nehalem chips.
I think they realized Leopard as it is now ,would need to be rewritten to take advantage of the new architecture.
It does make sense that this all seems to be percolating at the same time.
Snow Leopard,Nehalem,64 bit : it all looks very cool.
I can't believe Apple will just sit on their hands while the PC community embraces this very powerful new technology.
if you go to Gearslutz there are posts from people who make PC's who have the new chips(Scott from ADK ) he is a very reputable PC manufacturer. 
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-co ... nsane.html
quoting Scott from ADK

"i have a Core i7 Xeon here right now they are real and do exsist.

yes Apple will of course move to this immediately, they cant allow a PC to be faster.

i haved no clue about the case swap as Apple dont tell us jack about nothing.
i find out here before Apple tells me squat...


i can buy processors right now but not mobos.... odd "

Scott
ADK




This all looks incredible ,lets hope some of the speculation comes true,we will all be very happy!


----------



## Shantar (Feb 17, 2009)

Guess who just bought a Mac Pro 8x2.8? Thats right. I decided waiting anymore was not an option for me. I guess I had become sort of used to working on my MBP but being without a dedicated studio computer for 6 months I´m pretty fed up with the limitations. Maybe Apple will announce their new top of the line next week, next month or who knows when. I´ve decided not to regret.  I also bought two Samsug SpinPoint F1 1TB and I´m putting an order on some more RAM later this evening. Going to go with 4x4 to so I could easilly upgrade to 32 if I should ever need to.


----------



## Hal (Feb 17, 2009)

Shantar @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> Maybe Apple will announce their new top of the line next week, next month or who knows when.



this is why they never say what is coming next and when so that u just buy what u need and dont wait.

i dont think ur gonna regret a 8x2.8 for a couple of years even if the next generation will be tomorrow :D


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Feb 17, 2009)

Oh, You'll feel so stupid when my Mac Pro runs 988 instances of Altiverb and yours only 577!!! :twisted: 

So how much did you spend? :D


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 17, 2009)

Hal @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> Shantar @ Tue Feb 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe Apple will announce their new top of the line next week, next month or who knows when.
> ...



wanted to add that... i have 8core 3ghz for around 2 years now and I simply still cant max it out. so i guess i wont need to upgrade for another 2 or 3 years from now.

i mean of course if you put like 10 L316 or 5 voxengo plugs with "8x" setting, sure .. but who needs that in one mastering setup or during arranging.


----------



## ComposerDude (Feb 17, 2009)

If you keep in mind that what you're actually buying into is a SYSTEM, one that must be reliable especially when you're working on tight deadlines, then it's exciting but dicey to buy the very newest Mac (or any brand) when it's still very new. Because everything else has to work with it properly.


----------



## Hal (Feb 17, 2009)

mcmace @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> Oh, You'll feel so stupid when my Mac Pro runs 988 instances of Altiverb and yours only 577!!! :twisted:
> 
> So how much did you spend? :D




haha thats funny looks like i shoudnt be happy at all with my 16 altiverb instance


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Feb 17, 2009)

You'll never NEVER get the sound with THAT!!! Where can you go from there? Where? Nowhere, exactly :D 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d54UU-fPIsY


----------



## synthetic (Feb 17, 2009)

I believe I posted this to another thread, but here's a few places to watch for new Mac Pro rumors. 

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=635530
http://macosrumors.com/

I have money saved up for the new model and decided to wait. It appears that it will be released between March and June. Hopefully closer to March.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 17, 2009)

What ComposerDude says is absolutely right. Over the years I've often had to buy the previous model just for that reason - especially during the days when Pro Tools was the only game in town.

Aaron wrote:



> "you know how it goes with Mac purchases.
> 
> Usually it's money well spent
> 
> ...



Yup. I finally upgraded to a MacBook Pro the summer before last, but the G4-upgraded Pismo PowerBook I bought in 2000 is working fine and I still use it for for running an OS 9 editor/librarian.

Laptops are a different category as far as I'm concerned. They've become powerful enough to be useful for music, but I don't use them as my main machines.

However I agree that Macs are money well spent. I've actually never had subsequent-new-model-induced buyer's remorse.


----------



## Leon Willett (Feb 17, 2009)

mcmace @ Tue Feb 17 said:


> > can you link that "Mac Pro Configurator", please? I'm having trouble navigating the german site
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cyberport.de/default/7612/1037/0/0/mac-pro-konfigurator.html (http://www.cyberport.de/default/7612/10 ... rator.html)



Thanks man! :D


----------



## ComposerDude (Feb 18, 2009)

From Wired.com:

"Apple slows down Mac upgrades, in sync with economy"
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/02/m ... es-sl.html

EDIT: and wouldn't you know it, two weeks later this thread comes alive again because...


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Mar 3, 2009)

Just to relive the discussion and speculation:

The Apple Store is down. http://store.apple.com/de
We are busy updating the store .... man I really should be working right now :D



...F5...F5...F5...F5...F5...F5...F5...F5...F5...F5...F5...F5...F5...F5...F5...F5...F5...F5...


----------



## wonshu (Mar 3, 2009)

Buy now!


----------



## synthetic (Mar 3, 2009)

Yeah, they're finally announced. Credit card, locked and loaded. 

Note that the 8-core supports way more memory than the quad-core: 32GB vs 8GB. That could be significant once 10.6 ships and we start loading up VIs.


----------



## cc64 (Mar 3, 2009)

5899$ for the top-of-the-line model?!? 7000$ in Canada >8o 

That's without extras...

Isn't it way more than what the previous TOTL model cost?

Best,

CC


----------



## Shantar (Mar 3, 2009)

I still don´t regret buying an "old" new Mac Pro just a couple of weeks ago. I have 18GB RAM installed and eagerly waiting for all my software to go 64bit. The new Mac Pro quad-core with only 8GB seems like a big step backwards imho.


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Mar 3, 2009)

What I don't get is that the RAM is supposed to work best in groups of three. So how come that it supports up to 32 GB, I mean 32/3=10,666666666 ... ???


----------



## Shantar (Mar 3, 2009)

I actually read a lot of frustration from people on different Mac forums regarding the new model. I´m glad I did run to my local Apple retailer and got their last Mac Pro in stock.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Mar 3, 2009)

Regarding RAM, after reading about it a bit this morning on Mac forums, I saw this:

If you have 3 DIMMs or 6 DIMMs, you get tri-channel RAM (ca. 19GB/sec)
If you have 2 DIMMs, 4 DIMMs, or 8 DIMMs, you get dual-channel RAM (ca. 13GB/sec).

This whole move to the new chips seems somewhat arcane.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 3, 2009)

Is this a life-changing update?

Computer years used to be 20 years, so a 3-1/2 year old computer was like a 70 year old man - still sentient and able to do a lot, but not able to compete in professional athletic events (which is what we ask or machines to do). Right now I think computer years are more like 15 years.

20 is the new 15, in other words.


----------



## artsoundz (Mar 3, 2009)

this is weird- if you add 16gb of memory you add $500. If you add 32gb you add $6500!!!

Typo?


----------



## artinro (Mar 3, 2009)

Jack Weaver @ Tue Mar 03 said:


> Regarding RAM, after reading about it a bit this morning on Mac forums, I saw this:
> 
> If you have 3 DIMMs or 6 DIMMs, you get tri-channel RAM (ca. 19GB/sec)
> If you have 2 DIMMs, 4 DIMMs, or 8 DIMMs, you get dual-channel RAM (ca. 13GB/sec).
> ...



Jack, so does this mean that 24gigs would be the max you could have on one of these machines if you wanted to get tri-channel? It certainly seems strange that apple would have it so that the maximum amount of ram would yield worse performance.


----------



## Shantar (Mar 3, 2009)

Maybe it is because 16GB is 8x2GB (and obviously 4x4GB) whereas 32GB on a Mac Pro is physically restricted to 8x4GB. Just my guess. But I agree its a rather expensive leap from 16 to 32.


----------



## artsoundz (Mar 3, 2009)

yeah-it's weird. And for the first time. the apple ram upgrade seemed reasonable up until 32.


----------



## JT3_Jon (Mar 3, 2009)

Are these "Nehalem" chips another name for the the Core i7 chips? If not, does this set back the seemingly eventual transition to Core i7 chips, which are suppose to revolutionize the industry?

Also, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but is the max size of an internal drive 1TB? Aren't we up to 2TB drives already? http://www.apple.com/macpro/features/storage.html


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 3, 2009)

That sounds like something you'd hear at a synagogue.


----------



## artinro (Mar 3, 2009)

JT3_Jon @ Tue Mar 03 said:


> Are these "Nehalem" chips another name for the the Core i7 chips?



The Nehalem's are the Xeon (workstation) versions of the i7s.


----------



## tgfoo (Mar 3, 2009)

Has anyone been able to find benchmarks of the new 8 core 2.26 vs. the old 8 core 2.8? I've been looking around, but I can't find any information on the new 2.26 processors. Also, I'm a kinda disappointed that they decided to limit the 4 core machines to only 8 gigs of ram. But then, with them removing firewire from all of there lower end machines, I guess it doesn't really surprise me that much.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 3, 2009)

Benchmarks will tell you nothing. You need to load it up with a bunch of sample libraries to get a meaningful picture of what it will do.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 3, 2009)

They used to list Logic Pro benchmarks on the Mac Pro benchmark page, but they aren't listed this time around. Meaning either a) most people don't care b) they haven't gotten around to it or c) it's WORSE than the previous generation. I'd believe any one of those.


----------



## David A (Mar 3, 2009)

Hopefully the price of the 'old Mac Pros' (i.e. Quadcore 2.8GHz) will come down now these new Nehalem machines are out......


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 3, 2009)

yep, those benchmarks seemed to be more for rendering purposes. seems that apple's high end computer is more for video use. and laptop and imac for the music side.. of course.. im talking about the garageband crowd. thus, the marketing is for that. 

all i know is that my g5 is crapping out with plugins that are not logic ones and AU instruments.


----------



## cc64 (Mar 4, 2009)

cc64 @ Tue Mar 03 said:


> 5899$ for the top-of-the-line model?!? 7000$ in Canada >8o
> 
> That's without extras...
> 
> ...



Bump.

Am i dreaming or the new TOTL MacPros way more expensive than the prvious line?

Best,

CC


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Mar 4, 2009)

You're not dreaming, they are ridiculously expensive and I am wondering who will ever buy such a computer. ~o)


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 4, 2009)

Andreas Moisa @ Wed Mar 04 said:


> You're not dreaming, they are ridiculously expensive and I am wondering who will ever buy such a computer. ~o)




i will  

i bought a mac book in 1999 when it was "expensive" and i am still using it! 

i also bout a mac g5 in 2002 and will replace it just because im upgrading to do pro post work . andill need the horse power. 

i buy models that just come out so they last longer. beacuue every 3 years there is a new generation of chips/ram etc so buying a new model will last me a couple of "new generations until just yuou need to upgrade due to plugins, os's, hardware compaitbality etc. 

not saying that thats what everyone should do , its imo. you casn go with the refurbiusuhed or older model mac pro 4 core and still have a good computer for a while.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 4, 2009)

"every 3 years there is a new generation of chips/ram etc"

I think it's more frequent than that; the question is how long before a computer is too old to run the current software. As I posted above, it used to be about two years in my opinion, and now I think it's over three.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 4, 2009)

It's expensive because it's the Porsche of computers.


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Mar 4, 2009)

> It's expensive because it's the Porsche of computers.



Oh cool, a car analogy :D So then I'm waiting to buy my Porsche when the Autobahn is clear of bottlenecks! And maybe we'll see some price drops meanwhile.

I admit I want one, too and I was willing to spend like 5500,- EUR - but 8000,- or more for the top model? I don't know. Not before Snow Leopard and Nuendo 5.

gsilbers, I'm curious of your "field report"!


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 4, 2009)

i couldnt find the memory for the new mac.. 

well the tpo of the line 

4GB 1066MHz DDR3 ECC for the 32 gb limit ... 

besides being in apple.com when you configure it, i couldnt find it, which sucks cause id like to upgrade the ram little by little. but get one pieace of this ram and then next year more. but in the apple site is like 3 grand!!! >8o 
we al know its better to buy ram somewhere else


----------



## CFDG (Mar 5, 2009)

I usually buy Mac RAM from OWC, they are pretty cheap (only one 2GB chip died from a 32GB batch lately, instant replacement). I'm pretty sure they already got some 2009 MacPros dimms.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 5, 2009)

I'm stuck in the PC world still but might use a dual boot someday.
But as far as having the same hardware to run a laptop I really like the power these guys at Eurocom provide in their desktop replacements.

Check out the EUROCOM D900F PHANTOM i7 laptop.

That Dog'll Hunt... 8)


----------



## amplayer (Mar 5, 2009)

gsilbers @ Wed Mar 04 said:


> all i know is that my g5 is crapping out with plugins that are not logic ones and AU instruments.



I think that's more of a Logic issue. I have 3rd party plugins that won't run in Logic 8.02 on my G5 but that run fine in MOTU DP 5.13.
Also, I don't know if you've notice, but if you set your samples buffer to anything higher than 256 (like 512) in Logic, the latency makes playing unusable. However, this same latency (of 512) in ANY other DAW feels just fine.

Besides that, for my own use, I have determined that Logic is not well suited for large projects, especially if they involve using lots of 3rd party plugins like orchestral samplers. Logic's "pack folder" feature is completely brain-dead compared to DP, and IMHO, track folders are essential for large projects.

It seems to me that Logic is best for creating Pop songs.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 5, 2009)

Which plug-ins and samplers, amplayer? It may well be that some plug-ins are more efficient in DP than in Logic, but a generic statement that a 5-year-old computer isn't to blame seems a little wild.

And you have to remember that different people find different ways of working with large projects regardless of the sequencer.


----------



## amplayer (Mar 5, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 05 said:


> Which plug-ins and samplers, amplayer? It may well be that some plug-ins are more efficient in DP than in Logic, but a generic statement that a 5-year-old computer isn't to blame seems a little wild.
> 
> And you have to remember that different people find different ways of working with large projects regardless of the sequencer.



1) I bought my Dual G5 in August of 2005, so that makes it 3 1/2 years old, not 5.
2) EW Play is not usable in Logic, but run standalone fine, and runs fine in DP.
3) EVERY plugin on my system is unusable with a buffer size of 512 in Logic due to the latency. However, setting to 512 in DP, or Reason, or the equivalent amount in Ableton Live is still fine.

Yes, anyone can work with any fully featured sequencer, but different ones have different strengths. Having used several of them, it is my opinion that large projects are unduly cumbersome to do with Logic. Primarily that is because of the brain-dead track folders, but also it is much more of a hassle to set up colors for tracks. Also, when you want to line up the MIDI note-off events with the note-on events that come after them (i.e., for legato), there is no easy way to do it in Logic. These and several other seemingly simple items are a big deal for big projects.

Don't get me wrong. I like Logic. In general, I go to Logic before my other choices for most small and medium projects. However, for a big orchestral project, I have found Logic lacking.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 5, 2009)

I thought I was talking about gshantar's G5 (he started this thread), but actually I was wrong - it was gsilber whose G5 is five years old.

Yes, EW Play works much better in Logic on an Intel Mac (it is usable in the Intel, by the way - it strains the G5). I haven't run tests on it in DP on a G5 and won't get to, since I sold the G5.

At one point Logic was more efficient with third-party plug-ins and especially V.I.s overall, but MOTU has improved DP6 in that area so all bets are off. That was one of the areas they focused on in the update.

Either way, the Intel Mac does considerably better than the G5 with anything you run on it - which isn't to say that it's unlimited, but it is a big step forward. I had my G5 for 3-1/2 years too, a record for a main desktop machine for me.

Now, I'm not taking anything away from DP and am not saying Logic is better - I think anyone would be very happy with either one. But I disagree with what you're saying about Logic not being good at big projects.

The track folders feature is only one way of managing lots of instruments. Another way is to have lots of channel strips loaded up with instruments in your Logic template, but assign them to tracks in the Arrange window as needed. I have a screenset with a narrow Arrange window on the left and...well, basically my mixer window, a huge Environment layer containing these instruments and other things, on the right. So I select the target track in the Arrange window, then command-click on the instrument on the right to assign it to that track for auditioning.

That's my way of working, since I prefer to deal with only the tracks I'm using rather than having lots of unused ones in my template. But there are certainly other ways of dealing with large projects. For example, you could have an Arrange window with packed folders in your template - say all the strings, all the winds, etc. - and then set up individual screensets with the one you want to work on. So you might hit 3 to get at your strings.

I think that would work, but if not I know you can set up screensets that are scrolled to the position you want. So you'd hit 3 and the strings starting on track 170 would be at the top of the screen.

Also, check out the Functions->Note Events->Note Force Legato command in the local window of any editor; there are two variations (one that extends the selected note to the following one, another that extends it to whichever one you've selected, i.e. it can jump over notes in between). I believe that's what you want to do with the note-offs, and you can use key commands for both varieties.


----------



## JT3_Jon (Mar 5, 2009)

amplayer @ Thu Mar 05 said:


> Logic's "pack folder" feature is completely brain-dead compared to DP, and IMHO, track folders are essential for large projects.



I 100% disagree and find Logic pack folder to be an AMAZING resource, one that I greatly rely on! You are trying to use logics folders like DP's folders as a template organizer for tracks, which is not what they are designed to do. Instead, logics folders are designed for REGIONS (not tracks), and act like seperate arrangements, complete with their own seperate automation, mix settings, etc. I personally use these to create seperate versions of film cues, seperate mixes of songs, all in the same project, and can quickly A-B through solo/muting the folder track. 

Logics folders very useful indeed, and hope that Apple will not change there use due to user request. Instead, request a NEW feature for hierarchal TRACK folders in the arrange page, and leave these REGION folders alone. They are not broken, they just do something different than what you want.


----------



## c0mp0ser (Mar 5, 2009)

Don't know if you know this site: http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/

It's a good reference.

UPDATE: nevermind... someone said that already.


----------



## Shantar (Mar 6, 2009)

c0mp0ser @ Fri Mar 06 said:


> Don't know if you know this site: http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
> 
> It's a good reference.
> 
> UPDATE: nevermind... someone said that already.



Thanks. I went back and forth on that website but decided to get last generation Mac Pro two weeks ago, exactly two weeks before the new update was announced. However, I didn´t regret buying it because I feel I got a better deal moneywise and I´ve also upgraded to 18GB RAM, which would be quite more expensive with the new Mac Pro.


----------



## amplayer (Mar 6, 2009)

Shantar @ Fri Mar 06 said:


> c0mp0ser @ Fri Mar 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know if you know this site: http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
> ...



Hey, doesn't Apple have a 30 day return policy? I'm not sure, but I think you could return it and get a current one. It's worth looking into.


----------



## Shantar (Mar 6, 2009)

Well, its not worth it since I´ve used approx. $780 on RAM plus I´d have to pay waaay more to get an 8-core. I´m happy with my purchase.


----------



## amplayer (Mar 6, 2009)

I wonder if anyone is blowing out the old Mac Pros for low prices. I'd be interested in that.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 6, 2009)

midphase @ Thu Mar 05 said:


> I just realized something about the new Mac Pro's which were just released yesterday that you might want to keep in mind (and which Apple is not making abundantly clear).
> 
> Apparently the new Mac Pro Quad 2.66ghz model (the one which goes for $2500) can only be maxed out with 8 gigs of RAM. While 8 gigs might seem like an awful lot right now, I bet it won't be in a year or two, especially if Snow Leopard delivers on true 64bit memory addressing for all apps and plugins.
> 
> ...



Kays is correct. You would be crazy to limit your p[ptential to 8 GB.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 6, 2009)

Furthermore, 8GB doesn't sound like an awful lot to me right now either. 

amplayer, Apple seems to be very good at not allowing the previous week's model to get blown out so the bottom drops out. I believe that's done by controlling the supply in "the channel" very carefully, but there may be more to it than that. You will find those models for less than the new ones, but they won't be at blowout prices. Also, take a look at the Special Deals section on store.apple.com.

The upside of this is that Macs hold their value very well. I sold my 3-1/2 year old G5 for almost half what I paid for it, and I think that's pretty good.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 6, 2009)

I just placed my order for the 8-core Nehalem. :D My wife gets the old G5. Over the last 5 years I switched her from Windows to Mac. 

Eat my dust!


----------



## midphase (Mar 6, 2009)

I'm really interested in seeing some benchmarks on those new machines. Apple claims the new processors to be almost twice as fast. I don't know if I believe that and would like to see some real-world tests.


----------



## ComposerDude (Mar 7, 2009)

It will depend on the mix of processing types, so benchmarks with real-world DAW software/plugins are essential. Nehalem integer ops supposedly are 1.5x faster, floating point 1.9x, and memory bandwidth is 2.4x. This bodes well for plugin effects, reverbs, and generally-CPU-bound stuff. It remains to be seen from benchmarks whether there's an improvement in real-world _disk throughput_ -- if your app is limited by how much data (samples, audio tracks) it can shovel off the disk per second, the uber-CPU would have less impact there.

In practice there should be some speed improvement. But the difference is likely to be less than the step up from a Dual G5 to an 8-core Xeon of the prior generation -- that was around an order of magnitude more horsepower (3-4x per core, and 4x more cores).

Synthetic - if you've been living on a G5 till now, prepare to be blown away by the new machine's performance. The speed difference from a G5 up to a Mac Pro is very impressive and your new machine will push this even further. Awaiting some benchmarks when you have time.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 7, 2009)

Here is a quote from Barefeats preliminary performance analysis:

1. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE CORE CLOCK SPEED
How can a 2.93GHz 8-core Mac Pro be faster than a 3.2GHz 8-core Mac Pro? One word: Architecture. The new "Nehalem" based Mac Pro is a leap forward in several ways.

Based on our extrapolations from Apple's published performance tests, the "early 2009" 2.26GHz 8-core will equal the "early 2008" 3.2GHz 8-core on many benchmarks and the "early 2009" 2.66GHz 8-core will beat it on all benchmarks. In other words, you don't have to spend $6K+ on the 2.93GHz version to beat the fastest "early 2008" Mac Pro.


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Mar 7, 2009)

I have a strange feeling about the new macs. First of all it dosn't make sense that they haven't nine slots for ram so you have a tri-channel config when maxed out. The other is that Snow Leopard is rumored to be released in June and I think there will be a revision of the new model soon - the first 8-core also got an upgrade just a few months later. So to stay on topic - I wait. :D


----------



## midphase (Mar 7, 2009)

I have to agree with what some have said here before that I don't think the CPU is the bottleneck. I think the hard drive is. On my (now aging) Quad 2.66 Mac Pro, I don't think I have ever pushed the processors past the 25% mark. Any time I run into trouble seems to be related to the ability of my various hard drives to deliver the required data to the processor or the ability for my plugins to have access to enough RAM. I am seriously considering getting a RAID SATA card and a RAID external SATA enclosure and I feel that it might have more impact on how things run on my system than a new computer.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 7, 2009)

Hi Kays -- I think you may be right. I recently bought two extra hard drives (Hitachis' three-platter .B ones) and an (annoyingly expensive) metal platform that goes into the Mac Intel quad to hold them, so I now have six hard drives in it. One boot drive, one for recording, one for movie files, and three for samples (though I cheat a little and have some samples on the movie drive).

The mounting device for the extra drives:

http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index ... uct_id=158

The Hitachi disk drives:

http://www.hitachigst.com/portal/site/en/products/deskstar/ (http://www.hitachigst.com/portal/site/e ... /deskstar/)

I hasten to add that I haven't fully stress-tested this out, but I have high hopes that it will address the issue you identified. Allan Leung, who posts a lot at Soundsonline described this setup.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 7, 2009)

> First of all it dosn't make sense that they haven't nine slots for ram so you have a tri-channel config when maxed out. The other is that Snow Leopard is rumored to be released in June and I think there will be a revision of the new model soon - the first 8-core also got an upgrade just a few months later.



This is how the new i7/Nehelam processors work. They also directly access the RAM, rather than going through a combined memory manager. This is the new Intel design which will be with us for the next two years. They will increase the processor speed and make low-power versions, but no new architecture changes for a few years. I've been following this processor's design for about a year. 



> I have to agree with what some have said here before that I don't think the CPU is the bottleneck.



When GigaStudio 3 was released, and polyphony was unlimited, we thought that hard drive speed was going to be the bottleneck. So the techs at RCP (who have a much larger computer budget than TASCAM!) built a super-fast server for GigaStudio performance. They found that hard drive speed wasn't much of a factor – the insane RAID they built didn't increase polyphony very much. CPU changes do increase polyphony performance more than hard drive changes.


----------



## Andreas Moisa (Mar 7, 2009)

> This is how the new i7/Nehelam processors work.



I don't understand this statement. Isn't it more logical to have 9 RAM slots in the Mac Pro instead of 8 ? I'm not saying that a new technology will come soon, but I would think that a 9th slot for 36 GB of tri-channel RAM is possible.
Right now you can use up to 24GB in tri-channel configuration, no?
So where's the benefit of the new technology when maxing out the RAM doesn't make use of it? There are PC Mobos which have 18 Slots.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 7, 2009)

"CPU changes do increase polyphony performance more than hard drive changes."

Then why has it been possible to run 1000 voices from RAM for a few years, while the best you could hope for is maybe 400 when you're streaming? Also, Giga 2 would often choke with the processor at 15%, well before the maximum polyphony was reached.

That's not a rhetorical question - I'm just surprised to hear you say that.


----------



## ComposerDude (Mar 7, 2009)

Disk throughput is not only limited by external RAID vs. non-RAID but by internal data paths between the controller(s) and the CPUs. Perhaps in the RC example they put a screaming-fast RAID on there but the internal data paths could not take advantage of the extra bandwidth...maybe. However, if they were seeing near-100% CPU utilization while hardly pushing the disk hardware, that could strongly indicate a CPU bottleneck. The point is, we need well-designed and accurate profiling to isolate what to focus on, when trying to improve system performance.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 7, 2009)

Going from a RAID to a single SATA drive doesn't seem to make much difference in polyphony, but going from a P4 processor to a Core2Duo makes a huge difference. YMMV.


----------



## ComposerDude (Mar 7, 2009)

Thanks Jeff - much appreciated. That's the sort of specific observation that helps zero in on and remove bottlenecks.


----------

