# 2010 Mac Pros - where's the sweet spot?



## Walra48 (Aug 10, 2010)

Looking at the new Mac Pros and trying to determine which is the best buy for the next 4-5 years. For me, it seems to come down to 2 models 
1) the 6 core @ 3.33 Ghz 
2) the 8 core @ 2.4 Ghz. 
I'm leaning toward the 6 core 3.33 for Cubase except for the 16 GB RAM limitation. What does everyone think? Will 16 GB cut it in 4 years? 
IMHO the 12 core models are overkill and overpriced at this point.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2010)

16GB will almost certainly not cut it in four years, and to me none of them is overkill.

What is overkill is the radically higher prices compared to what we've been used to paying for Macs. I don't know whether the manufacturing yields on the current multi-core processors are radically lower, whether they have to charge more because machines are staying current longer, both, or neither.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 10, 2010)

òJ   àÁéJ   àÁêJ   àÁëJ   àÁìJ   àÁíJ   àÁîJ   àÁïJ   àÁðJ   àÁñJ   àÁòJ   àÁóJ   àÁôJ   àÁõJ   àÁöJ   àÁ÷J


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 10, 2010)

I'm feeling pretty comfortable with my early 2008 8 core refurb, 4 drives, 18 gig RAM, at least for now. VE Pro helps. I'd buy a slave PC for 1k before buying a new Mac and accoutrements for 6k.

12 cores?? Let's see the software drain every drop from 8 first-or even 4.


----------



## tripit (Aug 10, 2010)

Same here - 2008 8 core is doing plenty well. I've yet to max out the CPU, in fact it's never even been close. As for ram - get as much as you can afford. 16 isn't enough now, let alone in 4 years.
I had 16 and was starting to max out my ram. I moved up to 24 gigs.


----------



## Walra48 (Aug 10, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> 12 cores?? Let's see the software drain every drop from 8 first-or even 4.



LOL no kidding 

I think may either go with an 8 core 2.4 Ghz Westmere (for the 32 GB RAM ceiling)

or a re-furbed older Nahelem 8 core 2.93 Ghz.

Both have very similiar performance stats and price despite the Ghz difference.

Too bad the 6 core 3.33 has the RAM limitation. :?


----------



## PMortise (Aug 10, 2010)

I'm thinking the "sweet spot" to last a few years is the 12-core @ 2.66.


----------



## MichaelL (Aug 10, 2010)

PMortise @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> I'm thinking the "sweet spot" to last a few years is the 12-core @ 2.66.



I agree with your point.

I've been researching the same issue. One of the "creatives" at a Mac Store told me that the 8 core would be OK if I'm rendering my midi tracks. (I use a lot of instruments)

I also checked with a guy that I use regularly for IT stuff. He he said OK today and OK a year from now are two different things. In his opinion the extra $$ for the 2.93 GHz model was a waste.

I'm going with the long range vision and middle option.

Also -- the 8 core is limited to 1066 RAM. The 12 core uses 1337. 

Michael


----------



## Walra48 (Aug 10, 2010)

As well, over at Other World Computing they claim the new 8 & 12 core
models can support up to 64 GB if installed in matched 8 GB sticks (8 slots).


----------



## Walra48 (Aug 11, 2010)

If the 6 core model could handle 32 GB memory it would make it a killer machine for the money. 6 cores running at 3.33 Ghz off one chip would certainly out-perform even the fastest previous model 8 core 2.93 (6 Westmeres on 1 chip vs. 8 Nehelems split into 2 chips.) The only potential stumbling block is the 16 GB RAM limitation (if in fact it is).


----------



## Walra48 (Aug 11, 2010)

Just contacted tech support at OWC. The official word from them is the 6 core Mac Pros CANNOT use the 8 GB RAM modules and are therefore limited to 16 GB RAM maximum. /-(


----------



## jlb (Aug 11, 2010)

The sweet spot is NONE of them. They are all overpriced, and I am not convinced that any DAW can make use of 12 cores.

jlb


----------



## Mike Greene (Aug 11, 2010)

Walra48 @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> An 12 core 2.93 Ghz maxed out to 32GB RAM (third party OWC)
> will cost me (CAN.$) a little over $8000.00.


That's a heck of a lot of money! :shock: 

My days of buying the fastest Macs I can get are long gone. I tend now to buy the slowest/cheapest one available, because I find that getting a Mac that my software will grow into (planning for the future) is often a waste. I'd rather just buy a new one (cheaper and better) in a few years when I need it.

I'm mostly a rock and pop guy, so admittedly, my orchestral writing/arranging is not as intense as it is for many here, so my needs may be different. But having a zillion full patches of LASS and VSL and EWQLSO all open at once (that's the only reason I can think of for the massive power of a fully tricked out Mac) seems like more of a luxury than a need.

Granted, I happen to *like* luxury, so I'm not criticizing. :D But at eight grand, unless I was cranking out huge orchestrations every day, I think I'd be more tempted to go to one of the many tricks for keeping CPU and memory needs low.

Just an alternate opinion. You know, in case you're not married and you don't have a wife to nag you about why you need to buy such a fancy computer. :mrgreen:


----------



## talino (Aug 11, 2010)

Hi all. New to this forum. Just like everyone here, I've been waiting for a long time for the new Mac Pros and I'm just as confused as the other folks here... I don't know if the new ones are overpriced, as jlb says, but after such a long wait it sure is a disappointment.

To the point where the 27" quad-core i7 iMac with 16gb of RAM and an SSD/HD combo seems suddenly like a terrific (and cheap) DAW, if you don't mind three or four firewire drives dangling from behind it. You *do* get an incredible screen with it...

I've looked into the "refurbished" options but couldn't find anything worth the money (at least here, in France).

Just a simple calculation, totally decontextualized from a performance POV, but still something to ponder when considering the two options most people seem to care about (those with tight budgets at least):

8 cores x 2.4 Ghz = 19.2
6 cores x 3.33 Ghz = 19.98

Cheers.

*EDIT* I think Mike has a point there. I'm only getting a new computer because I've maxed out my trusty old iMac as soon as I got into VEP and VSL. I've seen videos on YouTube with people using templates having 250 orchestral patches loaded simultaneously, which is fine if you need them. Personally a well-written strings and piano quintet can be done with much less horsepower... And don't forget the new iMacs can handle 16gb, like I mentioned above.


----------



## Mike Greene (Aug 11, 2010)

JT3_Jon @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> m writing progressive rock music in addition to film score stuff, so my CPU needs might be higher than someone mainly streaming samples (multiple guitar & bass Amp sims, many different synths/effects, Superior Drummer, as well as heavy sample instruments like, Prominy guitars, even some full orchestra & choir moments, etc.)


Jon, this probably wouldn't make financial sense, but it might be worth considering getting a ProTools HD rig. That takes care of all your audio tracks right there, including the processing on them. I can't tell you how nice it is to pull up as many audio tracks and effects as I want (within reason) knowing it doesn't effect my CPU, since that part's all handled on the ProTools cards. And that ultra low latency is great.

Plus the ProTools HD rig (the cards and interface) moves from computer to computer as you upgrade, so the "depreciation" isn't as bad. (Although if formats or PCI slot specs change, you'll have to pay an upgrade fee for new cards.)

I haven't priced PT HD lately, but I imagine a lot of guys are selling theirs because so many people are going all native, so there might be deals out there. It's still a *lot* of money, but I thought I'd throw the idea out there, just in case it's appealing. If I had eight grand to spend, and if I could get an older, but still fairly powerful Mac for $3,000 and a PT HD rig for $5,000 (I have no idea if those numbers are possible,) I think I'd go that route rather than spending it all on a Super Mac.


----------



## talino (Aug 11, 2010)

This guy has published estimates which pretty much trash the 8-core in favor of the 6-core: http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews- ... mates.html

I don't know how he calculates these estimates. These are just graphs for your viewing pleasure while waiting for some real reviews...

There's also a very interesting take on the subject here : http://www.osnews.com/story/23652/Apple ... y_More_Now

Which has this to say, among other things:



> Here we are 4 years after the first Mac Pro saw the light of the day, left wondering where all the money Apple charges for a current Mac Pro model goes. AAPL stock holders must be happy. Users? Not so much.


Just think what you can get, horsepower-wise, with a $2000 iMac, VEP and a $1000 PC stashed away behind a Gigabit switch.


----------



## Walra48 (Aug 11, 2010)

Thanks for the links talino - fascinating stuff.
Some things I've suspected for the last 6 years or so - since Apple went with Intel multiple processors. I remember discussions around 2003-04 about the difficulty chip makers were having achieving speeds above 3 Ghz with good reliability yields. Right around that time the multiple processor machines started to show up promising more power without the need for speed. Since then there has been increasing debate whether multiple processors have really been the best solution to this performance problem. Real world performance on a multi cpu machine is very hard to determine due to its heavy reliance on software. It really places the responsibility heavily on often small software developers to spend the time and money to properly optimize their apps to spread the load intelligently over however many cores there are on a given machine. How well this is implemented determines your uber-computer's actual usable power with that software. Often times poorly implemented code will result in a kind of system "throttling" where the first 2 or 4 cores will max out while the others sit idle and the machine chokes or crashes. When you pay for 8 cores (or 12 cores), you better be able to take full use of *all* of them now - not in the future (someday).
I've heard the future proof argument too often, but in reality most computers show clear signs of performance aging in about 4 years or so after release. I say, whatever you buy now - make sure you can use it *now*. CPU speed counts, RAM speed counts, bus speed and HD speeds count. The number of cores counts too... but only to a point.


----------



## Walra48 (Aug 11, 2010)

http://advancedphototech.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/macpro-hexacore-6-core-maximum-memory-limit/

Here's a link to a discussion about the 6 core Mac Pro and max memory. Seems someone contacted Crucial.com and were told that the 6 core Mac Pro will, in fact, take the 8 GB sticks to bring its max memory up to 32 GB, and that they guarantee it.

The saga continues...


----------



## talino (Aug 11, 2010)

@Walra48: I'm no developer, but I vaguely remember something from the Snow Leopard launch: wasn't this software-optimization issue supposed to have been solved with Grand Central Dispatch?

On a side note, when I switched to Macs seven years ago, I didn't think I would be reading forum threads about which Mac model was better and whether 1333 Mhz DDR3 made a difference. This was supposed to be PC tech talk.

Just my 2c.


----------



## Walra48 (Aug 11, 2010)

> I'm no developer, but I vaguely remember something from the Snow Leopard launch: wasn't this software-optimization issue supposed to have been solved with Grand Central Dispatch?



Apparently it is *not* completely solved.



> On a side note, when I switched to Macs seven years ago, I didn't think I would be reading forum threads about which Mac model was better and whether 1333 Mhz DDR3 made a difference. This was supposed to be PC tech talk.




Macs are now just PCs running OSX.


----------



## Walra48 (Aug 11, 2010)

Here's pic of that Crucial.com listing for 32 GB RAM config. on a 6 core.


----------



## Walra48 (Aug 11, 2010)

From Apple website RE: Grand Central Dispatch

Pay close attention to the last sentence:
"Once developers start using GCD for their applications, you’ll start noticing significant improvements in performance"

Once they START - you'll START to notice. This is still a ways down the road. GCD is the tool - we're still waiting for all developers to use it correctly in their software.



> Multicore. Multiple challenges.
> To take full advantage of these processors, software applications must be programmed using a technology called threads. Software developers use threads to allow multicore processors to work on different parts of a program at the same time. However, each application must do its own threading, which reduces the efficiency of the entire system. And because threads can be difficult to program, many developers don’t invest the effort to make their applications multicore capable. Consequently, lots of applications aren’t as fast as they could be.
> 
> Introducing Grand Central Dispatch.
> ...


----------



## PMortise (Aug 11, 2010)

This excerpt is from MOTU's DP page:

"...Digital Performer takes full advantage of the latest advances in Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard's multi-threading and multi-processor operation..."

I suspect that in the months to come, this refresh will shine a lot of light on the realities of multi-core processors, developers willingness to program for them, and the real benefit to consumers (if any).


----------



## talino (Aug 12, 2010)

@PMortise: I agree. The new pro lineup from Apple is too weird to not raise serious questions, which I'm sure most reviewers will address.

M. Chambers from the Mac Performance Guide website has suprisingly – nay, magically – written an article discussing the very same idea I had above (and two weeks later) about getting an iMac instead of a Mac Pro for a DAW (he deals with it from a photographer's perspective, but both occupations are similarly demanding in RAM, hard drive performance and CPU). It seems I wasn't completely crazy when I thought about it.

None of his arguments are, imho, a deal-breaker. Especially when you think about using VEP and a cheap Windows box. And as to havinòœ   áòœ   áóœ   áôœ   áõœ   áöœ   á÷œ   áøœ   áùœ   áúœ   áûœ   áüœ   áýœ   áþœ   áÿœ   á œ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   á	œ   á
œ   áœ   áœ   á œ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   áœ   á œ   á!œ   á"œ   á#œ   á$œ   á%œ   á&œ   á'œ   á(œ   á)œ   á*œ   á+œ   á,œ   á-œ   á.œ   á/œ   á0œ   á1œ   á2œ   á3œ   á4œ   á5œ   á6œ


----------



## PMortise (Aug 12, 2010)

Yes - 64 bit NEXT please.


----------



## talino (Aug 13, 2010)

Pardon me for going on about the PC slave issue, but while waiting for some real Mac Pro reviews I started looking at some real-world PC prices (all with the perspective of running VEP, a 250 euros product).

For 1000 to 1400 euros (a third of the announced price for the 6-core Mac Pro) you can get, directly from Dell, one of their Precision models which run Xeon 2.26-2.4 quad-cores, have a maximum RAM going from 24 to 192 (!) gigabytes. Plus you get internal drive space (albeit not as neat as the Mac Pro, but nothing is perfect), *and* eSATA. I'm just not sure on how noisy these things can be.

It seems to me that if I get three of those, plus 3 Ethernet cables, I have a pretty comfortable margin for CPU/RAM intensive tasks. Sure, this doesn't help a lot with Lightroom or Photoshop, but for musicians VEP has really changed the rules. It looks like I can run a very powerful DAW setup from the humblest of iMacs.

Pushing things further, with a couple more of these workstations you can have a fully-charged, no corners cut template just sitting there in a closet, just waiting for a new Logic project to open (in around 5 seconds).

Has anyone any thoughts on this? Is this too simple to be true? One thing seems certain, Apple has gone completely off with its Mac Pro prices. Doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the real, non-Apple world.

BTW, I'm not working for Dell and I hate dealing with PCs.

*EDIT* Nightmare unboxing story here: http://www.binaryturf.com/review-dell-precision-t5500/ – Still, read the conclusions and user comments: you shouldn't pay a $1000 premium just for the pleasure of unboxing an Apple product...


----------



## jlb (Aug 13, 2010)

Well Said  I think £4000 for one basic computer with 6G of RAM is ridiculous

jlb


----------



## talino (Aug 13, 2010)

Nice take on this whole confusing issue here: http://www.lovelyjunkie.com/2010/08/imac-i7-vs-macpro-westmere/ (http://www.lovelyjunkie.com/2010/08/ima ... -westmere/)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 13, 2010)

The $5k one uses two of these:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... -_-Product


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 13, 2010)

Interestingly the 2008 model uses two of these, which aren't much less expensive:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... -_-Product


----------



## Stevie (Aug 13, 2010)

Server CPUs (Xeons) always have been more expensive than the mainstream ones indeed.


----------



## amplayer (Aug 13, 2010)

I've been waiting ... waiting ... waiting ... for this machine.
Finally they come out with it, and I must say I'm a bit disappointed.
1. The upgrade charge of $1200 for the 6-core W3680 (vs. the 2.8 GHz Quad core) is completely ridiculous. You can buy that processor RETAIL at newegg.com for USD $1069.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819117242
That means Apple is charging CLOSE TO DOUBLE THE GOING RATE for this processor!!! (consider that they don't credit you for the 2.8 GHz process you're "upgrading")
2. No USB 3.0. 
3. Still ridiculous RAM charges compared to buying 3rd party RAM.

Bottom line, if it wasn't for the fact that many of us have a lot invested in Mac-only software, I don't think they'd sell many of these overpriced machines.


----------



## Stevie (Aug 13, 2010)

Well, I guess that's Apple philosophy


----------



## talino (Aug 15, 2010)

Another idea: I just realized that the new 27" i7 iMacs are not only ridiculously fast, but also allow video *input* through their Mini Display Port (something older iMacs didn't allow). So you can, basically, get a relative beauty AND beast for $2000 (plus some RAM you can expand to 16gb) and postpone a Mac Pro purchase for a year or two.

Wait till the multicore confusion has settled, then get a Mac Pro (with USB 3...) and a monitor, connect it to your 27" display for additional desktop space, AND keep the iMac quad-core crunching numbers through VEP. Just don't break that screen. Seems unbeatable value to me right now. Of course, I may be wrong 

*EDIT* These seems to confirm the point above (unless you absolutely need more than 16gb of RAM right now): http://www.robertjohnthompson.com/review3/iMac.html & http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/ ... e_changer/


----------



## talino (Aug 15, 2010)

I agree, Nick. Not a whole lot, but certainly something worth considering: when aiming for a Mac-based DAW, I find it interesting to hear some real-life experiences from people who actually switched from a G5 to an iMac, or who feel that power-wise (an opposed to expandability-wise) the iMac surpasses Mac Pros sold six months ago. 

But I don't mean to go into thread-jacking territory. I was merely sharing a few thoughts I had about the best Mac a limited budget could get. I'll be waiting for the Mac Pro reviews like all of us here 

Last point on the subject. There *is* what seems to be a nightmarish issue that nobody mentions in the reviews: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jsp ... 1#12101591 – a deal breaker for anything remotely musical.


----------



## cc64 (Aug 16, 2010)

Ok, so here's where i am.

I absolutely need to go to Intel as Kontakt 4 and a growing number of apps won't install on PPC anymore, understandably...

From what i read, most apps don't take advantage of 12 cores and hyper-threading and if i believe what i read it could take a long while before they do so spending 6500$ on a top of the line MacPro seems untimely since Apple did not deliver on giving us a next generation USB 3, FW3200, 128 GB RAM machine as we where led to expect from many educated guessers...

I'm seriously considering an i7 iMac 2.93Ghz with 16 gigs of RAM wich would cost me appr.3000$. I would keep my G5 2X2.5 as a slave running VEPro.

The MacPro with a decent monitor i.e. the upcoming 27 inch apple display , 16 or 32 gigs of RAM etc... would cost almost 10k$!!!

So, only thing bothering me with the iMac solution is the potential FW bottle neck. I would need to get a Firewire audio card and since the iMac only has one FW bus it would be shared with the hard disks, am i right in thinking that it's not a great idea? Hope i'm wrong 'cause the iMac seems like a great solution for 2-3 years...

Best,

Claude

BTW i use DP and MOTU claims it uses all cores...anyone can confirm this?


----------



## talino (Aug 16, 2010)

CC64: I don't think a Firewire audio interface for the iMac would be a good idea, especially since Apple dropped FW400 on the new iMacs (there is alas only one physical FW800 port). You can use an adapter, of course, but I still find it painful to have hard drives and audio devices on the same physical chain, especially when they are mixed (400/800). I'm not sure about bandwidth issues. A FW400 drive plugged into a FW800 chain will pull all transfer rates down, and an audio interface might do the same thing.

IMHO a USB interface would be the smarter choice, especially for a temporary or transitional solution. There are some very high-quality USB interfaces nowadays (RME).

For a music studio, the issue I linked to above might still be a problem. I went to an Apple Store yesterday but I couldn't hear anything will all the noise people make these days...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 16, 2010)

Interestingly, an EE guy who works on low-level FW told me (on the internet) that it's not true that 400 devices slow down the bus - but only if they're...now I forget....either at the beginning or the end of the chain. I believe him, however; the conventional wisdom going around for years that the bus slows is probably wrong.

Having a HD and a FW interface on the same bus could be an issue, however Other World Computer has an eSATA port for the iMac that you could use for a drive:

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/turnkey/iMac_2010_27

That seems a little expensive, but it's not terrible.

By the way, the 2008 and probably other Mac Pros have two unused SATA busses on the motherboard that you can get to. You just need right-angle cables and a PCI slot cover with eSATA plugs in it. I don't remember how much it cost - probably $20.


----------



## cc64 (Aug 16, 2010)

Hi Talino,

thanks for the info. i was thinking an RME 800 Fireface, but the Babyface could do fine i guess althought i've always found USB to be a bit Flaky...

As for bandwith all my drives are FW 800 so everything would be running at 800 if i were to get a Fireface 800...

Thanks again!

BTW anybody received their 12 core machine yet?

Claude


----------



## cc64 (Aug 16, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Aug 16 said:


> however Other World Computer has an eSATA port for the iMac that you could use for a drive:
> 
> http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/turnkey/iMac_2010_27
> 
> That seems a little expensive, but it's not terrible.



Thanks Nick but it's US only ; )

best,

Claude


----------



## talino (Aug 16, 2010)

Nick has a point there. I haven't completely figured out the 400/800 myself. I have here a chain that starts with 3 FW800 drives and 2 FW400 drives attached at the end, and I kept it like that after realizing that I was getting FW800 speeds when transferring files between the FW800 drives and the Mac. But I'm not 100% sure about other setups.

As to the "flaky USB" issue, an RME forum administrator seems to suggest that it's no longer a problem (also, http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_fireface_uc_systems.php?page=content/products/en_uc_general (RME's take on OSX USB audio) might interest you). But the FF800 sure is a great piece of equipment... Just seems like too much of an investment considering the upcoming USB 3.0. These really are awkward times for choosing an interface, and Apple hasn't helped much 

Just my 2c.


----------



## cc64 (Aug 17, 2010)

Hey Talino thanks again for the real useful info.

Since i've already hijacked this thread enough i'll be starting a new one concerning the iMac vs MacPro as a viable option and see where this leads us ; )

Best,

Claude


----------



## Mike Connelly (Aug 18, 2010)

It really depends on the software. Logic is currently limited to 8 cores but I've heard that Cubase can use all cores on a 12 core machine including the hyperthreading cores (that could be wrong though, or it could be true only on the PC side).

If that's really the case, then a 12 core machine may be tempting for people who are currently running slave machines. Same with Logic assuming it gets updated to use more cores sooner or later.

For Logic users, with the current version it is tempting to save some cash and get an i7 imac or quad MP since those are the only machines where Logic uses all cores.

There's definitely a case to be made for using a slave machine, the question is how (assuming the software supports all the cores) a cheap slave along with a cheap host machine compare to a 6/8/12 core machine in terms of cost and performance. Right now in the case of Logic I suspect the edge would go to the setup with a slave machine but that could change if Logic is optimized for more cores.

cc64 - an imac may be fine for what you want to do, but I'd wait to decide until after the new MP models are shipping and there is feedback about how the various audio apps run on them. Until they are actually out we can all speculate but nobody really knows yet. The new models have been shipped from asia, looks like people will startòÿ   áôÿ   áôÿ   áôÿ   áôÿ   áô	ÿ   áô
ÿ   áôÿ   áôÿ   áô ÿ   áôÿ   áôÿ   áôÿ   áôÿ


----------



## talino (Aug 21, 2010)

Mac Performance Guide has the 6-core clearly coming out as a "sweet spot" machine in its in-progress review. His conclusion on the 12-core machine is pretty clear, too.

There are also some preliminary speed graphs for RAW processing. Note that the iMac i7 is *not* the stock one from Apple but a personally customized machine.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Aug 23, 2010)

That review has a Logic benchmark, and the six core at 3.33 performs worse than quads at lower clock speeds (which can do 50+ tracks on that benchmark). It sure looks like Logic not only is not optimized for six core machines, but having that particular number of cores actually hurts performance of the app making it worse than a quad.  The 12 core may or may not work OK with Logic, someone will have to test it.

http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews- ... tudio.html

Hopefully Logic will get an update soon, but who knows when that will happen, could be days or could be months.


----------



## talino (Aug 23, 2010)

Just some real-life experience I thought I'd share, concerning the actual importance of multi-core and multi-CPU machines: I just had a look today at the CPU usage of an application I use very often at work, Avid Media Composer. I started a 280-item render, an operation that freezes the application as long as it isn't finished (or cancelled).

I kept the CPU history running until it was filled (horizontally). The shot was taken while the app was advancing slowly at around 6% completed. It was run on a Mac Pro 2 x 4-Core 2,66 with 6 gigabytes of 1066 DDR3 RAM on Leopard 10.5.6.

Paying for so much unused power *does* seem a bit silly.


----------



## Walra48 (Aug 26, 2010)

OWC is now saying that they too sell 8 GB sticks for the 6 core 3.33 ghz.
So it's conclusive that they will max out at 32 GB RAM.
It will be interesting to see some real world performance tests
once users get their hands on these units and how they stack up to the 8 and 12 core models.


----------

