MOTUnation.com

I want a 699gb ram drive for 400 bucks.

IAMLFO wrote:5% is much lower than I would have expected for 23 instruments. How much memory do you have on the box?

I have the original 2 x 1GB + 2 x 2GB from OWC for a total of 6GB.

I should qualify that 5% (and I meant to say Activity Monitor, not System Profiler) by saying that that is not the number next to Digital Performer in the list of processes. I was looking at the Floating CPU Window with preferences set to show a meter for each of the 8 cores. When the file was playing, all 8 cores showed approximately equal levels of activity, and I estimate that they all stayed around the lower 5% of the meters' range.

And now that I think of it, while there are 23 instruments in the project, there is never a point in the orchestration at which all 23 are playing at the same time. For example, the bassoon, celeste and a few string articulations drop out when the brass and percussion kick in. So, think of it more as an anecdote than a benchmark.

Timeline wrote:My dual 4gb ram sticks are on the way but I just recorded a new tune yesterday that rocks and even with the 2gb in the machine it works great.
I can definatly see slowdowns though as a result of not enough ram so minimum 4gb is a great tip. My system will sit at 10gb and that will likely carry me through 2013.

Cheers.

The numbers of Cores might have something to do with it, T. 2GB in a dual or 2GB in a Quad or 2GB in an 8-core might tell different stories. Also, 2GB in a PPC might tell a very different story than 2GB in an Intel.

Some processes seem to favor one core at times where full core distribution may be less expedient. Plus, audio-only projects are so much easier on the entire system than those running Vis-- not sure what your project entailed, but just I'm musing out loud here.

As you were.

Oh yea for sure. Agree. This new multi core mess were getting ourselves into is likely to be expensive. If I had my way I would have 32GB of fast RAM.

I'll bet though that if someone is brave enough to try tehy could run 1066 speed sticks and really see smokin speeds in these '08 machines. Apple will tell you your wasting your money because they can't guarantee perfection but we know what that's all about.

Frodo wrote:"Whilst"?
Where are you *really* from?
Across "the pond", mayhaps?

If by pond you mean Lake Tahoe... too much whimsy for a forum I reckon.

From the looks of this thread, it seems like a single 2.8 dual-quad core computer would provide a lot of horse power. I'd like to run DP, UAD, plus Vienna SE, Kontakt3, Garritan et al (maybe some of the full VI Brass, Sonivox, XSample or Project Sam someday). I'm starting to wonder if should get one or two mac pros. I mean I know two would be great, but would it be ridiculous and unnecessary overkill?

I'd probably need a whole cow full of ram. Yeehaw!

jmc wrote: If by pond you mean Lake Tahoe... too much whimsy for a forum I reckon.

From the looks of this thread, it seems like a single 2.8 dual-quad core computer would provide a lot of horse power. I'd like to run DP, UAD, plus Vienna SE, Kontakt3, Garritan et al (maybe some of the full VI Brass, Sonivox, XSample or Project Sam someday). I'm starting to wonder if should get one or two mac pros. I mean I know two would be great, but would it be ridiculous and unnecessary overkill?

I'd probably need a whole cow full of ram. Yeehaw!

Lake Tahoe. That pond is big enough for me!

I'm caught on the extra machine bit myself. I've been running an Intel + G5 network and want a third machine-- but the whole 64-bit thingy will likely do away with that necessity. Problem is knowing when that time will arrive.

But, the G5 2.5 dual is great just sitting there hosting VIs. I've got it pretty well loaded in big projects and could probably still use a third machine until everything goes 64-bit. That's why a refurb/used G5 feels more cost effective than another Intel at the moment. I've got a 3G Quad- but it depends on when I buy the new machine.

Will the 3G Quad feel like a dinosaur before everything goes to 64-bit? (It's almost a year old and is out of production--- I'd better hurry!!)

Will 64-bit breathe new life into older machines capable of holding 8GB or more? An older machine (like a G5 Quad) will be more cost effective to outfit as a VI host-- but it's all about timing, I guess.

Thank you to everyone for your informative and indepth responses to my questions. Your advise really helps me out and I can only hope that someday as my knowledge grows, that I can possibly help some of you as well. This board is truly amazing and a great way to share information. Thanks again!! By the way, I just checked MOTU's website and I dont see any info on a release for DP 6.0. Does anyone have a date of release mentioned at NAMM?

thanks,
Mike

I'm getting my Mactopus 2.8 tomorrow!

Going from a G4 Titanium powerbook 1Ghz and a reliable ole sawtooth 400.

Modern Computing here I come....

Com on DP 6

Talcott wrote:I'm getting my Mactopus 2.8 tomorrow!

Going from a G4 Titanium powerbook 1Ghz and a reliable ole sawtooth 400.

Modern Computing here I come....

Com on DP 6

Yeah! Have fun with it Talcott.

Frodo wrote:

Timeline wrote:My dual 4gb ram sticks are on the way but I just recorded a new tune yesterday that rocks and even with the 2gb in the machine it works great.
I can definatly see slowdowns though as a result of not enough ram so minimum 4gb is a great tip. My system will sit at 10gb and that will likely carry me through 2013.

Cheers.

The numbers of Cores might have something to do with it, T. 2GB in a dual or 2GB in a Quad or 2GB in an 8-core might tell different stories. Also, 2GB in a PPC might tell a very different story than 2GB in an Intel.

Some processes seem to favor one core at times where full core distribution may be less expedient. Plus, audio-only projects are so much easier on the entire system than those running Vis-- not sure what your project entailed, but just I'm musing out loud here.

As you were.

Agreed. The difference memory wise between a 2 and 8 core machine is the L2 cache. The 8 way Mac Pros use Harpertown CPUs that come with 12 megabytes of L2 cache. This does not add to the main memory pool. Rather, L2 intelligently caches data for the CPU that is in high use. Because L2 cache is significantly faster (I think 8 - 10x) than DRAM, performance is enhanced.

2 gigabytes of DRAM in OSX is different than 2 gigabytes in Windows/Intel (but not that different than Linux/Intel) due to several factors including how memory is mapped, fetched, paged, etc. Therefore, even though the amount of installed memory is the same you can `fit' more into 2 gig in OSX than you can Wintel.

Hope this helps,

-Kevin

mjl660 wrote:Thank you to everyone for your informative and indepth responses to my questions. Your advise really helps me out and I can only hope that someday as my knowledge grows, that I can possibly help some of you as well. This board is truly amazing and a great way to share information. Thanks again!! By the way, I just checked MOTU's website and I dont see any info on a release for DP 6.0. Does anyone have a date of release mentioned at NAMM?

thanks,
Mike

MOTU will not give an exact release date, though I think second quarter has been stated somewhere.

Hope this helps,

-Kevin

Yes IAMLFO that does tell me something. I noticed disk access is used in lu of not enough ram. My hd is working much harder. I wonder if I even needed the 8GBs?

Timeline wrote:Yes IAMLFO that does tell me something. I noticed disk access is used in lu of not enough ram. My hd is working much harder. I wonder if I even needed the 8GBs?

Exactly right and since hard disks (being physical) are so much slower than DRAM you get performance hits. I would not worry about 8 gig being too much to have installed given the software advancements we will see in the next few months. 64 bit addressing will give you immediate benefit as will VIs such as EWQL Play products that can use `extended' addressing today to load samples into. The more you have in memory the better and 8 gig gives you lots of room to fill up. Some people have purchased 16 gig of RAM, however I am not sure if it will pay off well for them. In other words, the cost of the RAM may not be justified by the performance improvements. It may if they are loading huge samples like a full EWQL orchestra, but even then I am not sure. Time will tell. For the time being I will envy your 8 gig and you will be sitting pretty with your 8 gig. Money well spent IMHO.

Hope this helps,

-Kevin

-Kevin

Indeed that helps Kevin.

Thanks.

As has been mentioned, the 8-cores do have a larger cache. However, I have yet to see any empirical evidence that suggests that for the money, you are getting a good deal going past 4-core.

I still a HUGE number of tests with my 4-core Mac Pro and what I found is that buffer setting has a HUGE impact on how much of your cores can actually be used. At a buffer setting of 64, at about 25% (1 core) of CPU usage the machine was choking. As I relieved the buffer size up and up, more of the CPU was able to be used before the machine would start red-lining again.

I use the Activity Monitor and the command utility 'Top' for these experiments. Also, if the 4-core version is using 1 4-core processor, you are going to get the L2 cache advantage as well.

My recommendation is to go with the 4-core machine and put about 5 or 6 gigs of ram in it. This gives DP 4 gig if needed, and some extra for the OS and associated processes that are happening. (Room to breath if you will).

Rick