5.1 UB on PPC, faster or slower?

Matcher · Post by **Matcher** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:07 am

Before the possible upgrade from 4.61 I'd really like to hear some hands on reports of 5.1's functionality on PPC systems vs. 5.01 or 4.61 and the possible practical benefits of the code optimizations mentioned in the read me file. Is it slower with VIs, is the system easier/ harder to max out..stuff like that would be nice to know.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:43 am

Matcher-- there are several reports in various threads of 5.1 being solid with faster loads and numerous problems with 5.0 and 5.01 solved.

(Note: to Intel users, this thread is about PPC.)

Once I nail down UB versions of the rest of my plugins, I will be happy to post performance reports. I am encouraged, however, by positive reports from emulatorloo and others.

Someone raised a good question about the validity of PPC users making the move to UB, considering that the hype is all about Intel. But I'm eager to see these performance improvements first hand.

The issues with MSI and M5 seemed to have temporarily been circumvented by installing the AU versions... the MAS versions don't seem to be ready for prime time.

Matcher · Post by **Matcher** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:00 am

Thank you Frodo for your collective answer

If after a couple of weeks the reports look as positive, it's a pretty green light for 5.1 then.

Noizemaker · Post by **Noizemaker** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:34 am

I was kinda of scared to try it being the first UB version but it turned out to be great for my first day at work with it. Meter bridge on a 40 tracks all audio project was smoother than what it used to be on my ppc dual 2ghz 2gig Ram. I guess it would mean some good optimization work. Thanks MOTU!!!

Resonant Alien · Post by **Resonant Alien** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:37 am

Hey Frodo -

You mention needing to upgrade to UB versions of all plugs.....is this true even for PPC Macs, or were you referring to Intel Macs?

And if I have plugs that are not UB yet, does that mean they will not work in DP 5.1, even though I am on a PPC Mac?

Thanks,
RA

RCory · Post by **RCory** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:43 am

I don't notice it being faster or slower for the PPC, but what I can say is that I just did a session and there were absolutely no hiccups or problems. I'm glad too, because I was with a client tracking guitars with MIDI tracks, VIs (Mach5, Trilogy, Lounge Lizard), audio and a few plug-ins.

Solid for me. IMO, I would recommend 5.1 though YMMV.

C

G4 dual 1.25 running 10.4.7, PCI-424, 2408 and a 24i

Matcher · Post by **Matcher** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:56 am

Resonant Alien wrote: You mention needing to upgrade to UB versions of all plugs.....is this true even for PPC Macs, or were you referring to Intel Macs?

No.

Resonant Alien wrote: And if I have plugs that are not UB yet, does that mean they will not work in DP 5.1, even though I am on a PPC Mac?

No.

--
edit- corrected now.

carrythebanner · Post by **carrythebanner** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:28 am

Matcher wrote:
Resonant Alien wrote:You mention needing to upgrade to UB versions of all plugs.....is this true even for PPC Macs, or were you referring to Intel Macs?
From what I've read yes.

Resonant Alien wrote:And if I have plugs that are not UB yet, does that mean they will not work in DP 5.1, even though I am on a PPC Mac?
The same goes with this too.

No, that's not true:

http://www.motu.com/techsupport/technot ... s-in-DP5.1

Using Plug-ins in Digital Performer 5.1

Digital Performer 5.1 is a universal binary application, meaning that it runs natively on either PowerPC or Intel Macs. Per OSX's design all applications & any plug-ins they use must run entirely natively or non-natively. This means that with DP 5.1 you must use plug-ins that are also universal binaries or that are specific to the type of Mac you have (i.e., PowerPC plug-ins on a PowerPC Mac).

- If you're running DP 5.1 on a PowerPC Mac, you can use universal binary and PowerPC-only plug-ins. You cannot use Intel-only plug-ins.

- If you're running DP 5.1 on an Intel Mac, you can use universal binary and Intel-only plug-ins. You cannot use PowerPC-only plug-ins.

All of the plug-ins included with Digital Performer 5.1 are universal binaries.

Resonant Alien · Post by **Resonant Alien** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:42 am

Thanks. So, I suppose the question would be whether UB plugs with DP 5.1 run faster on PPC than non-UB plugs with DP 5.1?

emulatorloo · Post by **emulatorloo** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:49 am

NO YOU DO NOT NEED UNIVERSAL BINARY PLUG INS IF YOU HAVE A POWER PC MAC!

Sorry to yell but this is getting ridiculous.

At any rate, DP 5.1 on my Dual G4 among other things seems to exhibit more CPU efficiency.

I had a file w some intense soft synths that I could never really play in 4.6 too well -- spikes, etc etc.

There was some improvement in 5.

Now in 5.1, the CPU meter hovers rock steady around 33%

So I am plenty happy so far.

___________

Matcher · Post by **Matcher** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:52 am

carrythebanner wrote:
Matcher wrote:
Resonant Alien wrote:You mention needing to upgrade to UB versions of all plugs.....is this true even for PPC Macs, or were you referring to Intel Macs?
From what I've read yes.

Resonant Alien wrote:And if I have plugs that are not UB yet, does that mean they will not work in DP 5.1, even though I am on a PPC Mac?
The same goes with this too.
No, that's not true:

http://www.motu.com/techsupport/technot ... s-in-DP5.1
Using Plug-ins in Digital Performer 5.1

Digital Performer 5.1 is a universal binary application, meaning that it runs natively on either PowerPC or Intel Macs. Per OSX's design all applications & any plug-ins they use must run entirely natively or non-natively. This means that with DP 5.1 you must use plug-ins that are also universal binaries or that are specific to the type of Mac you have (i.e., PowerPC plug-ins on a PowerPC Mac).

- If you're running DP 5.1 on a PowerPC Mac, you can use universal binary and PowerPC-only plug-ins. You cannot use Intel-only plug-ins.

- If you're running DP 5.1 on an Intel Mac, you can use universal binary and Intel-only plug-ins. You cannot use PowerPC-only plug-ins.

All of the plug-ins included with Digital Performer 5.1 are universal binaries.

Thanks for correcting me. Note to self: Do your homework!

Something that should also be considered is that for best stability the newest version of a plug- in should be used and I think all Mac plug- ins and their updates will be UB or Intel only from now on so though in theory it's possible to have 5.1 running with PPC plug ins I doubt it's a good choice. To ensure a safe transition to UB IMO it's neccesary to have the updated plug- ins to go with.

Resonant Alien · Post by **Resonant Alien** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:00 am

emulatorloo - thanks. Very encouraging. Sorry you had to yell, but it has been a bit confusing with all the different threads and piece meal info. Great to have a concrete answer.

Saintmatthew · Post by **Saintmatthew** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:54 am

I'm curious how many bug fixes and how much more optimized this release is. This may sound a bit pissy, but if it is a significant improvement I'll have to upgrade my OS since I'm still on 10.3.9 and I think that sucks. When I paid for my upgrade in good faith, the requirements were 10.3.9 and above. Now a fully functional version may require a $129 additional outlay. I realize part of the blame lies in apple's hands and their aggressive "let's show Microsoft how to really stick it to folks with rampant chargable OS revisions" campaign. Still, neither my DP manual nor the sales maerial said "System Requirements: OS 10.3.9 for broken version, 10.4.4 for working version". Yes, Tiger is necessary for UB functionality but tying bug fixes to compatibility to the Intel platform shouldn't have been necessary.

emulatorloo · Post by **emulatorloo** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:39 am

Saintmatthew wrote:I'm curious how many bug fixes and how much more optimized this release is. This may sound a bit pissy, but if it is a significant improvement I'll have to upgrade my OS since I'm still on 10.3.9 and I think that sucks. When I paid for my upgrade in good faith, the requirements were 10.3.9 and above. Now a fully functional version may require a $129 additional outlay. I realize part of the blame lies in apple's hands and their aggressive "let's show Microsoft how to really stick it to folks with rampant chargable OS revisions" campaign. Still, neither my DP manual nor the sales maerial said "System Requirements: OS 10.3.9 for broken version, 10.4.4 for working version". Yes, Tiger is necessary for UB functionality but tying bug fixes to compatibility to the Intel platform shouldn't have been necessary.

Yes it does sound pissy.

OTOH You are right, MOTU's hands are tied by apple, as intel macs require 10.4. Seriously, what do you expect MOTU to do? It is out of their hands.

OTOH 5.01 works fine w 10.3.9, at least it did on my dual g4. You aren't required to upgrade, as it is optional (and free)

OTOH 5.1 seems to me to be a little more CPU efficient on my dual g4. Your mileage may vary.

and on yet another hand, you do not need to spend $120 for a Tiger upgrade:

http://dealmac.com/deals/Mac-OS-X-10-4- ... 26816.html

or

http://www.megamacs.com/v1/index.php?ac ... 257603&D=1

---

Saintmatthew · Post by **Saintmatthew** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:52 am

I think I'm still going to hold off on the upgrade on account of other issues as well. Mainly those related to completely reinstalling a system such as returning to driver setups that play well together and such. Reinstalling everything else I run and making sure I know how to do things in Tiger that I do now in Panther. Creating postscript files is one example. I've used my neighbors machine which has Tiger and noticed tweaks. Thankfully I'm running quite stable so I'm not crying bloody tears over not being able able to do this upgrade (just being slightly pissy). But I also haven't had the opportunity to encounter certain bugs I've seen discussed, as for example, I'm in the midle of a writing stage and haven't had to bounce anything complicated to disk. I'm hoping this doesn't bite me in the ass later. Thanks for the link though. Maybe I'll take a weekend of from writing and make the plunge.