Is DP8 faster on a PC than on a Mac?

[James Steele]

I'm biding my time and making do with what I have. My hope is when this new Mac Pro hits the stores, the used older form factor Macs will drop in value another couple hundred bucks and then I'll hopefully be able to snap one up. Also, I want to wait around to try and score one where the previous owner has installed extra RAM so I'm not having to buy RAM for an old machine. You see a lot of used Macs out there with 4GB of RAM, etc. and that's not necessarily going to be a good deal unless you can add RAM to it cheaply.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

That's a good plan. I couldn't wait as I was on a 2003 G5.

[James Steele]

That's a good plan. I couldn't wait as I was on a 2003 G5.

I hear you. I still have my G5. It's ridiculous just how much faster the Intel machines are.

[HCMarkus]

4,1 quads at Macofalltrades.com: $799, right now. The RAM these MPs use (1033 or 1333) is inexpensive, and likely to stay that way for some time. James, if you ever decide you want to do it (maybe when prices drop a tad more), I'm in SD and would be happy to help you put a hex CPU in one of those quads.

[dewdman42]

I think the time is already great for picking up an 8 core mac. But I don't think the new ones are going to suck. non pro users will use iMac's and mac Mini's and they don't really need any more than that frankly. The only reason for even coming out with the new Pro model is to support the PRO users that are running Final Cut and other such stuff. Don't worry, its going to rock. However, it may throw some people for a loop by not having drive bays and stuff like that. Everyone will have to get on the thunderbolt bandwagon. But all of that is changing quickly too... SSD's are about to be surpassed by flash technology, etc..

[James Steele]

4,1 quads at Macofalltrades.com: $799, right now. The RAM these MPs use (1033 or 1333) is inexpensive, and likely to stay that way for some time. James, if you ever decide you want to do it (maybe when prices drop a tad more), I'm in SD and would be happy to help you put a hex CPU in one of those quads.

Really? Seriously, that would be great. How does the hex compare to the 8 cores? I'm not up on that.

[PG]

Steinberg has claimed for years that windows is faster than OSX. Especially running on small buffers with low latency the difference is significant in a DAW. But Steinberg uses ASIO on windows. Things could be different for DP. But I wouldn't be surprised if on the same hardware DP would run more efficient on windows. Just like Cubase does. Especially on low buffers/latency.

It could also be a matter of optimization. I recall early releases (x.00 or x.01) of Cubase for the Mac would sometimes display error dialog boxes that looked just like Windows in German. It was pretty clear that the Mac version was a port from Window.

Steinberg did a lot of optimisation somewhere in the v 5 cycle. So the program is rock solid on Mac (and looks much better than on windows - maybe that's why Steinberg always demo the program on Mac)). But they use some kind of "bridge between Core Audio and ASIO" that causes bad low latency performance on Mac, I think - but Steinberg claim OSX is not as good at multithread scaling as windows. (I am not into the tech part so I don't know what that means )...

[HCMarkus]

4,1 quads at Macofalltrades.com: $799, right now. The RAM these MPs use (1033 or 1333) is inexpensive, and likely to stay that way for some time. James, if you ever decide you want to do it (maybe when prices drop a tad more), I'm in SD and would be happy to help you put a hex CPU in one of those quads.

Really? Seriously, that would be great. How does the hex compare to the 8 cores? I'm not up on that.

Geekbench scores provide insight into relative power:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

As you can see, at 15494 (64bit score), the 2010/2012 Hex 3.33 MP comes in just above the slower 2009 and 2010 8 cores and just under the fastest 8-cores. The current 2.4 12-core hits 19719, and the faster 12-cores go up from there.

Note the Geekbench scores show performance when all cores are fully utilized (a good indicator of how DP will be handled - DP is multi-threaded). With its higher clock speed, the hex 3.33 does have a significant advantage over the higher scoring 8 and 12 core MPs in single-threaded applications.

If you do the hex mod to a 2009 quad (the 2.66 quad score is 9212) and upgrade the video card to an ATI 5770, you end up with a machine that is equivalent to a 210/2012 hex.

What is the value proposition at current prices?

$800 2009 2.66 Quad used (Macofalltrades - possibly less via EBay or Craigslist)
$580 Xeon W3680 CPU new from Provantage, $459 from Hong Kong via EBay
$244 ATI 5770 from B&H (other more powerful PC cards can be used under Mountain Lion)
$200 for 2 x$100/per 8GB RAM stick DDR3 ECC 1333MHz from OWC (16GB)
----------
$1,824 (This is about what a refurb 2010 4 core 2.8 with 3GB RAM will cost from Apple.)
<Less>
Sell old MP
Sell GT120 card $75-100.

Checking EBay, I see prices for the slower 8 core 2009 Macs in the $1,200 range, but shopping around could yield a better price.

You would want to upgrade the video card and add memory to either 2009, so a fair comparison. literally "Apple to Apple," would look like this:

2009 Quad 2.66 + Hex 3.33 CPU = $1,380 or less plus GPU and RAM

2009 8 Core 2.26 = $1,200 or less plus GPU and RAM

2012 Hex 3.33 Refurb (currently at Apple on line store) $2,549.00 ( includes ATI 5770)

If you do pull the trigger on a 2009, you can always use it stock for awhile and upgrade later if you thirst for more power. As indicated by Geekbench, the slowest 2009 4,1 Quad provides close to double the power of the fastest 1,1.

This blog is a nicely written review of one man's experience in upgrading an 8 core 2009.

http://pindelski.org/Photography/mac-pro

I find the variables in upgrading the dual CPU (8 core) MPs somewhat daunting. Rest assured the quad upgrade is much simpler, because the quad 2009s used stock Intel CPUs with the IHS (Integrated Heat Spreader, a metal top) and locking CPU tray.

Is the time right for an upgrade? Lots of things to consider.

edit added refurb hex comparison at $2,549.00

[bayswater]

Steinberg did a lot of optimisation somewhere in the v 5 cycle. So the program is rock solid on Mac (and looks much better than on windows - maybe that's why Steinberg always demo the program on Mac)). But they use some kind of "bridge between Core Audio and ASIO" that causes bad low latency performance on Mac, I think - but Steinberg claim OSX is not as good at multithread scaling as windows. (I am not into the tech part so I don't know what that means )...

I had bailed out before V5. The screen redraws were so slow you lost the will to live waiting to see your edit results. Steinberg was good at blaming Apple for this as well. But as most Mac users noted, Logic and DP were not having the same problems.

[PG]

Steinberg did a lot of optimisation somewhere in the v 5 cycle. So the program is rock solid on Mac (and looks much better than on windows - maybe that's why Steinberg always demo the program on Mac)). But they use some kind of "bridge between Core Audio and ASIO" that causes bad low latency performance on Mac, I think - but Steinberg claim OSX is not as good at multithread scaling as windows. (I am not into the tech part so I don't know what that means )...

I had bailed out before V5.

Yes, sounds like you did. And as I wrote earlier, I wouldn't be surprised if DP performed better at low latency on windows than on OSX. Just like any other cross platform DAW does.

[dewdman42]

where is the evidence to support that theory?

[MIDI Life Crisis]

We don't need no stinkin' evidence.

[PG]

We don't need no stinkin' evidence.

Of cause not. Mac's are superior (Don't read any further)

The problem seems to be the OS-X M.A.C.H. kernel threading model.

http://www.dawbench.com/win7-v-osx-1.htm

Personally, as a long time Mac user, I would LOVE to get some info that could indicate that Windows is not more CPU efficient than OSX. Info like that seems very hard to find.

[bayswater]

I remember reading these when they first appeared. I noticed then, and again now, that the differences are very small with a 256 sample buffer, and the trend looks like they would disappear altogether at 512. In some other parts of the tests, some DAWs perform very well and perform the same for OS X and Windows (e.g. some PT results). The ASIO versus CoreAudio test shows some similar results. All of this calls into question the explanations for the differences (which are there) around the number of calls to the OS and other OS aspects, and draws attention back to the application.

Anyway, it would be interesting to see Logic in these comparisons, if we can assume Apple has coded it properly to run on OS X, even though there is no windows comparison point, because it give us some hints about how well Cubase is written. And of course, we might expect to see DP in the next update.

[cbergm7210]

Don't forget you can upgrade 2009 (4,1) Mac Pros to be, for all intents and purposes, everything the 2012 can be with a simple EFI hack and CPU/GPU/Memory swap.

That sounds interesting, HC. Coming through High Ridge, MO anytime soon to help me with that? Steak and beer would be on me.