Quote:
Originally Posted by TEMAS  Excellent; and thanks a lot for listing all that in such a logical way.
So with the new range of MacPros would it be unheard of for the 16 sample buffer scenario? Whats the best one could hope to acheive with an 8-Core system, with say 16 or 24 stereo tracks ok audio? |
Maybe the new MacPros could have used the 16 buffer already, but it isn't an option yet. Using Apogee Symphony as a reference, their famous latency test was done on an old 2.66GHz Dual-Core Mac, and they ran 32 tracks playback/32 tracks recording using the 32 buffer (the sample rate was 96 kHz).
People have reported that the old 8-core was almost 50% faster than the old 4-core, so the new 8-core is definitely a lot faster than that Dual 2.66. Plus, if you don't record @ 96 kHz, but at 48, you should get twice as much power (in terms of possible tracks). Additionally, the new 3.2 gHz 8-core is 20% faster than the 3.0 gHz 8-core.
I've also heard that it was possible to get
200 stereo 16 bit/44.1 tracks on the
old 8 core and Logic 8 (using higher buffer settings), and with all the power that old Dual 2.66 Mac test demonstrated with the 32 buffer, I can't see why the 16 sample buffer should not be usable on a 8-core 3.2 gHz Mac if only a DAW would allow us to enable it.