MOTUnation.com

I may have asked this question before, but reading the internet got me confused again.

I'd like to be able to run more VIs. This includes both memory intensive sample-based VIs like Kontakt, and more CPU-intensive softsynths like Omnisphere. I am not having any show-stopping problems with my current old Mac (my biggest templates only cause the slightest, intermittent stutter on start-up once in a great while... I assume I'm not letting the buffer fill before hitting "Play:)... but I am wondering if upgrading to a 2012 2.4ghz 12-core machine before the new Macs come out would give me another four years of bliss as my 2008 2.8ghz 8-core has.

As I understand it, my current machine may run faster than the 2012, by virtue of a higher clock speed (supposedly number of cores has less affect on overall speed). But I'm less concerned with benchmark speed tests than with simply being able to run more plug-in noisemakers.

So, would the 2012 12-core MacPro do me any good? SHould I just buy even more RAM?

More cores help only if you spread the load. This means that using 8 instances of Omnisphere is more efficient than using one instance loaded with eight parts. Same with Kontakt. It's because DP treats each track as a thread. All sounds loaded on a single VI track become one thread.

Kurt Cowling wrote:More cores help only if you spread the load. This means that using 8 instances of Omnisphere is more efficient than using one instance loaded with eight parts. Same with Kontakt. It's because DP treats each track as a thread. All sounds loaded on a single VI track become one thread.

Thanks for that explanation.

I was wondering why LASS recommends 5 instances of Kontakt for each section of a string ensemble.

Buzzy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... 75#p451075

http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... 74#p451074

Well, I was hip to that... I've always opened separate instances of Kontakt because I prefer to route them though separate channels of my console, and that just always seemd like the best way to do it.

I'm just wondering if grabbing one of the last aluminum MacPros is a good idea or a dumb one.

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... 75#p451075

http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtop ... 74#p451074

Cool! You're getting closer to fractional ownership of a C7!

Buzzy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gravity Jim wrote:I may have asked this question before, but reading the internet got me confused again.

I'd like to be able to run more VIs. This includes both memory intensive sample-based VIs like Kontakt, and more CPU-intensive softsynths like Omnisphere. I am not having any show-stopping problems with my current old Mac (my biggest templates only cause the slightest, intermittent stutter on start-up once in a great while... I assume I'm not letting the buffer fill before hitting "Play:)... but I am wondering if upgrading to a 2012 2.4ghz 12-core machine before the new Macs come out would give me another four years of bliss as my 2008 2.8ghz 8-core has.

As I understand it, my current machine may run faster than the 2012, by virtue of a higher clock speed (supposedly number of cores has less affect on overall speed). But I'm less concerned with benchmark speed tests than with simply being able to run more plug-in noisemakers.

So, would the 2012 12-core MacPro do me any good? SHould I just buy even more RAM?

Jim, download and install MacTracker and explore the relative power of the MacPro line.

http://mactracker.ca

Clicking on the link showing the processor speeds pulls up Geekbench 32-bit scores for each model. 64-bit scores are higher. Geekbench isn't perfect, but it presents a pretty good picture of the relative power of the machines for a highly-threaded app, like DP running VIs.

Your Mac scores 7685. The fastest 12 core (3.06 ghz) registers over 22,000. My 4,1>5,1 hex 3.33 scores about 13,800 on the 32 bit Geekbench and, after a GPU upgrade, is equivalent to the current 3.33 hex; you could build one today for about $1,500 including upgraded GPU.

The higher per-core scores of the current MPs reflect processor architecture improvements over the years.

The downside of the 2.4 12 core is the machine is slower (compared to higher speed current MAcs) performing single-threaded tasks, but if your sole use is as a DAW, it would rock. Geekbench score is 17200. And you can throw a ton of memory in a dual CPU machine.

Memory for the 4,1 and 5,1 series MPs is cheaper than for your 3,1.

Have you tried an SSD yet?

With the New Mac Pros coming any day, bargains should be available on used/refurb Mac Pros very soon. If you simply must have Apple Care, a refurb would be a good bet.

Thanks, HC. Just the kind of info I was looking for.

That's all great to hear, Sir Markus; thank you from moi too, mate!

Jim, I think I've the same machine as you, and would you believe it, I've had a 2.4 12 core on lay buy for a little while and hope to have it in a couple of months. The lack of guaranteed availability (at least through the only store I deal with) over the next few months saw my taking the decision to trade up to said machine. Most probably it's for all the same reasons as you, but especially as my budget doesn't allow for the various extras the Vader helmet would require to run my PCI-based system.

I was a little concerned at the clock speed at first, but the Geekbench score of more than double this units' one won me over. The 3GHz model might've been ideal if it weren't for the huge price tag, and as I said, I didn't want to risk missing out altogether by holding off any longer.

I'm looking to get a minimum of 5 to 6 years from this machine, a little more than you, but I'm hoping for even more should MOTU and Apple not force me on by way of incompatible upgrades. Heck, we've both (I assume you bought yours early in 2008) managed to get 5 years out of this machine, so hopefully 6+ isn't stretchin' it too much. FWIMBW, my Mac upgrades follow a 5+ year cycle these days; the money-saving process is a constant trickle that begins the day I update. It's like renting the things, really, but only $15 a week.

Thank you for raising the question, Jim; your situation's being identical to mine has meant this thread has been timely and has saved my having to start one myself (just for reassurance, I suspect, which HC Markus has provided in spades).

HC, thank you again, mate.

You get a smile, too MM!