MOTUnation.com

Hey guys, I'm planning to buy a new MacPro . The choices are either the 2.66 Quad Core or 2.26 8 Core (these are the 2 that I can afford). I do mostly film composing here. So I use a lot of VI's for sure (LASS, Omnisphere, Trilian, Stylus RMX, EWSC, Ivory, BFD etc). Same of those are very heavy sample wise as you can see. And I heard (correct me If I'm wrong) some of the plug ins out there are not optimized for multicore use yet. Some have say that I better get the 2.66 Quad Core and use the rest of the money to upgrade the RAM to 16GB and buy lots of SSD drive, rather than buying the 2.26 8 core and wont get much benefit since many plug ins aren't optimized for multicore processor yet. If its true that some plug ins are ONLY working in 1 processor and since the 8 core speed processor is slower than the quad core then it would be a waste to buy the 8 core. The 2.66 Quad Core will run faster since the processor's speed is higher. Is this true? I dont really understand how these multiprossecor really works actually. So any suggestions from you guys would be really appreciated. Is it really worth it to spend another $800 to get the 8 core for my purposes & needs as film composer that use lots VI's? Or should I get the 2.66 Quad Core and upgrade to 16GB RAM and buy huge SSD drive? Would the 8 core give me more benefits even with the slower processor speed? Will all the 8 cores "work" for all substances?

Also, Is that true the rumor said the new mac pro is coming out soon (september) ? I thought the 2.26 8 core Nehalem was out this year? How come they release the new one so fast within a year

There are pros AND cons to either machine, but you have to look at what the system will be used for and how. When I design rigs for my clients, I have to think of that first and foremost. For example if someone is setting up a basic home studio, most times then Quad core is perfectly fine---or if I'm configuring a ProToolsHD system for tracking/mixing studios then that is fine too as it has all of its own processing. BUT when you're talking about doing video, intense audio such as heavy VI's, etc....then the 8-core will come in handy later when more DSP is allocated, but also for the RAM limitation that the quad has. The Quad does top out @ 8GB....that can be a significant problem now in 64-bit land. Okay, not that 8GB is a problem, but needing more and not able to get it can be a problem. Either way, this is a decision that only you can make---either buy for today, or for the future. Frankly the quad core is powerful enough that it may not even matter for you, but we don't know that yet.

AS to SSD drives NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! While I do feel in the future this will be a highly viable format for audio and video, right now absolutely NOT! Most of those that I know that are trying this have failed miserably....those that I told DON'T do it and still did came back to tell me I was right. I do know of a few that are fine, but very very few. It's just too new at this point for multiple channels of audio. When it comes to stereo recorders it's fine, but not multi-channel where latency comes into play. Internal SATA drives are fast, efficient, and highly affordable!

The current Mac Pros have been out for more than a year and a half. The new Mac Pros are supposed to be out pretty soon. I would hold off if you could.

As for SSDs, I've seen some people report good results. I'll let them speak for themselves since I don't have any experience with them.

James Steele wrote: As for SSDs, I've seen some people report good results. I'll let them speak for themselves since I don't have any experience with them.

I hope he chimes in (we know who he is ), because he seems VERY happy with them. If I remember correctly, he uses at least one as his System HD, and apparently, it's smokin'.

But he recommends a very particular brand.

Amigo H????

James Steele wrote:The current Mac Pros have been out for more than a year and a half. The new Mac Pros are supposed to be out pretty soon. I would hold off if you could.

So I've heard.

My personal historical DPerspective:
Original All-In-One Mac - MIDI, amazing, DP 1.x rocks!
Quadra - MIDI only, what's this in the box audio stuff I keep hearing about? ADATs are fine!
G3 Tower - Great for some audio and MIDI, VI's not yet invented.
Dual Processor G4 - Barely there for VIs. Not ready for prime-time.
Quad-Core G5 (my current machine) - The computer that finally delivered on the promise of a comprehensive digital random-access environment. Wonderful, but stretched thin pretty quickly.

I'm waiting for the 12-core Mac Pro machines to hit. I figure my next computer may be all I ever need. (Then again, I've heard THAT before!)

Well... If you can't wait... You can't wait. I bought a used Mac Pro 1,1 because I couldn't wait any longer. If you're going to go for a current quad, I'd at least go somewhere like jr.com where you can get it new for $2300 no tax and free shipping. In California, that's cheaper than buying the refurb from the Apple Store.

Well... I have to say that SSD's aren't for anyone who wants plug and play. Velociraptors are just as fast @ writes as a standard SSD. Where the get spanked is the reads. Apple should be delivering around August it seems. A Quad or an Octal? Man, if you can afford an Octal get it!!! I use a Quad because I have DSP cards taking care of the plugs but I don't do the MASSIVE VI counts like some here do. If your into the virtual orchestra thing and running concurrent applications and host (bidule) then an 8 core's the only way! If you go with an SSD, make it your system drive and use conventional HD's for recording but since reading is an SSD's strength, sample libraries can get huge benefits in load times and stream counts. It's all about $$'in the end. There are VERY VERY fast SSD's that writing there's nothing that can touch them but they are enterprise versions and are very expensive... Use velociraptors for audio... The 2009 MP's are still a very formidable machine. I have NEVER seen the processor clip on this machine... not once. If you can't hold off for another month then an 8 core should do you fine. Remember, the new 6 cores are going to be faster than the current Octals... that means more bang for the buck if you just have some patience.

James Steele wrote:Well... If you can't wait... You can't wait. I bought a used Mac Pro 1,1 because I couldn't wait any longer. If you're going to go for a current quad, I'd at least go somewhere like jr.com where you can get it new for $2300 no tax and free shipping. In California, that's cheaper than buying the refurb from the Apple Store.

Jim you stepped up big time coming from a G5... I remember that step and there is a big difference... plus, you can sell it and make your $$ back easily! At least you have some headroom now.

newrigel wrote: If your into the virtual orchestra thing and running concurrent applications and host (bidule) then an 8 core's the only way!

BradLyons wrote:. ...BUT when you're talking about doing video, intense audio such as heavy VI's, etc....then the 8-core will come in handy later when more DSP is allocated, but also for the RAM limitation that the quad has.

Even when the 8-core speed processor is slower compare to 2.66 Quad Core? Because yes I do, I'm very into virtual orchestra thing. I dont do much mixing/mastering or recording as much as I do VI thing. Are all the 8 cores work efficiently/properly? Let say for Kontakt, Omnisphere, Trilian,BFD etc? I've heard some of the VI's/plug ins work only on single or dual core. If this is true then it would be better to get the quad core with higher speed rather than 8 core with slower speed ?

Lot of people here use bidule... it gets you around the 4 GB limits and this is what these users need to get around until 64 bit becomes mainstream without bridges etc.

Around here in the sillie con valley, Apple employees are saying, "I didn't tell you this!" and start singing, "See you in September..." regarding the hex core machines.

Of course, the day that is announced, all of the remaining quad and eight core machines will be discounted in the Refurb store.

What no one seems to know is if the i7 iMac with the 27" screen will get a new processor, too.

The iMacs don't need new processors, but adding an SSD option, easier to access HD's for custom upgrades, ability to more easily swap out the SuperDrive, maybe a new video port like the new Mini's... ideally eSATA or a ways to get there via expansion slot, even if only on the top model and as a custom add-on feature... but then they would sell fewer MacPro's.

Does anybody have any idea what the new Mac Pro's are likely to cost? The current Quadcore in the UK comes in at just under £2000. Adding on the cost of Applecare and a decent monitor i'm figuring i'll need £2300-£2400 all together to get me started. I can then gradually add on drives, more ram, etc, etc, etc, as i go.

I was originally just gonna save for a 27inch Quadcore imac... Now i'm nearly there i'm thinking, why not just go the extra bit and get the Mac Pro.. 'He who dares' and all that!

I'm still undecided TBH but i'm in no particular rush to get the computer (Oct/Nov at latest probably) so might just save enough for the Mac Pro and decide when the new models come out..

Does a model refresh usually coincide with a price hike? Does my £2300-£2400 estimate sound about right to you guys?

Thanks for any help!

The weird thing is you never know what Apple will do. They could make the price a bit higher because who would want a Nehalem when a 6 core is comparable in price? But the stock of Nehalems have to go before there's any real breaks on the 6 core MP's. I'm waiting for a refurbished MP anyway.
Again, who knows? I've just been testing this one!

So this photo's in a couple of threads. Nice Photoshop job, but the Apple logo is slightly off as far as perspective.