# Getting a Mac Pro 8 Core-can anyone recommend the speed? 2.26 or higher?



## johnfindlay (Feb 27, 2010)

Hi-I'm about to get a Mac Pro 8 Core-can anyone recommend the speed? 2.26 or higher?


I will be running Logic Pro-+ Quicktime..nothing else really.

Thanks
JF


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 27, 2010)

thats always a touchy and grey area. 
because ghz speed nowadays dont matter as much as before. 

with that said, u have to think about it in this way; 

the idea for multi core systems is for different applications to run on different cores and in the future single applications will share cores. some do nowadays. 

so each core will have 2.26ghz and if you are comfortable with that then cool. 

i got the 2.66ghz. i feel if i am going to get an expensive mac pro with multi core id rather get something that will last me a long time. and the higher the speed the faster will go and luckily the longer itll provide me with a good working environment. 

i wished ive gotten the 3.0 to load more stuff in bidule and not get pops and crackles but 2.66 is actually not bad at all. 


also keep in mind what said above and if you are just using logic then maybe an 4 core at a higher ghz speed might be better. still not as many options as the pc guys do!


----------



## José Herring (Feb 27, 2010)

If all you're running is Logic and Quicktime then 2.26 will be more than enough. But, if you want to run other things I'd go for a faster cpu.

Personally, it is a gray area like mentioned above. And, maybe I'm old school and still think that ghz speed matters even in a multi-core world. I had a hard time trusting my quad core at 2.66ghz but it seems to really rock and cpu hasn't been an issue.

As far as I can tell even if the program isn't optimized for multiple cores the operating system will still utilize all cores. 

A long winded way of saying, I don't know. But, to be sure I'd go with at least a 2.66 machine. just in case.

Jose


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 27, 2010)

here is a recent benchmark. 
http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Feb 27, 2010)

Hi John,

Welcome to the forum! nice to see you here.

the rule is generally to get the faster computer if in doubt. One good thing to mention is the life of computers is lasting longer than it did say 5-6 yrs ago. i am still comfortable on a computer I bought nearly 3 yrs ago and the one I bought before that lasted 3 yrs. Before that I was changing them every year to 18 months. You should buy with the thought that it will most likely be around for a while.

Also Apple has not released a new desktop for a while so you may wish to wait a month or 2 to see what the next incarnation is. Rumors have it as a substantial change in handling memory. Still manufactures have yet to tap out the power in my 3 year old comp and it may take a while for that to still happen. software takes a while to catch up with comps these days.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 27, 2010)

I definitely agree that computers are lasting longer these days, and that's a good point about how things have turned around - the software was way ahead of the computers until the last couple of generations.


----------



## spectrum (Feb 27, 2010)

gsilbers @ Sat Feb 27 said:


> thats always a touchy and grey area.
> because ghz speed nowadays dont matter as much as before.


I'd make a much stronger argument that actually, with plug-in virtual instruments it's just as important as it's always been.

There are no DAWs that allow a plug-in virtual instrument to address multiple cores, so the fastest any single plug-in can run is what's available on a single processor.

So *I HIGHLY recommend AGAINST going with the 2.2ghz Mac Pro*...that machine is already not very fast with VIs and it will seem increasingly so very quickly. Even my laptop and my low-end iMacs have way more headroom for Omnisphere than that 2.2ghz Mac Pro. Going with that machine for serious production work is a huge mistake IMHO.

Get the fastest processor you can. That's the one component you cannot upgrade, so bite the bullet and get the fastest one you can swing.

If you do this, the likelihood that your computer will last a long time and you'll be able to use the latest and greatest plug-ins and VIs for a long time is very high.



> i got the 2.66ghz. i feel if i am going to get an expensive mac pro with multi core id rather get something that will last me a long time. and the higher the speed the faster will go and luckily the longer itll provide me with a good working environment.


Exactly.


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 27, 2010)

Craig Sharmat @ Sat Feb 27 said:


> Hi John,
> 
> Welcome to the forum! nice to see you here.
> 
> ...




http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/

maybe with the new intel 6 core chips?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 27, 2010)

Eric, do you have an opinion about last year's 2.8 or 3.2GHz machines vs. the new ones with lower GHz per core? Benchmark sites usually tell you very little.


----------



## José Herring (Feb 27, 2010)

spectrum @ Sat Feb 27 said:


> There are no DAWs that allow a plug-in virtual instrument to address multiple cores, so the fastest any single plug-in can run is what's available on a single processor.



Hmmm. Curios statement. One that I don't understand fully. When I switched to my i7 chip from my 3.2 ghz P4 chip I could run way more VI's without taxing my cpu. But, on my P4 I'd run out of cpu almost all the time. The i7 is running at 2.66ghz/core. So according to your statement I would be taxing one core over all others. But that's just not happening. Am I missing something? Perhaps the DAW or the Operating system distributes different instances and different plugins over the different cores?



Jose


----------



## johnfindlay (Feb 27, 2010)

Hey Craig! thanks! and thank you very much gents. Im going to go over your comments again-excellent.

I found a refurb up here:


Refurbished Mac Pro 2.66GHz 8-Core Intel Xeon

Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processors
6GB (6x1GB) of 1066MHz DDR3 ECC memory
640GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200 rpm
18x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB GDDR3 memory

obviously I would upgrade the RAM to 12 or more.

JF


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 27, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 27 said:


> Eric, do you have an opinion about last year's 2.8 or 3.2GHz machines vs. the new ones with lower GHz per core? Benchmark sites usually tell you very little.



not eric, but ill comment that the older xeons folks had better luck than with the new 2009 models. but thats from a few threads ive read here. but forgot the reason at this moment.. hmm maybe eric should comment


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 27, 2010)

spectrum @ Sat Feb 27 said:


> gsilbers @ Sat Feb 27 said:
> 
> 
> > thats always a touchy and grey area.
> ...



Err...Logic spreads it across all 4 on my machine with Kontakt, or even VSL. At least that what it SEEMS like according to the CPU monitor.

But I still agree with max CPU. Why? Because well...software will need more and more CPU in the future. Macs are not cheap.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 27, 2010)

Nathan, Logic assigns successive tracks to successive cores. What Eric is saying that a single V.I. is going to a single core in every DAW, so if each core is weak then it doesn't matter if you have eight of them.

And I recently discovered that Activity Monitor can make it look like Logic is spreading things out when actually something else is running on the cores.

But I just checked, and Vienna Ensemble Pro is definitely splitting the load evenly. This is four channels of a single Omnisphere instance inside VE P (which is running inside Logic):

http://gallery.me.com/virtualinstrument ... olor=black


----------



## JMDNYC (Feb 27, 2010)

No one here mentioned that there are probably going to be new Mac Pro's on March 16th. Do a google search for "Mac Pro Gulftown" and you'll see a wealth of information.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 27, 2010)

There are always going to be new Mac Pros coming out.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Feb 27, 2010)

Would be nice if we could put those 6 cores in our already bought machines. You can upgrade a 4 core to an 8 core, but the processor is really hard to find as it's older.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 28, 2010)

To the OP- get every mhz you can afford. You'll be happier for longer, guaranteed.

I find it amazing that a sophisticated, relatively tech savvy bunch of composers and producers don't know how their DAWS/computers handle multicore issues. I mean, I certainly don't, all I have is anecdotal theory. I'm sure Eric knows what he's talking about, but even so, there doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rule to assigning instances or running large templates within one computer. I REALLY don't want to go multiple computer, but I may have to bite the bullet and do it. I constantly have the feeling that my 2008 2.8 Mac Pro has a lot of untapped power.


----------



## JT3_Jon (Feb 28, 2010)

double post....see below


----------



## JT3_Jon (Feb 28, 2010)

JT3_Jon @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> johnfindlay @ Sun Feb 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Im now looking at this for an extra 1000+ over the 2.66 speed :
> ...



Just to add to the confusion, that extra $1000+ could get you the top of the line 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo mac mini, which you could upgrade to 8GB ram and using VE pro could offer seamless integration as a slave computer via ethernet!

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never heard of a single VI maxing out a 2.66Ghz processor; they max out when you have single processors crunching numbers for multiple channel strips. If this is true (I'd love to hear from you current mac pro owners!) then theoretically wouldn't adding the 2ea 2.66 processors from a mac mini (essentially making your computing system a 10-core 2.66ghz) give you more overall CPU power than upgrading your mac pro's processors from 2.66ghz to 2.93ghz?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 28, 2010)

You won't save a lot of money, gsilbers, at least not pound for pound at the top end. These processors are something like $1000 each.

At lower price ranges you will save some money, but I think if you price out the parts alone you'll find that the Mac Pros aren't bad.

But I'm still curious whether you're better off with last year's Xeon models with higher GHz per core for running V.I.s.


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 28, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> You won't save a lot of money, gsilbers, at least not pound for pound at the top end. These processors are something like $1000 each.
> 
> At lower price ranges you will save some money, but I think if you price out the parts alone you'll find that the Mac Pros aren't bad.
> 
> But I'm still curious whether you're better off with last year's Xeon models with higher GHz per core for running V.I.s.



ooopss you are right. i meant to say the i7 hackintoshes.. ive seen some ads in craigslist..... which u know is grrrrrrrreattt <sarcasm off> :roll: 

but for real id mentioned it to see if others have dealt with this which in theory could be a cost effective solution if its based on an i7 9xx series. 

again, i dunno much about it and assume itll be a nightmare doing updates and hardware compatitablity 

anyway,, here is what i was refering to 

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst/sys/1621017664.html (http://losangeles.craigslist.org/wst/sy ... 17664.html)

btw.. its illegal to have these pcs. mac cops will getcha


----------



## spectrum (Feb 28, 2010)

josejherring @ Sat Feb 27 said:


> Hmmm. Curios statement. One that I don't understand fully. When I switched to my i7 chip from my 3.2 ghz P4 chip I could run way more VI's without taxing my cpu. But, on my P4 I'd run out of cpu almost all the time. The i7 is running at 2.66ghz/core.


Sure, but you are talking about general use of multiinstances and lots of things going on in a session. The i7 2.66ghz is a big step up from the old p4s, so you are going to experience a huge increase in overall performance.

Also, the 2.66 speed is a good one right now for music production. My point is not to be deceived into thinking that 2.2ghz Mac Pro multicore machines are "just as good" as last years 3ghz Mac Pro multicore machines......for what we do with VIs, they are not as good.

Get at least the 2.66 Mac Pros now or the 2.93 if you can swing it. It's going to last longer.



> So according to your statement I would be taxing one core over all others. But that's just not happening. Am I missing something? Perhaps the DAW or the Operating system distributes different instances and different plugins over the different cores?


Sure, when you work with single instances and don't run each plug-in hard, then the load can be distributed by the host across the processors....but this is not how everyone works in every setup.

It's better to have a faster machine that's more versatile for different ways of working.



Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 27 said:


> Eric, do you have an opinion about last year's 2.8 or 3.2GHz machines vs. the new ones with lower GHz per core? Benchmark sites usually tell you very little.


Those are all excellent machines.



JT3_Jon @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> Just to add to the confusion, that extra $1000+ could get you the top of the line 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo mac mini, which you could upgrade to 8GB ram and using VE pro could offer seamless integration as a slave computer via ethernet!


Yes, but Mac Minis are just "OK" as slave computers, not necessarily as nice as making sure you've got plenty of headroom in your primary system.



> Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never heard of a single VI maxing out a 2.66Ghz processor;


Sorry....Yep that's wrong. 

I can pretty easily max out any processor, including the fastest available, by pushing the capabilities of any one of our plug-ins. For example, even heavy use of Stylus RMX can do this when you start pushing lots of effects on multiple edit groups and multitimbral usage.

That's what I'm trying to point out - there's a lot of misconception I'm seeing and hearing about this whole multi-core issue. It's great, but it's no substitute for making sure that each core has enough headroom.



> ....they max out when you have single processors crunching numbers for multiple channel strips.


Sure, that's another way to overtax a processor, but you can also do it with a single powerful plug-in.



> If this is true (I'd love to hear from you current mac pro owners!) then theoretically wouldn't adding the 2ea 2.66 processors from a mac mini (essentially making your computing system a 10-core 2.66ghz) give you more overall CPU power than upgrading your mac pro's processors from 2.66ghz to 2.93ghz?


A 2.93ghz processor (or even a 2.66ghz processor) on a Mac Pro is going to give you WAY better performance than a 2.66ghz mac mini.

There are other advantages/disadvantages to the slave computer approach of course, but don't mistake that with actual performance.

The 2.66ghz Mac pros are good machines for music, I'd just recommend staying away from the 2.2 models....that's going to bite you and isn't a great investment (even though it's tempting).

Like many times in life, you get what you pay for.


----------



## spectrum (Feb 28, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 27 said:


> Nathan, Logic assigns successive tracks to successive cores. What Eric is saying that a single V.I. is going to a single core in every DAW, so if each core is weak then it doesn't matter if you have eight of them.


Yes.



> But I just checked, and Vienna Ensemble Pro is definitely splitting the load evenly. This is four channels of a single Omnisphere instance inside VE P (which is running inside Logic):
> 
> http://gallery.me.com/virtualinstrument ... olor=black


That's interesting and I'll look into that. If so, that's a unique approach. None of the other DAWs work that way. It's simpler as just a: assign this plug-in instances to this processor or that processor, but not sharing the load. To my knowledge, that's something that only applications can do.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 28, 2010)

> There are always going to be new Mac Pros coming out



I should have added: ...unless you wait for the next model, in which case they come out with one that's almost identical to the previous one eight months later.


----------



## JT3_Jon (Mar 1, 2010)

Thank you for the great reply Eric and others! This is a really great thread!! 



spectrum @ Sun Feb 28 said:


> > If this is true (I'd love to hear from you current mac pro owners!) then theoretically wouldn't adding the 2ea 2.66 processors from a mac mini (essentially making your computing system a 10-core 2.66ghz) give you more overall CPU power than upgrading your mac pro's processors from 2.66ghz to 2.93ghz?
> 
> 
> A 2.93ghz processor (or even a 2.66ghz processor) on a Mac Pro is going to give you WAY better performance than a 2.66ghz mac mini.



I apologize for not being very clear. The point I was trying to make is that for the same money as the Mac Pro 8-core 2.93GHz, you can get a Mac Pro 8-core 2.66GHz AND a mac mini 2.66GHZ. In this case, would you get better performance out of a single Mac pro 2.93, or the Mac Pro 2.66GHZ + 2.66 mac mini slave?


----------



## johnfindlay (Mar 1, 2010)

Thanks for continuing the thread guys.Im reading it all-not commenting much-just learning!

JF


----------



## JohnG (Mar 1, 2010)

JT3_Jon @ 1st March 2010 said:


> for the same money as the Mac Pro 8-core 2.93GHz, you can get a Mac Pro 8-core 2.66GHz AND a mac mini 2.66GHZ. In this case, would you get better performance out of a single Mac pro 2.93, or the Mac Pro 2.66GHZ + 2.66 mac mini slave?



I doubt you will really get what you want, personally; plus you introduce a lot more complexity working with multiple machines. I'm still on a four-processor (dual core) Mac Pro, using Omnisphere and piles of other stuff, but it works like a charm. However, each of the four processors is 3 GHz. Compared with the unhappy posts by users with 8 core Macs, but with slower clock speeds, I think I can corroborate the preference for faster processors. 

But leaving my opinion aside, I think Eric's been pretty emphatic about processor speed, especially for him -- he's a pretty relaxed communicator, so this is about as emphatic as I've seen.

If you get at least the 2.93, your life likely will be good for a while. Go short and you risk obsolescence in 18 months, so any savings could be ephemeral.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 6, 2010)

Update: Karel (VSL developer) explained this:

"There is no number of cores setting, only a number of threads setting. The OS decides how to optimally spread these threads over the cores. There is no more sensible way to spread the load over cores unfortunately."


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 6, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Mar 06 said:


> Update: Karel (VSL developer) explained this:
> 
> "There is no number of cores setting, only a number of threads setting. The OS decides how to optimally spread these threads over the cores. There is no more sensible way to spread the load over cores unfortunately."



If that's universally true, then I guess it would behoovd us to figure out how the most recent Mac OS deals with multicores and thread assignment.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 6, 2010)

I suspect it's circular: it depends on how and whether the application divides its instructions into threads.

But every time I've checked VE Pro in Activity Monitor, the processor meters have been equal (as in my link above).

The only fly in that ointment is that I now wonder how Logic is able to assign tracks to cores. It clearly is - you can see it happening - but how does that reconcile with Karel's explanation? I have no doubt that what he's saying is absolutely true, though - you have to start from that assumption.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 6, 2010)

One thing 35 years of technohell has taught me-the bright future is always slightly out of reach. I guess that's why it's the future. 

The G5 was going to be the be all, end all. Then the Mac Pro. I mean, things are faster, better, but the demands are larger, more intensive. It's a Tantalus and the fruit story.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 11, 2010)

Thats why the i7 980X is a great CPU.
Everyone is going to cry about the price but for those of us who actually earn money with their DAW's there's nothing more XITE'ing than a new faster CPU.
One of these with fast RAM will be the best VI DAW you can get.
Since I still have a place to master using hardware I want my machine to be a live monster VI DAW.
The i7 980X just needs a chipset.mobo from Supermicro w/ 32MB for onboard VGA.
I already built my Kontakt 1U DAW for a meger 800 bucks complete. I can splurge on the second 1U and this CPU is the choice.
FYI the i5 is just fine for Kontakt, especially if low heat and speed are a requirement.
The i7 945-975 are excellent CPU's but don't have a huge margin over the i5's.
This new CPU is 130W and will need breathing room but it is the fastest choice for a DAW you will find.
I agree that every 12-18 months an upgrade or new mobo/RAM/CPU is wise.
I have had the same rig for 3 years now, and upgraded just the CPU last time.
I managed to keep up with the VI power requirements, but I will do the same thing again I am sure.
Right now the X58 is mature so the i7 980X is such a wise upgrade for X58 PC users.


----------



## stevenson-again (Mar 11, 2010)

> But leaving my opinion aside, I think Eric's been pretty emphatic about processor speed, especially for him -- he's a pretty relaxed communicator, so this is about as emphatic as I've seen.



i would actually point out that from his perspective, as the developer of one of the most powerful plug-ins out there, then processor speed would be important. if you were to exploit say omnisphere to its fullest then you are going to need power, and lots of it one core because of the nature of the way it would be used in a DAW. but it is one of the rare plug-ins whose demands are ahead of hardware.

i have had a chance to get to the bottom of the mutli-core thing to an extent. my understanding comes from a reliable source but i am just a dumb composer so bear with me:

in logic at least, each cst represents one thread which can only be processed on one core. therefore, if you have a really demanding plug-in such as omnisphere, putting delay designer and a convolution reverb on the same channel strip could cause the cpu to spike. in this case, you can distribute the load by sending the signal to an aux cst and putting the delay and reverb on that, since the aux strip represents another thread and would be processed on another core.

as far as working out which core is going to do what, as i understand it, up until snow leoaprd, the apps themselves had to work out how to distribute processing - and it was a major headache for developers. now with SL, that is handled at a deeper level by the OS, and its more efficient and less work for the devs.

as far the latest computers with lightly lower clock speeds are concerned - as far as i understand they are capable of hyperthreading meaning their theoretical number of cores can double. don't ask me how this works in practise. by this stage my eyes glazed over....i'm a dumb composer remember. they are 'supposed' to be considerably more efficient and faster in a real world sense than the older 8-cores with slightly higher clock speeds.

the question when working out what is the right system for you is to work out what your dependencies are. not everyone uses the computer the same way. i have a friend making fantastic records on an old single processor G4 in protools in OS9! still!

if you know you are going to use a bag of omnispheres and kore2s and god knows what else, then yeah, power is going to be important. if you know you are going to stream heaps of samples you need to think about distributing your samples across drives, as well as having heaps of RAM, but power will be less of an issue.

i think we are heading for everything in 1 computer and agree with those who feel that is much the best and most simplest way. but if your budget is tight or you want to spend the money on HS or something, then maybe slaving is still the way forward. not for me though....

also, don't forget noding. you can distribute audio processing for third party plug-ins with logic, meaning, if you did use a mac mini you could also use it to free up some headroom should need it. but these are work arounds - if you reckon you're going to get to that level of cpu demand then you really should be looking at something more powerful. if you are mostly streaming samples and playing back audio then CPU speed is less of an issue.


----------



## spectrum (Mar 11, 2010)

stevenson-again @ Thu Mar 11 said:


> > But leaving my opinion aside, I think Eric's been pretty emphatic about processor speed, especially for him -- he's a pretty relaxed communicator, so this is about as emphatic as I've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope. Nodes in Logic do not work with third-part VIs, so that does not help the headroom issue.

I hope that all of this is helpful info and that it's clear that my intention here is not to argue the points, but just to provide some advise when making a major purchase for a music production system for use with virtual instrument plug-ins. I'm lucky enough to have had access to almost every model and speed of Mac released in the past 6 years and have tested virtual instrument performance on all of them, so I'm just passing on my real experiences with them

In today's economy and our ever-changing music business, making wise investments for your studio is critical. The central CPU is still your most important computer, so my advise is not to skimp on it....especially since the clock-speed and CPU is one of the only key components of your system that cannot be easily upgraded in the Mac universe.

Cheers!

spectrum


----------



## Synesthesia (Mar 11, 2010)

Eric,

I'm very interested to know what you would recommend for someone running a system who is currently using 3-4 slaves to playback big orchestral stuff, but who also wants the power to creatively use VIs within the host.

If you are offloading some degree of playback of more 'straight' sounds - for voice count maximum - does that still demand the highest specced host automatically, as the internal VI situation is the same?

I am looking at upgrading my host machine soon (its one of those older 2 x 3Ghz Dual Xeons) and wondering which machine to choose, and I run several PCs outboard, an i7 920, a quad core QX6600 and a couple of dual cores.

Wondering whether I should split my budget and upgrade another rack PC to an i7, or spend that 800 or so on the host...

I am very grateful as I'm sure we all are for this impromptu tech symposium!

Cheers,

Paul

:D


----------



## spectrum (Mar 11, 2010)

Synesthesia @ Thu Mar 11 said:


> If you are offloading some degree of playback of more 'straight' sounds - for voice count maximum - does that still demand the highest specced host automatically, as the internal VI situation is the same?


Basically yes, I don't recommend getting a new computer that's slower in ghz speed than you already have. Multiple processors only get you so far. 

It can be a little slower and you'll be fine, but don't drop down to 2.2ghz.

Keep it 2.6ghz or higher at least.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 11, 2010)

Brotha' Man EPer,
I haven't purchased Omnisphere yet because every studio up here has one and most guys have the MacPro's with the exception of one guy.
I recently played Omnisphere on his OC'd 4.6GHz DAW and immediately fell back in love w/ it. I have always liked the unique sounds that one with an imagination can conjur up but the loading of presets were slow on a Dual Xeon 5500 @ 2.26 w/ 1066 RAM.
Seeing Omnisphere load under a 4.6 Supermicro PC made me feverish as the presets were not instantaneous but at a workable load time.
I used 4 x S770 years ago and a QX-1 on stage so I can deal w/ loads.
I have 2 apps I will be getting that will run on this new i7 980X and Omnisphere will be one of them.
I never liked OC'ing but Intel now has options in all of their BIOS's and the unlocked multipliers allow the maximum RAM and CPU tolerances, which mean I will have a sweet spot of around 4.6Ghz, the i7 980X can alrady hit 5GHz with stock HSF combo's.
I have been sliding by on the P35 and a Wolfdale for years, this new i7 speed demon is going to be fun.....
BTW on an i5 CPU most apps love the cache design and 2 core/4 thread arrangement. It runs Kontakt 4.0 and Reaper like a Bat outò¡Ÿ   È¡ ¡Ÿ   È


----------



## JT3_Jon (Mar 11, 2010)

So would it make more sense to get a 3.2GHZ 2008 Mac Pro instead of their current nehalem line?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 11, 2010)

That was the question I asked Eric on the first page, and he answered that they're all great choices.


----------



## spectrum (Mar 11, 2010)

JT3_Jon @ Thu Mar 11 said:


> So would it make more sense to get a 3.2GHZ 2008 Mac Pro instead of their current nehalem line?


I would seriously wait until Tuesday. The rumor sites are saying that we'll have new Mac Pros announced this coming week.

Honestly, they are all pretty much great for VIs with the exception of the 2.2ghz machine being a step downward (of course it will certainly run Omnisphere, but it will choke on 8 parts playing polyphonically in a single instance. That's the one I'm strongly recommending against.


----------



## spectrum (Mar 11, 2010)

cc64 @ Thu Mar 11 said:


> I use Omnisphere everyday on a G5 2X2.5 Ghz but don't try this at home folks ; P
> 
> Load times are pretty slow but its kinda normal when you load 200Mb sounds...I think this as more to do with memory speed and HD speed than CPU though..
> 
> Claude


Yes....on all Mac Pros the load time should be only a couple seconds at maximum - even for the largest Omni patches.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 11, 2010)

Having a fast PC is strictly for stage use and faster preset loading, no advantage if you have time to sip your coffee in between presets.
I always had to buy 4 x samplers so I could have 2 x playing while the SCSI drives loaded the other 2. So I have dealt with this for years.
But waiting for presets on a native app can be overcome with a fast memory sub system and fast CPU now, that's what i am excited about. Shaving off seconds is a huge benefit, but only to guys who need a superfast workflow.
Its the main reason I still use DSP platforms and hardware.
I can't imagine how irate a Guitarist would be if he had to stare at his pedal waiting for a sound......... :cry:


----------



## stevenson-again (Mar 12, 2010)

> Nope. Nodes in Logic do not work with third-part VIs, so that does not help the headroom issue.



actually that is not true. as of LP9 you CAN node 3rd parties, although there are a few that do not work. from the logic pro manual:



> Plug-in Considerations
> Some Audio Units effects may not support the Node functionality of Logic Pro. You can disable the Node processing for incompatible Audio Units effects in the AU Manager application.
> A number of Node-compatible third-party Audio Units effect plug-ins may open a dialog on the Node machine. You will not see this dialog on the host machine (unless Remote Desktop is in use). The Open dialog will lead to timing errors, and the connection to the Node will be disrupted.



i've actually tried it and it does work. i needed to node because i was running G5 2.7 DP and it was choking on kore2. i bought a 2.8 8-core and have hardly used kore2 since. :-P

but while i agree with 95% with what you are saying eric, the main thrust of you point is this:



> My point is simply: "Why go to all the expense and trouble and short-change yourself now, when you'll be kicking yourself about it later?"



to which i respond; i see so many people advised to go for the latest and greatest when in reality they use maybe 5% of the capabilities 95% of the time. getting the fastest computer you can is not going to help you write nicer tunes.



> I think it's short-sighted for any composer designing a new system to under-power it.



only if they are composers capable of exploiting plug-ins that need the power. not everyone does that, believe me, i speak from experience. i know a number of some of the most successful composers in this country who are relative technophobes and just don't go in for that kind of sound design, or if they do, they achieve it by more hands on means. or they hire someone to create the sounds for them. some of these guys are ridiculous - there computers are literally coal-powered. i am not one of them - i most definitely do go in for creating my own sounds and getting a firm grip on technology, but i often worry that while i am fiddling creating unique and interesting sounds (and posting on composer forums) i am missing the bigger picture...is that tune really catchy enough, that chord sequence and voicing just right?

what i am saying is; horses for courses. if you do a heap of electronica, then CPU is likely to be your bottleneck, in which case your computer speed as absolutely critical. if you are going for orchestral mock-ups, you want heaps of voices and lots of streaming, drive speed and number is likely going to be your bottleneck so invest there. if you are someone more like me who is going to want to play around with RMX, omnisphere, and kore2 a bit then you need to follow your advice and don't be too tightfisted. lots of guys here though are more interested in the orchestral mock-up side of things....

reality is though, i would really baulk at telling anyone 2.26 is going to keep them out of trouble...you never know.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 12, 2010)

I can't really agree. Even for orchestral stuff, at least on a single machine, I find CPU speed and amount of RAM to be as critical as hard drive speed. Polyphony and CPU power seem to go hand in hand. There's never quite enough clock speed to make me happy on Cubase.

OTOH, I'm still working out my orch templates, and I suspect Play isn't helping a great deal. I'm still sort of curious whether using VE Pro on a single machine will eventually allow me to lower my in-sequencer RAM footprint and CPU use.


----------



## José Herring (Mar 12, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Fri Mar 12 said:


> I can't really agree. Even for orchestral stuff, at least on a single machine, I find CPU speed and amount of RAM to be as critical as hard drive speed. Polyphony and CPU power seem to go hand in hand. There's never quite enough clock speed to make me happy on Cubase.
> 
> OTOH, I'm still working out my orch templates, and I suspect Play isn't helping a great deal. I'm still sort of curious whether using VE Pro on a single machine will eventually allow me to lower my in-sequencer RAM footprint and CPU use.



The more you can move stuff off your host the better imo. VEPro is a good alternative. I'll let you find out if audio over lan or using it with a soundcard works better for you. Subject has been beat to death and I'm tired of it.

Getting a good slave computer loaded with RAM I think will make a big difference in your setup. I moved most of my template to my slave computer and it helped a lot, and I don't even have a powerful slave yet.

Jose


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 12, 2010)

I sort of hoped my Mac Pro Harpertown 2.8 with 18 gig of RAM and 4 internal Terabyte drives would do-but I'm a dreamer


----------



## spectrum (Mar 12, 2010)

stevenson-again @ Fri Mar 12 said:


> > Nope. Nodes in Logic do not work with third-part VIs, so that does not help the headroom issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope. Only AU FX are supported, not Virtual Instrument AUs. The topic is about headroom needed to run VIs.



> but while i agree with 95% with what you are saying eric, the main thrust of you point is this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't need a computer at all to write tunes or compose for that matter.

The topic is about what's needed for running VIs.



> > I think it's short-sighted for any composer designing a new system to under-power it.
> 
> 
> 
> only if they are composers capable of exploiting plug-ins that need the power. not everyone does that, believe me, i speak from experience. i know a number of some of the most successful composers in this country who are relative technophobes and just don't go in for that kind of sound design, or if they do, they achieve it by more hands on means. or they hire someone to create the sounds for them. some of these guys are ridiculous - there computers are literally coal-powered. i am not one of them - i most definitely do go in for creating my own sounds and getting a firm grip on technology, but i often worry that while i am fiddling creating unique and interesting sounds (and posting on composer forums) i am missing the bigger picture...is that tune really catchy enough, that chord sequence and voicing just right?


Sure, but you can easily run out of power not even doing any sound design types of things....stacking parts for example is more of an arranging technique. It's highly effective and uses more CPU.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 12, 2010)

Interesting thread.

Eric, please allow me one question. In this summer I want to buy (a newest Mac) or built me a new main PC.

What is the better thing, a Mac or a PC when I want to move to 64 bit?

Thanks!

Gunther


----------



## Synesthesia (Mar 12, 2010)

Thanks for your thoughts Eric. 

I look forward to next week to see how the mac pro landscape changes!

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## José Herring (Mar 12, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Fri Mar 12 said:


> I sort of hoped my Mac Pro Harpertown 2.8 with 18 gig of RAM and 4 internal Terabyte drives would do-but I'm a dreamer



It will, but once you start streaming full orchestra plus running eq, compression reverb your favorite delays, ect... I find that the latency just gets too much to work with. I use Cubase which has automatic latency compensation so the time lag starts to climb. And, if I turn latency compensation off I get distracted because everything sounds so terrible. In the end I just feel like keeping the main machine as lean as possible. 

Jose


----------



## spectrum (Mar 12, 2010)

germancomponist @ Fri Mar 12 said:


> Interesting thread.
> 
> Eric, please allow me one question. In this summer I want to buy (a newest Mac) or built me a new main PC.
> 
> ...


Not gonna touch that one! 

You can certainly get great results from either one and there are good 64-bit hosts on both now.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 12, 2010)

I think you'd be best off with an Atari 64 and Opcode 2. Stable and fast as hell..
Then a room of MOTM, and Oberhein SEM's and you're good to go.


----------



## LFO (Mar 13, 2010)

spectrum @ Fri Mar 12 said:


> Not gonna touch that one!
> 
> You can certainly get great results from either one and there are good 64-bit hosts on both now.



Eric you are a wise man! 

I'll throw this in, just because it is a safe angle. I think it really comes down to cost. I love Macs. I've only been using them for three years now, but the honeymoon is not over.

However, when it comes to *strictly* the DAW world, I would be just as happy on a Windows 7 (not XP, especially not Vista) box. For audio work, I think the experience is now identical if you limit your DAW choices to applications that are available on both platforms. In other words, if DP, Logic and Sonar are not part of the decision making process. Windows 7 is truly a new beast and a much improved beast over XP, there simply is no denying it. A game changer for `that side' of the computing world.

So, the driving factor becomes cost. If you *build* a killer PC, you will save money. If you purchase a Mac, you will have a more compatible hardware / software combination. Figure out which is more important and I think you are at least 80% of the way to a final decision.

If you are going to do lots of other stuff on the system then for me Mac wins hands down. I have too many great apps on my Mac, I can get stuff done faster on my Mac than my PC and I just plain love the OSX interface. That is all subjective of course.

I am actually thinking about going back to PC for my audio and keeping everything else on my Mac. Yes, strange but true. I want to see what the new 6 core processors bring to the plate for both platforms performance wise and cost wise and then I'll make my decision.
-Kevin


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 13, 2010)

chimuelo @ Sat Mar 13 said:


> I think you'd be best off with an Atari 64 and Opcode 2. Stable and fast as hell..
> Then a room of MOTM, and Oberhein SEM's and you're good to go.



We'll see what I find in my cellar. :mrgreen: o=<


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 13, 2010)

> If you *build* a killer PC, you will save money.



Actually that's less true than you might think when you get to the "killer" range. At lower price ranges, yes, but...and now I'm repeating myself....if you price out the cost of the individual components (starting with close to $1k each for the processors) you'll find that the Mac Pro isn't a whole lot more. (That doesn't count RAM - Apple charges a fortune for that.)

When the Mac Pros first came out they were actually cheaper than the components on the internet.


----------



## synthetic (Mar 13, 2010)

Don't tease, I still miss Opcode.


----------

