Better for recording - a 2.2GHz Macbook dual core or quad??

[markchatwin]

First off I couldn't edit the title but I own a 13" 2.4 GHz MacBook dual core but I could easily sell it. I have an opportunity to get a 15" 2.2GHz quad core for a good price. Both are current releases. I use the current Logic and run Native Instruments and Ivory grand Piano but nothing too heavy.

I use a bigger IMAC at my studio and was planning on bringing files home and working on the Laptop, do a few mixes. Maybe bring it on travel and do some remote stuff...

I know that both of those MacBooks would need to have upgraded RAM and separate hard drives for samples but with my workflow in mind what would Quad Core 2.2 processing give me vs dual core 2.4 processing - Thanks, Mark

[One_Of_them_2]

Originally Posted by markchatwin

what would Quad Core 2.2 processing give me vs dual core 2.4 processing - Thanks, Mark

All you would gain is more cores and less performance.
If you multi task and use several applications at once then multi core would be more ideal.

Some Daws take advantage of multi core, so it may be worth checking if yours do if you do decide to make the transition.

I personally would stay on dual core or invest in a quad core of equal ghz.



Sent from my GT-S5830 using Gearslutz.com

[Sim]

i Had a 1.8 dual and maxed out the cpu pretty quick when mixing I can ever seeing myself max out my 2 ghz quad. Doesn't even come close. Running on 4 gig. There's plenty of threads on the new macbooks pro's with quads.

[markchatwin]

Seems like 2 differing opinions. I'd only be on one application at once on the MacBook. I'd be working in Logic with some sample laden plug ins but nothing more. Maybe tracking a couple of vocals at once...

I do however plan to do some video editing but nothing major...

I guess the dumb question is - does the higher GHz processor, whether it's dual or quad core, make simple things go faster? Like boot up, rendering, switching files???

[iamkimosabi]

Originally Posted by markchatwin

Seems like 2 differing opinions. I'd only be on one application at once on the MacBook. I'd be working in Logic with some sample laden plug ins but nothing more. Maybe tracking a couple of vocals at once...

I do however plan to do some video editing but nothing major...

I guess the dumb question is - does the higher GHz processor, whether it's dual or quad core, make simple things go faster? Like boot up, rendering, switching files???

Hey

I have a 2.2ghz Quad Core Macbook Pro with 8gigs of ram and a 5400rpm HDD. I use Cubase 5 and a Motu ultralite.
I mostly do 1 track audio mono recordings, and about 9-10 VSTi's, and everything else rewired through reason. I run at 128 buffer with perfect stability and clear sound with no pops or clicks.

I plan on upgrading my hard drive to a SSD or a 7200 RPM due to the fact it's bottlenecking my whole system. Maybe upgrade the memory to 16gigs later.

I say you go for the quad core.

[projektk]

Yeah go for quad. You will not lose performance. All cores will run at 2.2 ghz, that's gives you up 8.8 ghz of power that can be split up a total of 8 ways, if you choose to use less cores that will boost to 2.7 I believe per a core split up into 4 cores instead of 8 threads. With a 2.4 dual you only have 2 cores with a total of 4.8 ghz of power. The reason Intel doesn't advertise this statistic is because most apps still only use 1 core, DAWs and most pro applications are utilized to see several cores. Can they use them right, I doubt it but I'm positive they can use 4 to 12 cores no problem.

Sent from my LG-P925 using Gearslutz.com

[Kaoz]

You won't lose performance at all.

[inthere]

I got 30 tracks in Logic with the benchmark test on a 2.3ghz i5 13 inch Macbook Pro:
Logic Pro Multicore Benchmarktest !

I got 70 tracks in Logic with the same test on a 2.2ghz i7 quad core Macbook Pro.

2.4ghz will be slightly faster than 2.3, but I don't think .1ghz will make that much of a difference. I also got 37 tracks on a 2.7 i7 13 inch MBP.

[markchatwin]

So it seems there are differing opinions with the lean towards the lower processing quad core. Clearly the track count on the Benchmark Test prefers the quad core...

Are there other things a 2.4 GHz dual core will do better than a 2.2Ghz quad core? I guess I'm wondering does the current version of Logic take advantage of the quad core? Does it just come down to track count?

I read the Benchmark Test results for MacBook Pro 2.4 and the track count looked to be around 20... The 2.2GHz Quad was much more...

What effect does more cores have on sample laden plug ins? Or is that a Hard Drive/RAM issue?

[Kaoz]

Originally Posted by markchatwin

So it seems there are differing opinions with the lean towards the lower processing quad core. Clearly the track count on the Benchmark Test prefers the quad core...

Are there other things a 2.4 GHz dual core will do better than a 2.2Ghz quad core? I guess I'm wondering does the current version of Logic take advantage of the quad core?

Even if Logic only used two cores, you'd still get better performance overall with the quad than the dual.

The dual won't do anything meaningful better than the quad.

[markchatwin]

Why Kaoz? Define performance... Give some examples. Talking money I would have to spend about $500 more to upgrade to the Quad...

[Kaoz]

Originally Posted by markchatwin

Why Kaoz? Define performance... Give some examples. Talking money I would have to spend about $500 more to upgrade to the Quad...

I don't have the specific numbers that you're looking for, but I'm sure a google search would find what you're looking for.

I'm basing my opinion off of my experience with computers, and I've designed and built a fair few over the years.

A couple of extra cores is well worth losing 200hz of speed - especially when the extra cores will allow your computer to run more efficiently.

Wether or not the upgrade is worth the extra for you isn't something I can answer.

[gdoubleyou]

Originally Posted by markchatwin

Why Kaoz? Define performance... Give some examples. Talking money I would have to spend about $500 more to upgrade to the Quad...

The benchmark test IS a good example, it's designed to stress the CPU.
The total number of tracks is related to raw CPU power.

What it means money-wise to you, only you can answer.

For me it's the most powerful mac I've ever owned, with plenty of power left over for more complex mixes in the future.

[projektk]

Originally Posted by inthere

I got 30 tracks in Logic with the benchmark test on a 2.3ghz i5 13 inch Macbook Pro:
Logic Pro Multicore Benchmarktest !

I got 70 tracks in Logic with the same test on a 2.2ghz i7 quad core Macbook Pro.

2.4ghz will be slightly faster than 2.3, but I don't think .1ghz will make that much of a difference. I also got 37 tracks on a 2.7 i7 13 inch MBP.

Cool this made me more interested in an i5 13inch, I was considering the i7 dual core but I see no true advantage when my desktop can already run pretty fast with heavy mixing.

Sent from my LG-P925 using Gearslutz.com