Need to upgrade computer considering switching to Windows

[ironchef_marc]

Been doing fine with my ol' Mac Pro 2009 for a while but feeling frustrated with using 2 satellite computers. They are 2 older PC and power is failing. So wondering if I should get a couple Mac Mini with thunderbolt drives. That would cost me about $5K I guess. For that cost I might as well get a new Mac Pro but not crazy about the new model.

Then I saw the Chad Seiter video and contemplating switching to PC as my main platform. I use VE PRO but I would not mind not having extra computers to maintain.

Can anyone give me an idea how much would cost a PC comparable to a MAC Pro?

[mikehalloran]

Without knowing what you are trying to accomplish, not nearly enough information.

My gut feeling is that the new Mac Pro with the new TB-2 rack that will support a rack of SSDs mounted JBOD is probably what you are really looking for. The problem is, neither the new Mac Pro nor a TB-2 rack has been released - my guess is that you won't see one without the other.

A current gen 6-bay TB rack supporting JBOD runs $1500 plus drives. Older racks only support RAID and won't give the flexibility needed to push to the next level. JBOD (just a bunch of drives) can appear as individual drives or combined into multiple combo arrays as you like - all over one TB connection.

With Thunderbolt and USB 3, mechanical drives will make your bandwidth and speed no greater than platter speed. You will need SSDs to take advantage of the speed and throughput.

[ironchef_marc]

Thanks Mike,

Haven't heard about JBOD I will look into it. Sounds like it'd be a great rig but would likely be quite expensive too.

I do film and TV work and I use a big template. Trying to find a practical solution without having to trade-in my car for it! The advantage of possibly using only one computer just for samples keeps my main host untouched and gives me a static template so I can quickly open new DP sessions without having to load my samples.

Even if I were to get the latest MAC Pro with JBOD and SSDs and do everything on it it would still take a while to load (my guess is I'd have about 48GB of data in my ideal template) so while I love the one computer approach (easier than maintaining 3-4 computers) it's not too practical in that regards. I guess I could also consider using VE PRO on my host. Hmmm some pondering to do.

[HCMarkus]

You could consider the CPU upgrade approach... by flashing your 4,1 to a 5,1 and installing two fast hex CPUs, you could just about double your computer's power. It wouldn't be cheap, but would cost a lot less than buying a new fast machine. If you are not comfortable doing the upgrade (which is a little finicky on dual-CPU 4,1's) there are folks doing this as a service.

I did the single CPU 4,1>5,1 upgrade and went from 2.66 quad to the 3.33 hex Westmere. Here's what happened. (Note that Geekbench thinks the 2009 is a 2010 after the EFI Flash, and these scores are 32 bit. 64 bit scores will be higher.)

BEFORE

Geekbench 2.3.4 Tryout for Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
Mac Pro (Early 2009)
Description
Integer-Processor integer performance 7002
Floating-Point Processor floating point performance 13329
Memory-Memory performance 4600
Stream-Memory bandwidth performance 4839
Geekbench Score 8519


AFTER

Geekbench 2.3.4 Tryout for Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
Mac Pro (Mid 2010)
Description
Integer-Processor integer performance 11949
Floating-Point Processor floating point performance 23055
Memory-Memory performance 5299
Stream-Memory bandwidth performance 5335
Geekbench Score 13844

With fast hex Westmere's in your Mac, you would get veryb close to a 30k Geekbench score. Add a SATA3 PCIe card and some SSDs and you would have one ripping machine.

[billf]

During WWDC there was speculation that the GPU cards in the new Mac Pro model are going to be soldered in as opposed to being user replaceable. Does anyone know if that is true?

[wvandyck]

JBOD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-RAID_d ... hitectures

There are custom-built-for-audio PC's available:
http://www.sweetwater.com/c859--PC_Desktops
http://www.reyniersaudio.com/
http://www.pcaudiolabs.com/
http://www.adkproaudio.com/choose2.asp
Many more.

The problem is, from my standpoint, is that they run Windows.

But if you're comfortable with Windows and know how to trouble shoot, then there are many options.

[Sergievsky]

I'm kinda in the same boat, and really thought the Chad Seiter video was a great sell. There's always that feeling that DP isn't as efficient on the Mac as it could be. The only thing stopping me is the new MacPro. As maligned as it is even before its release, I really like its small form factor which partnered with my MBpro makes a relatively portable powerful setup.

I bought a (relatively cheap) Promise jbod TB case that can house 4 2.5" drives that I filled with leftover SSDs. A good alternative to the really expensive external drive racks.

[Shooshie]

PC people love to hate the Mac. Then again, Mac people love to hate the PC. Kind of a point-of-view effect, I guess. But that's not my point. My point is that there is always a feeling that Digital Performer isn't as efficient as it could be. Until now that meant, by default, "on the Mac." I don't imagine we'll see much improvement on the PC, though any time you make a more powerful machine, you get more powerful software.

But back to my point: these are just perceptions put out there by people who from time to time tend to think of the glass as half-empty. In other words, all of us, from time to time. Having used Performer and Digital Performer since roughly the beginning of each, I have the benefit of seeing the arc of its evolution, plus its comparison with other software at any stage of that evolution. DP has always been neck-and-neck with the competition in terms of power and features, with the exception of Pro-Tools and other outboard-processor based audio apps. Before native audio was feasible, of course, Pro-Tools ruled, but DP was right there acting as a better front-end to Pro-Tools, giving it the ability to record audio and MIDI side-by-side. DP was part of the Pro-Tools evolution!

Anyway, at every stage of its evolution, DP has offered features that made it unique, and it was always very powerful, fast, and efficient on Mac hardware. Then along came OSX. OSX was a challenge to all audio apps, because they could not dominate the operating system the way they had done previously. Classic MacOS running DP or Pro Tools was usually not running anything else, or if it was, DP took priority at the CPU over browsers, word processors, and so forth. That was not so easily done in OSX. If a DAW was built from scratch on Core Audio, Apple had already done the hard part, and it actually would run very efficiently. But Core Audio was not designed to MOTU's specifications, and DP still used its own audio engine, MAS.

This meant that for the first 5 years or so of OSX, DP was at a disadvantage as the programmers tried various ways to improve the efficiency of their audio engine interfacing with Core Audio and providing all the sample-accurate features that DP was famous for. During this time, DP got a reputation of being old, tired, and not up to speed like some of the new DAWs created especially for OSX. Gradually the app was made more efficient and Macs became so much more powerful that speed issues basically became irrelevant. People who run 120 tracks of stereo audio still complain about speed, power, and stability issues, but even most power users find DP to be extremely efficient on contemporary Macs. Moreover, most DAWs have similar issues. If they don't, then they have cut corners on features that DP users depend on. IN any case, DP has emerged as a top-ranked DAW on the Mac in OSX. Yet the memories of the early days in OSX still haunt us. But I think that's a perception problem these days, not a real one.

So, it's tempting to think that another platform is going to fix a problem that may be more about perception than reality. In shootouts between DP and other DAWs, DP regularly wins. Moreover, it often wins unanimously. That's running on a Mac. I was part of such a shootout years ago, and the result was that some of the top music and audio people in Las Vegas chose DP unanimously. More recently, Radiogal participated in a double-blind study in Sweden. There again, DP was the winner. I don't recall for sure, but I think that was a unanimous vote, also.

So, what is there to gain from switching from Mac to PC for the same app? Probably very little. Remember, a Mac is basically a PC these days. It just runs a different OS.

But on the horizon is a whole new paradigm in professional-level Macs. The new Mac Pro will be using Thunderbolt, a system that has a reputation of leaving users' jaws on the floor, and a number of fascinating design elements that could mean a level of performance in Digital Performer that has never been seen before.

Or it could just be hype.

We won't know until we know. And even if at first it doesn't seem like a home-run, eventually Apple will tweak the design until it regularly is hitting them all out of the park.

Still, the allure of switching to a PC is there, and there's no reason NOT to if you want to. But I wouldn't do it under the illusion of the Mac not being fast enough or powerful enough. I can't say that a custom-built PC won't be faster, but I doubt that a faster PC would be any cheaper.

Do what suits you, but when you look at the facts over the years, DP has almost always been right up at the front of the pack. On a Mac! The immediate future seems to suggest that it will continue to be.

Shooshie

[David Polich]

Resist...the...urge....to...buy....PC...must....resist...

Here's what I recommend, and what I'm likely going to be doing in the
next year myself...buy a two-year old (or less) refurbished 12-core Mac
pro. Don't bother with the new trash can one. PCI cards, removable hard
disk drives, firewire connectivity - you lose all of that. You're talking
about spending close to 6 grand just to get back to where you are probably
at now.

The thing is, starting around 2010, Macs running in 64-bitbecame fast enough for just about every heavy-duty audio and music production. I'm using
a 2010 Quad-Core, running in 64-bit, I really have no complaints. I can
see getting a new trash can Mac Pro if you're doing heavy video and post-pro
work. But for audio? Nah.

[HCMarkus]

Everything David says... but see my post to save significant $$$$.

[mikehalloran]

The new Mac Pro will be using Thunderbolt

Actually, it's spec'd to run at TB-2, twice the speed and bandwidth. 2 busses.

JBOD has been around for awhile now. 6 SCSI drives in a housing was an early form. eSATA port multiplier lets you hang up to 25 drives off of your Mac Pro or MacBook if you have the right PCI card (can't be done with an iMac or Mini).

JBOD in a rack over a single TB connection - that's the part that is recent. Previous racks only supported RAID and touted it as a feature instead of what it really is: a limitation. JBOD allows multiple data streams over the single wire without daisy chaining TB drives.

. Even if I were to get the latest MAC Pro with JBOD and SSDs and do everything on it it would still take a while to load (my guess is I'd have about 48GB of data in my ideal template) so while I love the one computer approach (easier than maintaining 3-4 computers) it's not too practical in that regards. I guess I could also consider using VE PRO on my host. Hmmm some pondering to do.

My feeling is that the new Mac Pro will take a couple of minutes to load. Maybe. Probably less. Theoretically, it would take less than a minute but nothing runs at theoretical speeds. This is not an incremental update from the current machine of the same name. This is overkill for an audio only. AV is the heavy lifting this is designed to do.

[Gravity Jim]

Me, too, on the general tone of this thread. Let me throw in a couple of things:

1. A Mac is more expensive than what appears to be a similar PC because Apple generally uses top-shelf, no-screwing-around components. I work with a game developer who is dual platform, and says that to get a Windows laptop that is really as good as a MacBook Pro costs just about the same. The problem is you don't know it isn't as good until you hit a wall... Like an acquaintance who purchased a Sweetwater Creation Station, and found (when it started having trouble talking to his Firewire interface) that the chipsets in the machine were all two generations old. Spec sheets can be a lie.

2. I have a 2008 8-core Mac that I bought as a refurb five years ago. It has 16GB of RAM, an upgraded video card, a couple of audio related PCIe cards, two DVD burners and well over a terabyte of storage on four internal drives, and it's got more than enough CPU horsepower for audio production. If load times are what you're after, replace your startup and samples drives with SSDs and watch your old machine scream. If I were to upgrade now, I'd do as David suggests and get a refurb 12-core, and keep all my drives and cards. But even after five years, I have no plans to do so... This Mac still runs the latest software with higher performance than I need.