Mac CPU upgrade - more cores or higher clock speed?

[JZilla]

Hey folks. I've got a 2013 Mac Pro 6,1 Quad 3.7 GHz master computer, and I'm finding it to not be quite up to the task these days so I'm going to upgrade the CPU.

I mostly do hybrid orchestral film scoring, so i've got a massive amount of VIs, mostly Kontakt inside of VE Pro on a slave PC with some Kontakt and miscellaneous other synths (Omnisphere/Trillian, Zebra, etc.) on the Mac. I do lots of stems, so I'm using multiple reverbs and a fair amount of processing while tracking.

What's the current thinking these days when looking at a new CPU, is it better to go for a 12-core 2.2 GHz E5-2692 v2, or something like an 8-core 3.3 GHz E5-2667 v2 QF67? I've found them for comparable prices, so it really comes down to the more cores/faster clock speed argument. Any suggestions?

Thanks.

[HCMarkus]

Do this simple math:

Number of Cores
x
Clock Speed

Compare the answers. All else equal, for audio work (which scales across multiple cores very well), go with the CPU that yields the bigger number.

In this case, looks like a wash! Perhaps you should reference Geekbench scores...

[Michael Canavan]

Do this simple math:

Number of Cores
x
Clock Speed

Compare the answers. All else equal, for audio work (which scales across multiple cores very well), go with the CPU that yields the bigger number.

In this case, looks like a wash! Perhaps you should reference Geekbench scores...

Geekbench is 100% the answer here, mostly the newer chip if the chip in question is near the fastest offered, will be faster even if the clock speed would say otherwise. In DAW logic, in theory anyway, more cores equals more tracks, in practice more cores can mean inefficient use of resources. It's why the fastest for single core use machine Apple makes is an iMac, not a Mac Pro, faster single CPU etc.

[Killahurts]

I have a late 2010 Mac Pro that still does not need to be replaced. I have never brought it to it's knees with anything DP. My current template is comprised of around 40 VIs, 24 audio tracks with plugins, 40 more audio tracks without plugins, and around 120 MIDI tracks. When I was doing trailer music last, I had over 300 MIDI tracks, and VE Pro over two slave machines.

How can I possibly do this with a 7 year old machine? Because it rocks 12 cores, that's why. I'm a believer. Yes, I have SSDs (limited to 3Mbps), and I have a lot of RAM. But it's the 12 cores that make the difference.

[JZilla]

Hey Killahurts, thanks for the reply. I guess my main reason for asking is that there seems to be a significant difference in what's available for clock speed in a 12-core vs an 8-core (in this case, 2.2 GHz for the 12 vs 3.3 GHz for the , and so I'm wondering if a slower 12-core outperforms a faster 8-core.

[James Steele]

This topic was posted twice. I have merged both topics.

[JZilla]

Thanks James, it was an accidental double post.

[mikehalloran]

If using a VI host like Kontakt, you want more cores. Each instance will use its own core up to the maximum. Many posts and threads on this subject.

[Killahurts]

Hey Killahurts, thanks for the reply. I guess my main reason for asking is that there seems to be a significant difference in what's available for clock speed in a 12-core vs an 8-core (in this case, 2.2 GHz for the 12 vs 3.3 GHz for the , and so I'm wondering if a slower 12-core outperforms a faster 8-core.

Well, (using HC Marcus's formula) 12 x 2.2 = 26.4 8 x 3.3 = 26.4

So as Mike said, all things being equal, more cores are better.. especially for lots of Kontakt.

[mikehalloran]

As posted a while ago by MagicD...

Large and heavily scripted VI instruments should be in their own instance of the VI, not shared as multiple tracks in the VI. For every such VI instantiation there should be a separate fader in the mixer. This allows DP to access a separate core for each. Smaller instruments and patches can be in a single instance, but larger ones definitely want their own VI instantiation.

[ccrane]

I have a late 2010 Mac Pro that still does not need to be replaced. I have never brought it to it's knees with anything DP. My current template is comprised of around 40 VIs, 24 audio tracks with plugins, 40 more audio tracks without plugins, and around 120 MIDI tracks. When I was doing trailer music last, I had over 300 MIDI tracks, and VE Pro over two slave machines.

How can I possibly do this with a 7 year old machine? Because it rocks 12 cores, that's why. I'm a believer. Yes, I have SSDs (limited to 3Mbps), and I have a lot of RAM. But it's the 12 cores that make the difference.

I have the same machine and am often running against the wall in DP, all versions. I probably run more audio tracks and a ton of plug-ins but it seems that it's the auxes that slow down my system. And by that I mean routing all tracks to an aux, and then sending that aux track to another aux to be recorded. I set the buffer to the max in order to complete the projects and even then DP can be painfully slow, especially when the record target track is armed.

[JZilla]

Thanks for all the answers folks.

I'm also thinking that my heavy aux use might be a problem, so figuring out a new method of template management is probably also in the cards.

[doodles]

I have the same machine and am often running against the wall in DP, all versions. I probably run more audio tracks and a ton of plug-ins but it seems that it's the auxes that slow down my system. And by that I mean routing all tracks to an aux, and then sending that aux track to another aux to be recorded. I set the buffer to the max in order to complete the projects and even then DP can be painfully slow, especially when the record target track is armed.

Yep, that's the issue I've just been running into. It's the auxes into stereos. Cut them down, the machine becomes responsive again.

[Elektroakoustika]

I don't have a Trash Can, but yesterday I just upgraded my 2009 Mac Pro from a 8-Core 2.26 Ghz to a 12-Core 2.93 Ghz machine. As far as CPU tasks are concerned, this new one smokes the old one. I am doing similar work to you as well.

I have DP connected to VE Pro running anywhere from 6 to 12 instances of Kontakt. Having 4 extra cores seems to have been the biggest benefit in what I can see through iStat Pro (though I'm sure the clock speed increase also doesn't hurt). I can also re-assign thread usage in VE Pro (right now I have it set to two-threads per instance, as that seems to have the best performance. Even then, I'm barely stressing the CPU's.

As my other thread talks about, this is probably the biggest improvement I could have made. I've owned this computer for 8 years and haven't done much in the past other than adding more RAM and SSD's. The CPU upgrade was one of the biggest changes I've seen in the overall performance of the computer.

[Rick Cornish]

I'm also thinking that my heavy aux use might be a problem, so figuring out a new method of template management is probably also in the cards.

In case it's applicable to you; I used to have a template where I'd pre-loaded 3-5 commonly-used plug-ins on each track, but in bypass mode, so they'd be available quickly when I needed them. I was shocked at the load an empty project had on my (pretty robust) machine. MagicD explained that plug-ins are active in the system, even when bypassed (which is so you can click them in and out without a glitch or delay). Needless to say, I lightened up on the plugs in my base template significantly after that, which had an immediate effect.