New Mac Considerations

[TitusRaindrops]

Im thinking about replacing my 2006 Quad 2.66 Xeon Mac Pro with a newer, faster model. I have looked at the performance benchmarks and virtually everything is now faster than my old Mac Pro, so anything will be an upgrade. I use Logic and sometimes Reaper...

I'm mostly frustrated by lack of processing power. I can max out my CPUs pretty easily if I'm not careful. My thinking was that a new computer might simplify workflow by eliminating the constant CPU battles.

Is it really necessary, is it really worth the money, to pay ($4-5K) for one of the big 12-core machines? Will the upgrade end up not really feeling like much of an upgrade? Will I still battle with the CPUs (since some processes can't be split and can max out a single CPU regardless of how many are available)? Or will it be a night/day difference?

What is the GearSlutz certified recommended Mac Pro for Logic?

[Jfalikman]

i bought the latest Mac Pro model,the base model quad 2.8GHZ
i use logic 9.1.3 and PT9 and i dont really see the point in maxing up the specs.
its a powerfull computer,i do alot of film scoring and rarely brought it to its knees.
you can go with the single CPU hexa and add some ram and HDs and your good to go

[intensemojo]

If you don't need internal expansion then the 27 iMac full bore is a great machine that includes the best screen on the market.

[Llitsor]

Are there no CPU upgrades for the 2006 MacPro? I know some folk have done it, but I don't know how practical it is..

[TitusRaindrops]

Thanks for the help!

I've read about the CPU upgrade and it's beyond my level of patience. I also do use and appreciate the flexibility of the Mac Pro configuration so, while I think the iMac is a great machine, I think I'd like to eventually replace this Mac Pro with one just like it.

The 12-core 2.66 machine gets a benchmark of 22,574 v. my machine at 5,907. That machine will end up being between $4 and $5K.

The single chip 6-core option gets a great benchmark score but ends up near $4K with 6GB of RAM... so we're still pretty much talking about the same amount of money. Benchmarks: 15,720 v. 5,907.

Any thoughts on a bottom-of-the-line 2.8 quad versus the 2006 2.66 quad that I'm currently using? That's < $3K, but I'm wondering how much different the performance would be. Benchmarks: 9,681 v. 5,907.

If I were to go by benchmarks alone, I think the extra $1000 spent on a 6-core or a 12-core buys a lot of performance. I'm worried that the 2.8 quad might feel a bit too similar to my current Mac.

Any other opinions from people using Mac Pros with Logic?

[RyanC]

Hack pro...2600k with the closed loop water cooler OC'd @4.8G. This thing geek benches at 16k (32 bit) so probably 17 something @ 64 (not going to buy it just to see). I'm getting 121 tracks stable on the logic benchmark test. CPU never goes over 45C @ 100% load on stress test and the whole thing was $600 without a monitor or hard drives.

Also because the single core speed is higher, it's REALLY snappy. OC'ing isn't like the old days where you squeeze 2 percent more out and risk frying your chip. With intel even selling water coolers it's clearly known that they could be shipping these at 4+, but then they would have a hard time selling SB-E chips. No-brainer if you ask me...otherwise wait for LGA2011 mac pro's.

[Jfalikman]

Thanks for the help!

I've read about the CPU upgrade and it's beyond my level of patience. I also do use and appreciate the flexibility of the Mac Pro configuration so, while I think the iMac is a great machine, I think I'd like to eventually replace this Mac Pro with one just like it.

The 12-core 2.66 machine gets a benchmark of 22,574 v. my machine at 5,907. That machine will end up being between $4 and $5K.

The single chip 6-core option gets a great benchmark score but ends up near $4K with 6GB of RAM... so we're still pretty much talking about the same amount of money. Benchmarks: 15,720 v. 5,907.

Any thoughts on a bottom-of-the-line 2.8 quad versus the 2006 2.66 quad that I'm currently using? That's < $3K, but I'm wondering how much different the performance would be. Benchmarks: 9,681 v. 5,907.

If I were to go by benchmarks alone, I think the extra $1000 spent on a 6-core or a 12-core buys a lot of performance. I'm worried that the 2.8 quad might feel a bit too similar to my current Mac.

Any other opinions from people using Mac Pros with Logic?

You dont need to break the bank just yet!
theres another CPU upgrade to 3.2GHZ

Macsales.com sales RAM really cheap for 2010 Mac pros.

look,im still using by mac pro as it came from the store:
2.8 Quad
3GB Ram

i Added 2 more HDs for sample and project storage .
this thing is a killer.

your mac pro is based on an old chipset
the Nehalem models are a BIG improvement over the 2006 models,hell its even a big improvement over the 2008 mac pros.

[Verve111]

WAIT! Lots changes in the mac platforms coming up in like 3 months. That's my advice.

[Alécio Costa]

I am still working pretty satisfied with the MAc Pro.
PT HD Accel 8.1.1. I am not a heavy user o Virtual sytnths.
Sessions may go to the limit of 192 tracks, but it is rare.

Mastering Sessions with heavy linear phase plug-ins after the analog loop and only 4 GB of RAM.

I sum externally on a digital mixer, so system goes fine.

I was a bit frustrated to know that these machines are not recommended for HDX Systems and the forthcoming PT HD11.

[Jonathan Starr]

Gave up waiting for a new Thunderbird Mac Pro. My PPC G5 is getting cranky, so time to move.

Arriving in dribs and drabs each morning:

Used (looks new) Magma chassis, used (from Gainsaver) 2010 quad 2.8, 16gb Ram, SSD boot and a new 2tb data drive, Bluray burner, and I should be in fine shape for just under 3k.

[TitaniumG]

What do you find is maxing out your CPU Softsynth or mixing plugins?

[LeMauce]

I'm also in to buy a new Mac pro and i'm will wait till the next one. Normal it already had to be here the new Macpro but during problems (major multi bugs) in the Sandy E bridge chipset for the new Intel processors its all delayed.
"It should be" coming out in a month of 3. So I advice you to wait.

[TitusRaindrops]

Originally Posted by TitaniumG

What do you find is maxing out your CPU Softsynth or mixing plugins?

Good question. I have been working with outboard synths almost exclusively so I have gotten used to bouncing tracks to audio. Now, even when I use a soft synth, I bounce to audio for the mix and save the midi data somewhere.

So it's definitely the mix plugs that are killing me. I pretty much mix as I go along, fixing up each sound the way I like it.

But I'm also thinking that two recent updates, one from MOTU and the other from Apple, have reintroduced instability. It was behaving nicely for a while and I was duped into installing updated drivers and software for new features. I never learn!

If the sandy bridge Macs are due soon, we should see a price drop as they try to clear inventory. That could be a good time to get a bargain on the current models. But I haven't seen any price drop or change in inventory...

[TitaniumG]

you have a powerful computer so that should not be your problem. I got a few question 1) do you record to your system drive 2) do you put reverbs on each track 3) what soft synth do you use 4) what OS are you using?

[TitusRaindrops]

Originally Posted by TitaniumG

you have a powerful computer so that should not be your problem. I got a few question 1) do you record to your system drive 2) do you put reverbs on each track 3) what soft synth do you use 4) what OS are you using?

1) No, I have three internal 7200 HDs, one for the system, one for instruments, and sample libraries, and one for music projects which is what I record to.

2) No. I always leave reverb until the very end because it places so much load on the CPUs. I do however usually put a compressor, an EQ, and a limiter on almost every track (guilty as charged, but I like the way they sound) which is what kills me. I'm smart enough to combine similar tracks into groups or busses and compress/EQ/limit together, but still...

3) I'm using outboard synths most of the time now. I record the MIDI and tweak the part and sound until I'm happy then I print it to audio and stash the MIDI on a dummy track with no instruments, plugins or I/O (but I have always wondered if they chew up CPU anyway?). I have also started doing the same thing with soft synths. I don't think they're the problem.

4) I'm using Lion and running Logic in 64-bit mode.

Thanks for trying to help!

[TitaniumG]

# 4 could be your problem lion and some plugins is not getting along so good at the moment. What plugins are you using waves, logic or others? Try reading up on freeze track could help you along. If you think getting a new computer is going to help you much you are wrong. The problem is that software will not use hardware to its full potential, why its a $$$$$$$$$$$ pit.

[TitusRaindrops]

Originally Posted by TitaniumG

# 4 could be your problem lion and some plugins is not getting along so good at the moment. What plugins are you using waves, logic or others? Try reading up on freeze track could help you along. If you think getting a new computer is going to help you much you are wrong. The problem is that software will not use hardware to its full potential, why its a $$$$$$$$$$$ pit.

I mostly use Fabfilter plugins: ProC, ProQ, and ProL.

Freeze track is a good idea that I never seem to remember to try. It might also help me understand whether or not the tracks just used to hold inactive MIDI might be contributing.

Thanks for the suggestions.