So..i've decided to stick with Apple for my new DAW set up and want to know if theres any real advantage spending the extra £1000 on a Mac pro with a 3.2 ghz processor compared to the 2.8 ghz model? anybody know what the difference in performance actually equates to in number of VI's i can run on each? whatever model i go with will have 32 GIG of RAM which,when its actually configuered by VSL for 64 bit Apple, will allow as many VI's as my Apple will allow-but I still am pondering wheter the 3.2 GHZ is a sound buy in this case? anybody know the facts?
cheers
-
Apple system-whats best?
-
Alain & Dreamthemes: Perhaps you should check out the Logic Forums on Apple's website. I have the same question - - regarding what might be the differences in real world performance between the 2.8GHZ, 3.0GHz and 3.2 GHz machines - - and, so far it remains unanswered. In part the answer might depend upon whether you plan to run multiple VE standalones and a DAW on the same machine - - but that is simply speculation. It would be great to hear from someone who knows these differences from experience.
-
Alain:
I run OS 10.4.11 on my main startup drive, OS 10.5.2 on an external SATA drive connected via a Firmtek SATA card. I created the OS 10.5.2 drive to test Leopard on my machine. While it works well and I am particularly fond of the new Spaces feature (which is like having several monitors) - I find that it eats up too much processing power to use for music. For example a file which plays with no problems under OS 10.4.11 displays digital artifacts (clicks and pops) when played under OS 10.5.2 - - unless I remove some samples from the file.
In any case, I was curious about Leopard and have been learning some things about it, but for daily use will stick to OS 10.4.11 until I get a new MacPro. Also one of my backup routines is to make clones of the startup drive using a SATA enclosure with interchangeable drive trays and Carbon Copy Cloner - - which makes block by block copies that preserve software licenses. Before installing new software on my main drive, I try it out on one of the clones.
Unfortunately there are at present no SATA cards with boot capability for the new generation of MacPros. The Areca 1221x card has boot capability with the previous generation of MacPros and it is rumored that both Areca and HighPoint are working on firmware updates for their cards that will give them boot capability with the new MacPros. No time frame for this, should it even prove to be true.
-
I'm running a MacPro 3.2 with 32GB. I haven't got comparisons with a 2.8 but a session that wouldn't play on my G5 dual 2.5 until 10 tracks were frozen runs with all 8 cores on the CPU monitor hardly leaving the end stops. To my mind if you are investing in 32GB of RAM, expensive plug-ins and audio interfaces the difference between the cost of a 2.8 or a 3.2 is a relatively small percentage of the overall expenditure so should be the obvious choice. If your working on a tight budget and have to justify every penny then maybe the cheaper processor should be considered - then perhaps you wouldn't be putting 32GB of RAM in (almost $12,000 from Apple!, though mine was $2750) Julian
-
Hi Paul RAM came from Transint suppled directly from the US in 36 hours - works a treat.. Logic 8 has some good new features but unfortunately has removed some fundamental tools that Pros would use. It now seems to be a more consumer orientated with a rather big brother attitude to how it thinks you should work! The unified arrange window structure is probably the biggest nightmare but I'm sure some flexibility will evolve. Mind you I've only been using Nototor/Logic for 20 years so who am i to talk!! Julian
-
hi julian a £1000 is quite a bit of a saving!!!!!!!!-regardless of whether you have it or not! Unless the 3.2 has a real noticable difference in power running VI's then the only reason to go with it would be its resale value.Ive been pointed to a great company that sells RAM for the latest Macs so thats not an issue .More expensive doesnt always mean more power in 'real world' terms. Also i dont understand why i wouldnt put 32 gig into a 2.8 apple?...the elusive margin in performance would surely still be the same bettween the two options? anyway, your 3.2 Mac has shown how much power you now have to hand compared to the G5 dual..i'm just wanting to know my own. cheers@julian said:
I'm running a MacPro 3.2 with 32GB. I haven't got comparisons with a 2.8 but a session that wouldn't play on my G5 dual 2.5 until 10 tracks were frozen runs with all 8 cores on the CPU monitor hardly leaving the end stops. To my mind if you are investing in 32GB of RAM, expensive plug-ins and audio interfaces the difference between the cost of a 2.8 or a 3.2 is a relatively small percentage of the overall expenditure so should be the obvious choice. If your working on a tight budget and have to justify every penny then maybe the cheaper processor should be considered - then perhaps you wouldn't be putting 32GB of RAM in (almost $12,000 from Apple!, though mine was $2750) Julian
-
Brian, If you haven't yet put your money down, here's more input: just spent the last week configuring a 2.8Ghz 8-core, 16GB RAM (from Other World Computing) running logic 8, 3 full instances of VE (basically the whole of SE + Appassionatas), alongside a load of legacy stuff from First Edition running on EXS24, plus Stylus and Intakt. For the past ten years I have purchased a new mac every two years: 8600, G4, G4 Dual, G5 2.3Ghz dual and now this...and never during that period have I seen anything like the increase in performance offered by an 8-core over a G5 dual. Throwing indecent amounts of polyphony at it I haven't seen the CPUs go above 30%. Scrolling remains instantaneous within logic. The only sign of strain is that when I have a video playing from within logic there's a slight startup lag on video at moments. So the only reason I can see from here for upgrading beyond a base 2.8 would be to get an upgraded graphics card. Seriously, it's like having several computers...applause to Apple both for the machine and Logic 8. Cheers, Robert
-
No I haven't, in fact I've always used separate giga machines rather than EXS before now because I never had a host with the headroom - I'm only using the EXS for runs, pfps and odd stuff like that - the VI/VE legato facility is much better for legato because it allows you to crossfade velocity on the fly...correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the EXS allows that.
-
What's been removed in Logic 8? I've been using it for a number of months now, and it seems to be all there (at least everything I used). The Environment is still there. You can still build separate mix windows, and you don't have to use the mixer in the unified arrange window. With 8.0.1, you don't have to have the transport bar in the arrange window. I can't see any reason why anyone wouldn't want to move to Logic 8. It's no step down in capability in any way. You can still customize it in some very extraordinary ways.@julian said:
Hi Paul RAM came from Transint suppled directly from the US in 36 hours - works a treat.. Logic 8 has some good new features but unfortunately has removed some fundamental tools that Pros would use. It now seems to be a more consumer orientated with a rather big brother attitude to how it thinks you should work! The unified arrange window structure is probably the biggest nightmare but I'm sure some flexibility will evolve. Mind you I've only been using Nototor/Logic for 20 years so who am i to talk!!
-
The most fundamental issue with Logic 8 that is likely to affect VSL users is the arrange window. In 7 it presented a mini score where you could see all the notes, their position and to, some extent, their pitch. This incredibly useful tool has been removed.
You can no longer colour objects in the environment to help with complex large arrangement mixes.
You can no longer sample rate convert files in the sample edit window (where you could select parts of the file to work with)
Every time you click on a region in the arrange the bottom part of your window is obscured with a window opening - you cannot defeat this behaviour.
The compatibility of songs created in previous versions is somewhat buggy and incomplete in LP8 which anyone working on long running projects, or working on remixes, or having an archive will be concerned about.
I'm a long (very) term Logic user, and one of it's biggest fans and appreciate some of the new features but these come with the disadvantage of moving the application more towards a Garage Band style whilst removing facilities that were fundamental to some high level pro workflows.
Julian
-
Brian, If you haven't yet put your money down, here's more input: just spent the last week configuring a 2.8Ghz 8-core, 16GB RAM (from Other World Computing) running logic 8, 3 full instances of VE (basically the whole of SE + Appassionatas), alongside a load of legacy stuff from First Edition running on EXS24, plus Stylus and Intakt. For the past ten years I have purchased a new mac every two years: 8600, G4, G4 Dual, G5 2.3Ghz dual and now this...and never during that period have I seen anything like the increase in performance offered by an 8-core over a G5 dual. Throwing indecent amounts of polyphony at it I haven't seen the CPUs go above 30%. Scrolling remains instantaneous within logic. The only sign of strain is that when I have a video playing from within logic there's a slight startup lag on video at moments. So the only reason I can see from here for upgrading beyond a base 2.8 would be to get an upgraded graphics card. Seriously, it's like having several computers...applause to Apple both for the machine and Logic 8. Cheers, Robert
hi Robert havent bought the Mac because i've no way of knowing the benifits of the 3.2 GHZ over the 2.8GHZ-but your mail is encouraging-how much RAM can you access with the VI's? An exciting concept is becoming a reality to me with these latest Macs and with RAM from Other World computing-fianlly a single sysyem that can take on the 'farm' of daw's is here.I've heard that the 2.8 can run almost as much plugins as the 3.2 and you seem to find it powerful enough to run an incredible amount of full instances so it seem the 2.8 is the obvious choice.Do you think you'll see even better performance when 64 bit Leopard is supported and 64bit VI's for mac are available?
-
-
I'm a long (very) term Logic user, and one of it's biggest fans and appreciate some of the new features but these come with the disadvantage of moving the application more towards a Garage Band style whilst removing facilities that were fundamental to some high level pro workflows.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Logic 8 takes a bit of readjustment, but I consider it better in every way for any level of user. I don't feel that it's been dumbed-down at all. In fact, I can't think of any other application that offers anywhere near the options for highly customizing the interface and optimizing the configuration for the way somebody wishes to work. I really wonder why things that are working for me in Logic 8 are not working for you. Is it possible that your current LP8 installation is corrupt? By any chance, are you using a non-OEM display card in your computer? Is it possible that your AutoLoad has acquired some problems? A flaky AutoLoad could also explain why older projects have difficulties. Also, is it possible that some of the key commands you used to use are acquired by a newer version of the Mac OS? Have you made any non-standard OS tweaks (e.g. disabled Quartz)? These are the only things I can think of for now.
-
Hi again Brian (By the way, anybody have a fix for no paragraphs showing when I type in Safari?). The data which convinced me to settle for a 2.8 is here: Scroll down to the second list (Mac Performance Feb2008) and compare your present computer to any of the 8-cores. As you'll see the difference between all of the 8-cores is small compared to the difference between them and the 4-cores. Obviously, there are many different ways to test speed, but you'll get the overall picture. Aside from that the decision of 2.8 v 3.0 v 3.2 depends on (i) the cash you can generate out of the machine and (ii) the emotional factor. What does it mean to you to have the very fastest mac on the planet? Perhaps you need to have that right now...not so much technically but in terms of what it means to you to have that - but just remember that in a few months time it will no longer be the fastest mac on the planet. Robert