# New i7 MAc Minis



## gsilbers (Jul 20, 2011)

Damn, they are about as fast as my 2009 mac pro!!!! 

but only 8gb ram. 


but i could use one as a pro tools dubber which used to be a mac w PTHD and expensive I/o


now, in theory, its a mac mini with pro tools 9 with lightbridge connecting to my DAW w adat FF800!!! 
sync via midi overlan 


besides that, it has thunderbold which would be great if u could add more ram to the mac mini so it can be pimped out as a slave farm.


----------



## Stevie (Jul 20, 2011)

Errm, you overlooked a little detail. The Mac Minis use DUAL CORE CPUs. Not quads.


----------



## midphase (Jul 20, 2011)

Errm:

2.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7

(for the Server model)


----------



## Stevie (Jul 20, 2011)

Errrm, okay, that's still only 2 GHz, though...


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 20, 2011)

still pretty fast for a DAW or slave. 

but not enough ram. 

as a secondary computer to do beats, ideas, vsts host and deliverable stems are great. 

ill keep an eye on the benchmark to see how my 2009 stacks up against the new minis, 
or how they porform in general.


----------



## midphase (Jul 20, 2011)

IMHO, the gap between desktop towers and portable/mini computers is narrowing. I have said in the past that I'd be willing to bet that the upcoming Mac Pro refresh will likely be the last one from Apple (with Thunderbolt replacing PCI-e for expansions and peripherals).

I've been thinking that more than likely, my next work machine will be an iMac...perhaps it might be a Mini!

I think the 8gig limit might just be a practical one and not a spec one. My guess is that it has 2 slots for internal RAM...but who's to say that the machine is not capable of a much higher top RAM capacity once 8gig and 16gig RAM becomes widely available?


----------



## SvK (Jul 20, 2011)

those are some killer specs for any machine...

could make a killer HBrass slave

best,
SvK


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 20, 2011)

with only 8 gigs of ram?



is there a way to load samples outside of ram? :? 

would an external drive with thunderbolt would be able to stream as fast or faster than loading samples in ram?

am i way off?


----------



## midphase (Jul 20, 2011)

Keep in mind that with a fast SSD drive in there, the sample buffer size can be smaller and hence 8-gigs of RAM will go a lot further than with a larger buffer and slower drive.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 20, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> Keep in mind that with a fast SSD drive in there, the sample buffer size can be smaller and hence 8-gigs of RAM will go a lot further than with a larger buffer and slower drive.



thats kinda what i am thinking of but what happens if the internal is SSD and external is also SSD with thunderbolt and it is an i7 2.0 or at least i5 2.8, 
would it still that important to load the samples in ram?

like some sort of direct disk streaming bypassing the ram? or just bypassing faster the ram so you only load part of the sample in ram and the rest streams


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 20, 2011)

And they appear to have eliminated the regular MacBook and replaced it with the Air.


----------



## stonzthro (Jul 20, 2011)

Yes, but the MBA is still a little light on the RAM. I was really hoping for an 8GB offering.


----------



## charlieclouser (Jul 20, 2011)

Build-to-order new MacMinis can be had with i7 + 256gb SSD + 8gb RAM. 

Please tell me that this would make a good VEP slave? You could get a six-pack of those suckers for the price of a loaded MacPro. Put HS on one, HB on another, etc. 

Yes, I know we've got Lion issues with VEP and Kontakt, but.... still. I've got my finger hovering over the "add to cart" button on some new 12-cores to sneak in some more SnowLeopard machines before the door slams shut, but heck... 

What is the opinion? A six-pack of Minis or another pair of 12-cores?


----------



## cc64 (Jul 20, 2011)

MacMini i7 2.7Ghz 899$

8 gig kits http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/A ... /DDR3_1333 84,99$

256 G SSD http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDMX240/ 429,99$

Total 8483,99$ For 6 fully loaded Mac Minis

2 12 core MacPros @ 2.66 will cost you 10 548,00$ before the memory upgrades and the SSD drives

In theory, it seems that even if you count the extra VEPRO licenses i think you would be better off with the 6 or 8 new Mac minis... Plus according to Eric Persing the higher the CPU speed the better for VIs. 2.7 for the minis and 2.66 for the MacPros.

Interesting!

Claude


----------



## José Herring (Jul 20, 2011)

charlieclouser @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> Build-to-order new MacMinis can be had with i7 + 256gb SSD + 8gb RAM.
> 
> Please tell me that this would make a good VEP slave? You could get a six-pack of those suckers for the price of a loaded MacPro. Put HS on one, HB on another, etc.
> 
> ...



As I understand it people are not having the best of luck with HS and macs. Still better off getting a PC slave for HS and perhaps even HB.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 20, 2011)

charlieclouser @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> Build-to-order new MacMinis can be had with i7 + 256gb SSD + 8gb RAM.
> 
> Please tell me that this would make a good VEP slave? You could get a six-pack of those suckers for the price of a loaded MacPro. Put HS on one, HB on another, etc.
> 
> ...




u can install snow leopard once u get the mac mini right?

please tell me u can!!!!!! 

i dont like apple FORCED upgrades


----------



## charlieclouser (Jul 20, 2011)

I seriously doubt that the new mini will take snow leopard... After all, it's got a new thunderbolt port, and that configuration won't be supported by SL.


----------



## midphase (Jul 20, 2011)

You sure? I mean Thunderbolt has been released on iMacs and MBP's for several months now, and those computers have been running Snow Leopard.


----------



## charlieclouser (Jul 21, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> You sure? I mean Thunderbolt has been released on iMacs and MBP's for several months now, and those computers have been running Snow Leopard.



No, I'm not sure at all, but I prefer to err on the pessimistic side. I always plan for the worst, so I'm not crushed when it turns out to be the case. That said, I will pick up one of the new minis and see if it can take SL just for fun. 

I know that having three minis would be far less elegant than a single 12-core, and it's not like I'm pinching pennies on my rigs, but I always seem to be scrambling to buy a few more of whatever CPU just got discontinued (12-core Westmere MacPros, for instance) before some new ones come out that require a new OS that won't let me run whatever software I rely on. I'd love to just wait for the new MacPros to come out, but I still rely on PowerCore PCIe for my beloved MasterX5... so I've got to do a little testing on a spare drive on my existing rigs to see if MasterX5 will work under Lion, which I would not be surprised if the new Mac Pros require. Fingers crossed.


----------



## midphase (Jul 21, 2011)

You should see if someone at Gearslutz has some answers for you regarding those plugins.

New Mac Pros are supposedly right around the corner...I guess it depends how much you're hurting for more CPU's.


----------



## midphase (Jul 21, 2011)

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/21/new ... nce-gains/

According to these benchmarks, the new Mac Mini rival an 8-core Mac Pro!


----------



## charlieclouser (Jul 21, 2011)

Yes this is what's got me thinking Minis might make good slaves. Three across in a rackmount shelf would make a pretty compact little silicon orchestra....


----------



## SvK (Jul 21, 2011)

emmmm,

Guys

Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
Intel Xeon W3530 2.8 GHz (4 cores)	score: 8673 (that's my computer)

Mac Mini (Mid 2011)
2.Ghz i7 Quad Server model score: 9573

im so pissed 

SvK


----------



## charlieclouser (Jul 21, 2011)

Yes - My ideal rig:

New Mac Pro = Logic X
New Mac Pro = ProTools HD3 X
3x New Mac Minis = VEP slaves

lean and mean. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords!


----------



## SvK (Jul 21, 2011)

charlie...its more like

1 mac mini maxed out, with thunderbolt cable to a RAID tower w / 4 ssds

only catch is 8gig RAM limitation....if that can be bumped to 16...dang

then again naaahhhhhh.....i'm jumping sharks

best,
SvK


----------



## stonzthro (Jul 21, 2011)

Kays, on the same site you linked they tried to put SL on a new mini...

"In our testing, we weren't able to get Snow Leopard running on these new Mac minis. We tried it with the completely updated 10.6.8 cloned on but couldn't get it to start."

http://www.macminicolo.net/macmini2011


----------



## midphase (Jul 21, 2011)

That's a real shame. Kinda stinks that Apple is dictating which version of the OS we can install!


----------



## stonzthro (Jul 21, 2011)

I'm going to get one anyway - I have an older mini and it has been extremely useful. But which one should I get I'm wondering, either the 2.7 dual or the quad 2.0 server? I know Eric P. was saying for running Omni it would be best to get something with fewer cores and more power per core, but I'm just going to use it as a slave for VE-PRO/Kontakt... when NI gets it's version ready to go.

Also, I'm wondering if adding a second drive would be the best. Can an OS and samples be flying off the same single SSD w/o issue, or is it best to separate them?


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jul 21, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Jul 21 said:


> http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/21/new-mac-mini-benchmarks-show-significant-performance-gains/
> 
> According to these benchmarks, the new Mac Mini rival an 8-core Mac Pro!



When you couple that kind of performance with Thunderbolt connectivity (10Gbps) and add in external drives like *LaCie Little Big Disk (Thunderbolt)* with average read speed of 835.5MBps and an average write speed of 353.1MBps (2-160GB SSD raid-0), seems the tide is changing back in favor of Macs once Lion issues are ironed out. Mac mini i7 Quad might work really great as a slave streamer coupled with a thunderbolt raid system comprised of 2-6GB SSDs. 

Also the *Sonnetech Fusion F2TBR 2-drive portable SSD storage system with Thunderbolt technology* is another quite viable alternative for streaming late generation sample libraries.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 21, 2011)

And yet I'm still not maxing out my 3-year-old 8 x 2.8.


----------



## SvK (Jul 21, 2011)

Fred....

I agree about MM server for streaming...its just the dang 8gig limit that is a let down

Hell, bring out a "cube" version of the mini with slots to accomodate 32 gig of RAM, and I'm there!

SvK


----------



## IFM (Jul 22, 2011)

The 8 gig might just be that 4gig on a single RAM card is as much as you can get at this time. I couldn't find any manufacturer that makes a larger one. Still though you can run quite a bit on that little sucker. I think we've gotten too accustomed to loading these monster libraries.


----------



## tfishbein82 (Jul 22, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jul 21 said:


> And yet I'm still not maxing out my 3-year-old 8 x 2.8.


You must be doing something wrong.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 22, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jul 21 said:


> And yet I'm still not maxing out my 3-year-old 8 x 2.8.



Let me come over and show you how :lol:


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jul 22, 2011)

josejherring @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> charlieclouser @ Wed Jul 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Build-to-order new MacMinis can be had with i7 + 256gb SSD + 8gb RAM.
> ...



I hate to say it but I agree.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 22, 2011)

You threatening me, Mr. Lurker?

You wanna come over here and say that?

(Seriously: I have a pretty good idea how to make my computer gag on HS, but I think that library is almost designed to give you more choices than you're going to use; other than that, I'm not running out of CPU for normal applications, nor am I loading all 14 gigs in real life - although I do still have the army of P4 machines running older libraries.

The point is that it's no longer necessary to jump to the latest Mac every two years.)


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 22, 2011)

Shame about the ram, it's impressive they're able to get this much power in a box that size but only having two ram slots is a big weak spot.


----------



## stonzthro (Jul 22, 2011)

MBPs only have 2 slots and they can do 16GB - looks to me like they use the same RAM. Maybe a bios issue?


----------



## SvK (Jul 22, 2011)

Well here ya go

16gig RAM for new MACmini server model:
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20 ... 3DDR3S16P/

1419.99 yikes!
(hey in no time it will be 300 bucks)

best,
SvK


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jul 22, 2011)

The one thing that the Mac Mini DOES have over Mac Pro (dual Quad core & RAM limits aside) is that it is based on SATA3-6GB/s:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1194026

... which literally smokes streaming on Mac Pro stuck in SATA2 land. It really is a shame that 8GB is the max (unless you want to pay the really high price SvK mentioned - not an option for most.) They need more ram slots.


----------



## SvK (Jul 22, 2011)

I literally could get an 2011 IMac w/ 32 gig RAM a 2nd thunderbolt display and the pegasus Thunderbolt raid tower filled with 4 ssd's which I already own...

my PC has a i7 quad 950 chip, and the IMAc i7quad is faster.....

hmmmmm,

SvK


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jul 22, 2011)

Just wonder how it fares with Play3 and HS/HB. Hopefully the OS (Win7/64 vs Lion) would not factor into performance - all other things equal.


----------



## ozmorphasis (Jul 22, 2011)

SvK @ Fri Jul 22 said:


> I literally could get an 2011 IMac w/ 32 gig RAM a 2nd thunderbolt display and the pegasus Thunderbolt raid tower filled with 4 ssd's which I already own...
> 
> my PC has a i7 quad 950 chip, and the IMAc i7quad is faster.....
> 
> ...



OWC price for 32GB Ram: $2799 ~o) 
16GB: $164.99 

That's a bit hard to swallow


----------



## adg21 (Jul 23, 2011)

Frederick Russ @ Fri Jul 22 said:


> The one thing that the Mac Mini DOES have over Mac Pro (dual Quad core & RAM limits aside) is that it is based on SATA3-6GB/s:



How many SATA3-6GB/s ports are on the Mini compared to the IMac?


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jul 23, 2011)

adg21 @ Sat Jul 23 said:


> How many SATA3-6GB/s ports are on the Mini compared to the IMac?



The Mac Mini i7 quad core server has two SATA3-6GB/s ports.


----------



## SvK (Jul 23, 2011)

Fred,

Check out echo express.
That solves the UAD, PTcard, RME card etc problem

http://www.sonnettech.com/product/thund ... index.html

best,
SvK


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jul 23, 2011)

Thanks - Sonnet is definitely a consideration for Mac Mini i7 Quad core server but as you pointed out, only 8GB maximum RAM unless you pay over $1400 for 16GB memory. I'm waiting to see if they start offering Thunderbolt for Mac Pros.


----------



## jkrans (Aug 3, 2011)

Hey guys, I'm confused how 8GBs isn't enough?? I've been running 8GB slaves now for quite some time and have no memory issues. I do however have 4 slaves, so I'm able to spread out my sample libraries fairly easily.


----------



## Stevie (Aug 4, 2011)

8GB is not enough here, no. But I'm not using slaves...


Damn, when will Apple finally release the new Mac Pros.


----------



## JPQ (Aug 7, 2011)

These sound good but now i think what is difference now beetween server version and reqular one. becouse server versiomn looks faster..
wben i talk other things than software what needed server use. and i think i dont nereed more than 8gb in my main computer.(which is only one which used music stuff) even when Liion is usable to me...


----------



## vrocko (Aug 9, 2011)

I just checked the pricing for 16GB's of ram and the price has dropped to $1249.99.
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/A ... /DDR3_1333


----------



## Mahlon (Aug 17, 2011)

vrocko @ Tue Aug 09 said:


> I just checked the pricing for 16GB's of ram and the price has dropped to $1249.99.
> http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/A ... /DDR3_1333



Looks like it's now at $919.99.

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20 ... 3DDR3S16P/


Mahlon


----------



## adg21 (Aug 17, 2011)

RE: MBP $919.99 for a portable machine that is capable of loading 16GB of samples doesn't sound so painful. A lot, but, well, better.


----------



## vrocko (Aug 17, 2011)

Wow that is almost a $500 price drop within ten days.


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 17, 2011)

hmmm/// 

why sell 16gb of ram if the mac mini doesnt support it?


or is it like the older mac books that it can handle 8gb but apple recommends 4gb?


----------



## stonzthro (Aug 17, 2011)

the new mac mini can take 16GB of RAM


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 17, 2011)

nice!


----------



## IFM (Aug 18, 2011)

I just got the base model Mini and put in 8 gig of ram. I haven't set it up as a slave yet as I wanted to add a 2nd drive to it (SSD) for samples but it still being planned out. Once I am up and running I'll report back. I'm not sure if Play or Kontakt is going on it but if it is the latter then I have to wait for the next update.

Chris


----------



## midphase (Aug 25, 2011)

I just found this article but the ever interesting Bob Cringely:

http://www.cringely.com/2011/08/is-the-mac-pro-dead/

I do think there might be one more refresh for the Mac Pro's coming...but I do agree that they're on their last throes and the scalable Mac Mini based system that he describes seems like an actually great way to go!


----------



## RMWSound (Aug 26, 2011)

Mahlon @ Wed Aug 17 said:


> vrocko @ Tue Aug 09 said:
> 
> 
> > I just checked the pricing for 16GB's of ram and the price has dropped to $1249.99.
> ...


Now $879.99

If this can get down near $500, I will seriously have to consider the i7 model w/16 GB ram as a slave computer.


----------



## RMWSound (Sep 3, 2011)

So I picked up the quad core server model for use as a VEPro slave. Threw in the fastest OWC SSD they make as a samples drive, and loaded up my Kontakt template (LASS+Sords, Symphobia, HWW, Cinebrass, Sam Brass, some Requiem, Various percussion stuff and my current go-to Piano- Imperfect Samples Steinway). I had to lower the pre-load buffer in Kontakt due to only having 8GB ram, but it seems to be up to the task.

I loaded up a fairly dense project using the template, and compared performance with the VEPro server using the same template on the host only (early '08 3ghz 8-core w/18GB ram) and then using only the mini for VEPro. Keep in mind I have a few Omnisphere, Altiverbs, and EQ's inside Pro Tools for this test as well. Also, the VEPro instances are all set at "2 buffer" in the test. 

I found that with a 256 buffer, using just the Mac Pro, I was sitting at around 50% CPU usage at idle, and it would jump up around and above 75% in playback (pops and clicks a-plenty). Disconnecting these instances and re-connecting them to VEPro on the mini brought the idle CPU down to about 28-30% and it only went up to around 33-35% during playback. Looking at the CPU activity on the mini, it was sitting at around 25-30% of it's own processing power. 

Needless to say, I am quite pleased. I had been looking into grabbing a second Mac pro for a while just to offload at least a portion of my template to give me some breathing room on the host computer, but I think this does it quite well. I did notice that loading Play instances (Hollywood strings) ate up ram at a ridiculous rate though (even with the fast drive setting), so I think I will be leaving that to my host computer until the ram prices drop a bit. 

Ryan


----------



## Mahlon (Sep 4, 2011)

Thanks for the info. I haven't been a mac guy for 18 years now, but these minis are making me take a good look at mac again.

Mahlon


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 7, 2011)

http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/07/dock.jpg

(From here: http://www.macrumors.com/2011/09/06/app ... to-stores/)


----------



## midphase (Oct 31, 2011)

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/10/31/app ... -pro-line/

Sounds like the Mac Mini will be it for the pro market! (or the laptops)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 31, 2011)

Even if that's not true, the days of desktop machines are numbered.


----------



## midphase (Oct 31, 2011)

One refresh on the towers...one more (with TB) and that's it. 

On the plus side, the Mac Mini i7 with TB and 16 gigs of RAM is becoming like a really viable alternative.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 31, 2011)

As long as I don't have to give up my 30" Cinema Display and I can still keep all the crap on the other side of the wall to my garage, I don't care.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Oct 31, 2011)

Could be a world of hurt for the pro audio industry if Mac Pro's go away soon -all those Pro Tools guys who don't know anything else and even for the Pro Tools platform's domination. 

Yes, I know there is PC Pro Tools but outside of Microsoft Studios I don't know any larger studio that uses it. Lotta guys are going to have to learn a lotta stuff. 

The larger video post houses will be scrambling for options too. They burn through their hardware faster than anyone. The recording studio tend to run their Mac Pro's until they finally die. Lots of them just got rid of the their G5's.

This could cause an interesting bifurcation of Logic users. Smaller operations could stay with Mac Books and iMacs and the bigger guys could be looking for PC alternatives. 

Logic and Final Cut themselves seemingly could find new homes - other than within the Apple constellation. 

.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 31, 2011)

There are already videos online of Thunderbolt PT interfaces at an Avid booth at a trade show. That's why I was surprised to see a card-based PT system.

My guess is that whatever Apple replaces desktop machines with will be more powerful, not less. It rarely goes backwards.

To me this is just the obvious evolution. Cards suck as an investment anyway.


----------



## midphase (Oct 31, 2011)

Well, technically the i7 Minis are already besting most of the 8-core Mac Pros in raw crunching power. 

I believe that in January the last batch of Mac Pros with TB ports will be released, I think they will probably be king of the hill at that point with as many as 16-cores (32 virtual). They will probably cost a lot too. I would also guess that by the end of 2012, the iMacs, Minis and Mac Book Pros will have come close to matching those new Mac Pros' performance specs and at that point we will hopefully have TB options for faster drives and interfaces. I hope that Apple will also begin supporting USB 3 while they're at it...it's obvious that the format is here to stay and I hope Apple won't treat it like it did Blu Ray.


----------



## antoniopandrade (Nov 1, 2011)

One thing that bugs me about all this a thing that Spectrum posted in another thread. Supposedly, faster clock speeds are ESSENTIAL for VI's (directly influences the amount of voices able to be handled). So even if this new i7 Mac Mini is able to out-benchmark the 8-core Mac Pro (I'd like to check out those benchmarks!), they still run 2.0Ghz clock speed, which is very slow imo.

I really hope Apple doesn't discontinue the Mac Pro like rumours are saying. The Pro community is already up in arms because of the FCPX thing. I have a feeling this could backlash quite badly for Apple.


----------



## stonzthro (Nov 1, 2011)

They are a company, and all companies exist for profit - no matter how loyal you were to them in the 90s. They've found a magic bullet - make things convenient and smaller and the masses will buy. 

Maybe I'm wrong, but their business model seems to be staring us all in the face. 

Though I wouldn't expect them to start making only 'wimpy' machines - has ANY company made a move like that and survived? (jury is still out on Netflix...)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 1, 2011)

Remember, there's a difference between abandoning a clearly aging design and abandoning the market for people who need lots of power.


----------



## antoniopandrade (Nov 1, 2011)

I agree Nick. I have no doubt that Apple will cook up something viable us. I just hope they don't "pull the rug" on the Pro community, like they did with FCPX. It's not really Apple policy, but easing the transition and making it crystal clear what their intentions are with pulling something and introducing something else.


----------



## gsilbers (Nov 1, 2011)

i thought the rumor was that apple was trying to make a server version of the mac pros.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 1, 2011)

You guys should see the MacBook and XITE-1 in action.
Fits in briefcase and trounces any tower + Slave I've seen.


----------



## khollister (Nov 15, 2011)

I'm jumping in too - ordered 16GB of Corsair RAM from Newegg ($300), a 60 GB SSD for OS/apps, a 256GB Crucial M4 SSD for samples and will pick up a Mini server at the local store with my employee discount later this week. Plan to run Kontakt with LASS, CB, etc via VEPro 5 when it ships (hopefully soon).


----------



## spectrum (Nov 15, 2011)

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC816LL/A?select=select&product=MC816LL%2FA (http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC8 ... C816LL%2FA)

FYI, this is the Mac Mini I have and it's wonderful with VIs. 

2.7ghz i7


----------



## Frederick Russ (Nov 16, 2011)

Can the dual core 2.7 match performance with the quad core 2.0? One relies on inherent clocking speed while the other relies on shared performance across multiple cores. Honest question.


----------



## sbkp (Nov 16, 2011)

It's obviously in need of a real test, but I know in the web server world, an 8-core 2GHz machine will absolutely kill a 4-core 2.66GHz machine.

I suspect the same logic applies here, but...?


----------



## khollister (Nov 16, 2011)

Frederick Russ @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> Can the dual core 2.7 match performance with the quad core 2.0? One relies on inherent clocking speed while the other relies on shared performance across multiple cores. Honest question.



Somewhat depends on the software. For things that are fairly well threaded, the server is quite a bit faster. If you have apps that are not well threaded, clock speed wins. FOr my usage, the server will be the clear winner. If you were running something like Mainstage (or recording complex VI's in Logic) where it tends to pile everything into a single core, then the 2.7 might be better. You will certainly get more tracks on playback in Logic with the quad.

Also be aware that the only i7 dual in the Mini's is the special order on the one with discrete graphics. The others are i5's which do not have hyperthreading. While 2 drives will fit in that model (you need to obtain the 2nd SATA cable via Ebay), the extra heat produced from the Radeon GPU makes it a dodgy undertaking. The server comes with 2 drives (and 7200 RPM ones at that if you aren't going to SSD's).

Sample playback VI's tend to be more I/O (disk and RAM) limited than CPU unless there is some wicked scripting involved (or it is EW Play, which just seems to be screwed up on a Mac). On the other hand, complex synthesized VI's (like Eric's stuff - I believe that is Eric behind the spectrum userID :wink: ) might favor fewer, faster cores. Although even a 2.0Ghz Sandy Bridge core is pretty impressive compared to what we had 2-3 years ago. The 2.0 i7 quad has a very high TurboBoost ratio (goes up to something like 2.8 if I recall), so that is a factor for low duty cycle use as well.

You can use both drives for samples, too. Once the OS & VEPro are running, I doubt there is much disk I/O to interfere with streaming samples from the boot drive.The trick there is to turn off things like Spotlight searching, automatic SW update, TimeMachine, etc that might run in the background and use dusk I/O.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 16, 2011)

I disagree with the more Cores being better for VSTi's.
I think the sweet spot would be a quad core instead of the 6/8 core CPU's.
I still have an anceient Wolfdale E8600 CPU that was as fast as my i7 930, but did less work only from having the 2 cores.
I think once you reach 3.0GHz any machine will do what's needed.
I am going for the 3930K CPU and 16GB's, with the option to upgrade the CPU to more cores, and 32GB's of RAM.
That's the kind of template/laptop I want.
I haven;t heard about the Quad Channel RAM notebooks coming from Apple but I bet they will be extremely powerful Logic rigs, and an 18" screen means even an FOH or engineer can use their power and mobility.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Nov 16, 2011)

Really terrific information here, thanks. 

The rumor of Apple eliminating towers in favor of minis, laptops & iMacs, things there may be in the works to blur the differences (including the possibility of more ram slots to increase memory options and a larger case to ease user upgradable components). I still think mac mini's best home would probably be in a rack mountable tray of two for slave streaming duties rather than main daw usage in a long term setup. Perhaps a newer version might be a better daw.


----------



## khollister (Nov 16, 2011)

Frederick Russ @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> Really terrific information here, thanks.
> 
> The rumor of Apple eliminating towers in favor of minis, laptops & iMacs, things there may be in the works to blur the differences (including the possibility of more ram slots to increase memory options and a larger case to ease user upgradable components). I still think mac mini's best home would probably be in a rack mountable tray of two for slave streaming duties rather than main daw usage in a long term setup. Perhaps a newer version might be a better daw.



Apple hasn't eliminated the MP yet. I personally think that is another year or two off, if then. The biggest issue with the MBP or MM is only 2 RAM slots. The 3.4 i7 quad iMac would make a very good DAW platform since it has 4 slots and can get to 32GB RAM. With TB for storage, the FW UAD Satellite and a Mini or two as slaves, you would be all set.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Nov 18, 2011)

khollister @ Wed Nov 16 said:


> The biggest issue with the MBP or MM is only 2 RAM slots.



Plus the mini uses laptop ram which can be much more expensive in the larger sizes. I think the iMac may still use laptop ram as well.


----------



## khollister (Nov 18, 2011)

Mike Connelly @ Fri Nov 18 said:


> khollister @ Wed Nov 16 said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest issue with the MBP or MM is only 2 RAM slots.
> ...



Although I just got done installing 16 GB of Corsair RAM into mine (2 x 8GB) from Newegg - $299 plus a free 16 GB USB flash drive. Works great.

iMac uses the same RAM, so 32 GB in the 2011 iMacs would be $600. Not too much higher than what desktop DIMM's are going for.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 18, 2011)

What's annoying is that DDR3 is $80 for 24 GB at Fry's today.

I wish DDR2 were half that cheap.


----------



## utopia (Nov 20, 2011)

So I'm going to be buying a new mac daw. What's the general opinion on the minis after all? Would a combination of 2 minis be a robust daw and would I be getting the necessary performance to build a big orchestral template with modern libraries? Say a server i7 (or the non server i7 2.7 ) x 2 with SSD system disc on the host and ram maxed out to 16gb on both and an external TB storage for samples - how does this sound for a 2011 workstation? Would I be all set?


----------



## Stevie (Nov 20, 2011)

Why is everyone thinking that in 2-3 years Mac Pros will be dead?

Let's face it:

- iMac and Mac Minis use laptop components!
They aren't made for permanent CPU load, touch the top of an iMac and you know what I mean.
- there are just not enough RAM slots
- you can't change the HDD easily on the iMac and you can't add several internal HDDs / SSDs. Sure, you can use Thunderbolt for all that. But is that really the solution?
- you can't replace the graphics card
- PCI cards can only be used via Thunderbolt chasis. And it has yet to be proven that this works flawlessly.

I've heard from many hardcore Mac users: if they ditch the Mac Pro, I'm going PC.
Therefore I cannot really imagine Apple will ditch them.


There's nothing worse than the Apple rumor scene, don't you agree?


----------



## Frederick Russ (Nov 20, 2011)

utopia @ Sun Nov 20 said:


> So I'm going to be buying a new mac daw. What's the general opinion on the minis after all? Would a combination of 2 minis be a robust daw and would I be getting the necessary performance to build a big orchestral template with modern libraries? Say a server i7 (or the non server i7 2.7 ) x 2 with SSD system disc on the host and ram maxed out to 16gb on both and an external TB storage for samples - how does this sound for a 2011 workstation? Would I be all set?



Actually it sounds pretty feasible. Basically the processing power of the server i7s seem to either match or slightly surpass performance of 2009/2010 Mac Pros so it might give you the same performance as having two Mac Pros working together. What's cool is that they do surpass Mac Pro because of the sata3/6G/ps motherboard revision so in terms of streaming you might get more voices and less glitching. 

As for being set - you know how that goes. You'll get all of it, max it out, then want to get yet another mac mini i7 to make up the difference plus that new sample library everybody is raving about - much to your wife's / girlfriend's disdain. In other words, it never really ends but you can probably delay the itch for a few months.


----------



## Ryan Scully (Nov 20, 2011)

This is all extremely interesting and am curious to hear more reports on performance from the Mac Minis as sample slaves. Im one of the many that have endlessly been waiting for Apple(if at all) to announce a refresh on the Mac Pro. I'm financially set to move to a new DAW next year and want to make sure that I'm spending my money in the best and most efficient way possible. With all this talk about the mini i7 servers bench marking higher than 2009/2010 Mac Pros, would you guys think it would be feasible to move to say a fast 2011(or 2012 if it ever comes) Mac Pro Quad Core as my DAW with a fully tricked out mini i7 server for sample slave duties? I would only think this just because of the limitations mentions with storage/expansion if I were to go with a mini or new iMac as my DAW. It would also be comparable price wise after RAM and storage upgrades than if I were to go fully in the box and sink buckets of cash into an 8 or 12 core Pro. I guess a lot of this is up in the air in anticipation of an announcement from Apple on the future of the Pro market.


Ryan :D


----------



## utopia (Nov 20, 2011)

Thanks, Frederic!
Is it also believed that the servers are better to get than the 2.7 i7 ? Would you think having 16gb ram on each mini should be enough for building an orchestral template with VE pro/bidule? 
Or would a single fully maxed out imac 27' i7 (3.4 ghz) be better than having 2 minis with a slower processor speed?


----------



## Nachivnik (Feb 16, 2012)

spectrum @ Tue Nov 15 said:


> http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC816LL/A?select=select&product=MC816LL%2FA
> 
> FYI, this is the Mac Mini I have and it's wonderful with VIs.
> 
> 2.7ghz i7



Greetings all! First-time poster here. (Alfalfa elsewhere)

Do you run the Omnisphere & Trillian libraries from the same hard drive as the OS? I believe that they stream a little from the hard drive?

How about other sample libraries that stream a lot from the hard drive like Kontakt? 

Thanks!


----------

