Any real point to the higher clocked 8-core Macs for music?

[NWSooner]

I'm planning to get a Mac when the new line of Mac Pros comes out. In the meantime I've been estimating costs by building out a current Mac Pro at the Apple Store configured like the one I would buy. Originally I chose the dual 2.66GHz configuration where each CPU is clocked ~18% faster than the base 2.26GHz Xeons. This is an expensive upgrade at $1400.

Then when I started investigating real world results it seems that the differences are really rather small when it comes to DAW performance. For example, from the benchmark thread here:



This shows the real world difference between a dual 2.66 and dual 2.26 to be really not very large at all. Now compare the costs. The machine I configured with the base processor (dual 2.26 8-core) includes a 30" monitor, etc. and totals $6,494. So the prices with the same configuration but different processor speeds work out to:

2.26: $6,494
2.66: $7,894
2.93: $9,094

That's a lot of cost differential for what seems to be a small real world effect in Logic.

Has anybody found any real world performance results involving Logic, plug-in instruments or anything that would really make the faster configurations worth the money, or is the best bet for an audio-only computer always going to be the base configuration?

Also, right now the quad core is barely behind the 8-core machines in the benchmarks but I've read somewhere on this forum that Logic hasn't been rewritten to take advantage of 8-cores yet. Is that correct?

Anyway, if money is no object then sure, buy the fastest, but when the extra $1400-$2600 could go to a new synth or some nice outboard it makes it difficult for me to justify the faster processors.

Any thoughts?

[synthoid]

I recently bought an 8-core 2.26GHz for the very reason you're citing. You save a huge amount of money. The machine is silly fast and powerful. Multiple cores, the memory bus speed (more than 1GHz), RAM, and hard drives make more difference to music apps than inching the CPU clock rate up.

-synthoid

[NWSooner]

My rule of thumb when building a new PC to balance bang-for-the-buck and performance so I can go long enough without upgrading has been to get the next step down from the top-of-the-line processor. Seems in this case that's not a valid rule of thumb, and the "entry level" 8 core is going to be not only the best bang-for-the-buck, but ridiculously so.

[stevelindsay]

I bought the base 2.26 nehalem mac pro as a refurb through the Apple online store - saved AUD$900 - I use it with Logic, 3 WD Caviar 1TB internal drives for audio/samples/backup. I couldn't imagine ever needing anything more (except maybe more than the 6gb of ram if/when Logic goes 64-bit).

Steve.

[Firechild]

Logic is optimized for 8 cores but the 2009 MacPro´s are using hyperthreading which is adding a virtual core to each real core, so OS X thinks the computer has 16 cores which Logic 9.0.2 can´t handle perfectly well at the moment, but of course an update will solve the probelm. At the moment the single quad is performing almost equally to the dual quads, but as soon the "16 core" update comes the dual will be nearly twice as fast.

[synthoid]

by looking carefully at alternatives to the apple display, you can cut the price of that machine by another 30-40% again.

-synthoid

[NWSooner]

Originally Posted by synthoid

by looking carefully at alternatives to the apple display, you can cut the price of that machine by another 30-40% again.

Good point. My current Windows PC has a Dell 30" monitor, and that's around $1200 vs. the Apple 30" $1800. Like I said, I'm just gauging prices, not actually ordering. I wouldn't pay for RAM, hard drives, or displays from Apple.

[R3altruth]

Originally Posted by NWSooner

Good point. My current Windows PC has a Dell 30" monitor, and that's around $1200 vs. the Apple 30" $1800. Like I said, I'm just gauging prices, not actually ordering. I wouldn't pay for RAM, hard drives, or displays from Apple.

Do they still use the proprietary power adaptor instead of a regular IEC cable on the cinema display? I had one break and because it costs so much to replace, I said "never again to an Apple Monitor"

[synthoid]

Originally Posted by NWSooner

Good point. My current Windows PC has a Dell 30" monitor, and that's around $1200 vs. the Apple 30" $1800. Like I said, I'm just gauging prices, not actually ordering. I wouldn't pay for RAM, hard drives, or displays from Apple.

I picked up some very good 28" displays over here (China) for about $350 apiece. There are some real good deals in displays out there but you have to root around for them a little bit...

-synthoid

[DRONE]

I had the same thoughts, also got the 8-core 2.26 and put a UAD2 quad in it.....the UAD will cost you around as much as the price difference between the smallest and the biggest 8-core mac and the UADs 4 processors will give you plenty of extra power.