Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

182,246 users have contributed to 42,214 threads and 254,729 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 5 new thread(s), 26 new post(s) and 46 new user(s).

  1. Home
  2. Sample Libraries
  3. Vienna Instruments Libraries
  4. New Mac Pros and VSL

  • New Mac Pros and VSL

    A
    A

    I am surprised by the new specs/pricing and will be interested in hearing feedback regarding the VSL performance boost one can get with the base line 8-core model over the previous generation. 
  • M
    M

    Yes, me too. The clock speeds are quite a bit lower on a similarly priced machine from last year. I know the Nahalem architecture is supposed to be much faster and each core is hyperthreaded (can run 2 simultaneous threads). But I wonder how much (if any) faster these machines will really be for DAW processing performance of plugins which I believe is still tied to a single core per plugin for most apps and hence still affected most by clock speed not necessarily core count.

    Basically what I'm wondering is will the $3200 price point machine (2.26 GHz 8core) actually perform worse than the old $3200 price point machine (2.8 GHz 8 core). I guess time, reviews, and forums will tell.
  • A
    A

    I am hopeful that performance will be much better than the previous 8 core 2.8 Mac Pro...I find it strange that Apple has included the new Nehalem processor in their machines at very low clock speeds while upping the actual price of the machine. It's as if we are buying the same power that we could have had a year ago in their now old Mac Pro. I hope that I am wrong and the performance is very noticeable in the 2.26 8 core. I think the real main benefit will be the faster ram that these machines can now utilize. 
  • cmC
    VSL Team
    cmC

     well, as usual the early models of new CPUs simply don't meet the specs for highest frequency, so it doesn't take me wonder the fastes available is *only* 2.93 GHz ...

     

    what troubles me more - besides the 1066 memory is that it is not specified the memory modules beeing fully buffered or not and i don't get my head around the number of slots - how should a triple channel memory controller efficiently spread across 8 slots?

    christian

     

    edit: as posted earlier - you can compare a 4 core i7 X58 chipset equals an 8 core XEON 5400 chipset and memory dependent loading times actually are about 50% better ... but consider 1066 is in fact 20 - 25% slower than 1333

    and remember: only a CRAY can run an endless loop in just three seconds.
  • S
    S

    It's not Fully buffered Dimm, but DDR3 ECC.

    And Apple put a 35xx Xeon in the single cpu Mac Pro, so you can't upgrade to dual Cpu without exchanging the Cpu.

    I have the same questions regarding triple channel and the number of dimm slots.[:^)]
  • M
    M

    This might help expalin the 4/8 slot memory situation....

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/Intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=5

    My issue with the new Mac Pros is that to get a machine that can take more than 8GB, you have to pay £2500....seems crazy.....

    Paul
  • S
    S

    I understand, but loosing some bandwidth on this type of computer (workstation, server) doesn't make any sense.

    About the 8GB on the single Xeon, technicaly it doesn't make any sense too...
  • cmC
    VSL Team
    cmC

     the benchmark and bandwidth tests do surprise me to say the least ... i'll try to perform a VI loading test tomorrow with the i7 X58 board (2 vs. 3 channels)

    btw: has anybody read about the used chipset?

    and what just came into my mind ... is there something like hyperthreading existing in OS X? because interestingly the i7 with active hyperthreading turned up to be overall more performant than without ... this might be related to the design of the calculating units ont the processor ... obviously intel did their homework this time ...

    christian

    and remember: only a CRAY can run an endless loop in just three seconds.
  • F
    F
    This is just the thread I was looking for. At this point I'm currently dissappointed with the specs and its price for the new Mac Pros. And I'm currently comparing the "Early 2008 2.8GHz 8-core Mac Pro" with the "New Nehalem 2.26GHz 8-core Mac Pro". The price tag which Apple set for both Mac Pros are similar, so thinking that the "New Nehalem 2.26 8-core Mac Pro" should have at least more processing power than the "Early 2008 2.8GHz 8-core Mac Pro" which were released about a year ago with the same price tag as the 2.26GHz 8-core Nehalem Mac Pro. Because it wouldn't make sense paying the same price for a New Mac Pro which is more slower... But this is just a guess. And this is my question. For use with various sequencers(I use Digital Performer) and VSL as a plugin, which do you think has better performance ? "Early 2008 2.8GHz 8-core Mac Pro" or "New Nehalem 2.26GHz 8-core Mac Pro" ? Notice: I'm talking about the """2.26GHz""" 8-core model, NOT the """2.66GHz""" 8-core model.
  • J
    J

    When I purchased my MacPro the top clock speed option (3.2) was around an extra £500 but with the new MacPro choose the highest speed and the price ramps more than the cost of a complete entry level MacPro. That's a bit steep isn't it?
  • P
    P
    last edited
    last edited

    @julian said:

    When I purchased my MacPro the top clock speed option (3.2) was around an extra £500 but with the new MacPro choose the highest speed and the price ramps more than the cost of a complete entry level MacPro. That's a bit steep isn't it?

    Mine is 3.0 the same as yours only slightly slower clock. I guess they are thinking that the new processors are way above the old ones in terms of performance and that may very well be so. But for musical applications I don't think you would even notice it. To me, it's always been a ram and 64 bit thing. Therefore Julian, I would agree - that's a bit steep.
  • S
    S

    Not sure about the chipset but it should be one of the 5500 serie.

    PaulR, audio at low latency is one application that perform way better with the Nehalem. One Quad Core i7 can beat a dual Xeon Hapertown.
  • A
    A

    Stephane,

    Are you saying that a 2.66 Quad Core  I7 will provide more performance than the last generation (Harpertown) Dual Quad Core Xeon 2.66?
  • cmC
    VSL Team
    cmC

     i can confirm this at least for the comparision i5400 2 x 4 x 3.2 GHz XEON 16GB 1600 MHz vs. x58 1 x 4 x 3.2 GHz i7 12GB 1333 MHz

    and remember: only a CRAY can run an endless loop in just three seconds.
  • A
    A

    cm,

    I am not sure what you are confirming.  You mean that x58 1 x 4 x 3.2 GHz i7 12GB 1333 MHzi provides more performance than 5400 2 x 4 x 3.2 GHz XEON 16GB 1600 MHz ?
  • cmC
    VSL Team
    cmC

     yes - the used *benchmark* was the MIR - can't comment on use of other apps eg. altiverb though ...

    and remember: only a CRAY can run an endless loop in just three seconds.
  • J
    J

    My understanding regarding the new Macs is:

    If you have 3 DIMMs or 6 DIMMs, you get tri-channel modules (ca. 19GB/sec).

    If you have 2 DIMMs, 4 DIMMs or 8 DIMMs, you get dual-channel (ca. 13GB/sec).

    Maybe someone else can check on ECC, but I think at least some of these models are ECC (after all they are servers) - though no promises from me on this.
  • B
    B

    Can't find an existing thread about the new Macs, so I'll assume this is the first.

    My opinion in a photo:

    It's ok though. Free Shipping.
  • W
    W

    Hi Robert,

    There's a discussion about the new Mac Pros in the main Vienna Instruments forum:

    http://community.vsl.co.at/forums/t/21055.aspx
  • N
    N

    Do we actually care about the memory speed? I've never heard of that being a bottleneck, but is it one?