8 Core or 12 core Mac pro??

[cinealta]

Can you wait until next year (2013)? Apple is supposedly working on a replacement for the Mac Pro.

[DAW PLUS]

They are, like every other IT company out there, always working on a replacement. But this time, it will be "The best MacPro we ever built".

[work2do]

Originally Posted by Realziment

Ok so its that time for me to make a permanent change to mac for my studio.

The question is 8 core or 12 core. It will be used mostly for production and mixing. The heaviest hitters i porbably have is the eastwest stuff. Which never ran right for me on the pc.

They way im thinking is that a 12 core will last me years, but an 8 core may not? Theres 8 cores popping up everywhere for great prices, but the 12 cores are serious money..

There is always the next best computer coming soon. You can be stuck in a perpetual "wait state". If you need a computer today buy a computer today and get the work done. I would choose the 12 core if you want to shell out. Those 8 cores are very powerful and will last for a long time. 8 cores and maximum ram will do the job as long as PLAY doesn't bug out

[thedomus]

I would remind you of this thread...
What's the better Mac- 8 Core 2.93 or 6 Core 3.33

But, if you want the machine to 'last for years' I would wait until next year!
hmmmm

[Realziment]

thanks guys, but nooo not the answer i was looking for haha, So now i should seriously consider a wait. The good thing is if a new one comes out, the 12 core should drop in pirce anyways.

But what will be so signifcant about these replacements that i should wait does anyone know? is there something not right about current models etc? thanks

[Realziment]

Hey guys I decided on a 12 core for the future factor.. Can anyone shed some light on what they think the differences would be between the basic 2.40 Ghz , the 2.66ghz and the 3.06ghz - In what circumstances would u say step it up and get the 2.6 or 3.06?

How much of a difference is there, does it replicate the huge price difference? Anyone want to chime in and let me know?

[bastawa]

it depends for what you need that setup. what kind of plugins you will use etc. i have 2011 mbp 2.2ghz i can run around 60tracks from logic benchmark test. on my old mac pro quad 3ghz i could run 25tracks in that test. BUT on my 2.2ghz i can't run sonnox supressor HR and on that old 3ghz i can run it easily.
i think 2.66ghz will be fast enough to run any plugin you want and 12 cores will let you use more plugins that you will ever need.

[jcschild]

Originally Posted by Realziment

Hey guys I decided on a 12 core for the future factor.. Can anyone shed some light on what they think the differences would be between the basic 2.40 Ghz , the 2.66ghz and the 3.06ghz - In what circumstances would u say step it up and get the 2.6 or 3.06?

How much of a difference is there, does it replicate the huge price difference? Anyone want to chime in and let me know?

better off with the single 6 core 3.33GHz for 95% of potential workflow

[Realziment]

Originally Posted by jcschild

better off with the single 6 core 3.33GHz for 95% of potential workflow

Can you explain why? thanks..

[phas3d]

More cost effective. Later on down the line you can upgrade it to a 12 core if you want to from OWC for example. Unless you need it bad you're better of waiting for the next Gen.
Here's how much the upgrades cost now. They will go down in price over time of course.

OWC Processor Upgrade Program options for Apple Mac Pro 2010 currently equipped with Quad-Core or 6-Core Processor

[Realziment]

Didnt know that possible to upgrade CPU... Learn something new everyday.. Those prices seem a little ott though . Off top of my head it doesn't look like much saving on the more expensive ones?

[xgman]

Originally Posted by jcschild

better off with the single 6 core 3.33GHz for 95% of potential workflow

I wonder how a fully maxed out new imac would compare since it only has 4 cores no matter what. I agree as I have a 6 core now 2010 MP also, but was considering the just released maxed out imac with 32gb ram etc. Would the 2 cores on the 2010 MP really be missed in Logic with a higher spec'd imac? I guess ahrd to say until tested and benched. Seems tempting though.

[grooveminister]

Originally Posted by Realziment

The question is 8 core or 12 core. It will be used mostly for production and mixing. The heaviest hitters i porbably have is the eastwest stuff. Which never ran right for me on the pc.

If you want to use the machine to play these instruments live at low latency settings it will be worse on the mac.
You typically get a quarter to half of the plugin power when you compare MACs and PCs with the same specs because OS X is a horrible OS for low latency audio.

I use my mac only because I´m a Logic user since the late 80s - but if I should leave Logic completely, I would never buy a Mac again.

[jcschild]

Originally Posted by xgman

I wonder how a fully maxed out new imac would compare since it only has 4 cores no matter what. I agree as I have a 6 core now 2010 MP also, but was considering the just released maxed out imac with 32gb ram etc. Would the 2 cores on the 2010 MP really be missed in Logic with a higher spec'd imac? I guess ahrd to say until tested and benched. Seems tempting though.

actually very close as the mac pros are very old tech and the mew imac is the newer Ivy.

the 980 (3.33GHz socket 1366 6 core) runs about the same as the sandy 2600 (3.4GHz quad). about 10% slower than the 3.33GHz
however the newer imacs are not mentioning an i7 anymore (which has HT making it 8 cores) i 5 is 4 only so maybe they castrated them intentionally since they were neck and neck with the mac pro..

Scott
ADK

[jcschild]

Originally Posted by Realziment

Can you explain why? thanks..

yes the 6 core will outperform both the 2.4 and 2.66GHz 12 core systems sheerly due to GHz, core count matters little for most things particularly VSTi..

it takes the 12 core 3.0GHz to match it at an absurd price point.

Scott
ADK

[phas3d]

Originally Posted by Realziment

Didnt know that possible to upgrade CPU... Learn something new everyday.. Those prices seem a little ott though . Off top of my head it doesn't look like much saving on the more expensive ones?

It's expensive no doubt. But a 6 core should be enough for you and when the next gen comes out I'm sure these prices will drop. Again I would wait for the next refresh as it will be a major bump in performance.

[phas3d]

Originally Posted by jcschild

however the newer imacs are not mentioning an i7 anymore (which has HT making it 8 cores) i 5 is 4 only so maybe they castrated them intentionally since they were neck and neck with the mac pro..

Scott
ADK

Actually it is mentioned here on the performance tab of the iMac page.

Apple - iMac - Performance

[Tonycamp]

depends on what your doing with it?, get an 8 core for cheap and wait to see whats next. I picked up a duel 2.66 quad 8 core nalehem w/16 gigs mem, ssd os drive for 1900.00 in march. It's stupid powerful and hits around 16000 on geekbench. I've done some Final cut x documentary vids and pro tools 10 at 88.2, 32 bit, and plugged to hell and back. It scoffs at me as if to say, is that all you got!

Lagging a little behind, can keep you way ahead in the long run IMO

[phas3d]

I have the same one and it handles anything I throw at it but it can't be upgraded like the 2010 model. Has to do how the CPUs are connected. It can be upgraded but not to more recent CPUs like the 2010 model on can. The 6 core is a better option IMHO.

[cinealta]

Originally Posted by phas3d

Later on down the line you can upgrade it to a 12 core if you want to from OWC for example.

Are you sure you can upgrade a single socket 6-core to a dual socket 12-core on the same motherboard?

[phas3d]

Yes. Check the OWC page. The CPU/mem tray needs to be replaced though.

[Realziment]

Originally Posted by grooveminister

If you want to use the machine to play these instruments live at low latency settings it will be worse on the mac.
You typically get a quarter to half of the plugin power when you compare MACs and PCs with the same specs because OS X is a horrible OS for low latency audio.

I use my mac only because I´m a Logic user since the late 80s - but if I should leave Logic completely, I would never buy a Mac again.

Man, are you serious? When i first bought the EWQL stuff in 2010, had a top spec pc at the time, and nothing but issues with it.... At the time when on forums etc, seemed everyone with macs was running it smoothly? Is this true, mac does not handle latency as well as a PC does? i find that hard to believe. How many studios do you find a PC in these days?

thanks..

[Yutaka]

Originally Posted by Realziment

Man, are you serious? When i first bought the EWQL stuff in 2010, had a top spec pc at the time, and nothing but issues with it.... At the time when on forums etc, seemed everyone with macs was running it smoothly? Is this true, mac does not handle latency as well as a PC does?

I run EWQL Play stuff (I have most of their libraries) everyday on my 2600k W7 x64 machine for work, and I haven't run into any issues yet. Everything runs really well on my machine. I think Jay/EW Lurker who does support for EW has been saying that EW Play works better on W7 than on OS X in his recent posts.

[phas3d]

Originally Posted by Realziment

How many studios do you find a PC in these days?

thanks..

You see mostly Macs. But the question should be are you happy with it or not? If you are continue on the same path. If you're not there are alternatives.

[DAW PLUS]

Originally Posted by Realziment

Man, are you serious? When i first bought the EWQL stuff in 2010, had a top spec pc at the time, and nothing but issues with it.... At the time when on forums etc, seemed everyone with macs was running it smoothly? Is this true, mac does not handle latency as well as a PC does? i find that hard to believe. How many studios do you find a PC in these days?

thanks..

Actually this is true. The only cross-platform host which does not perform clearly better on Windows is PT, and only with a high buffer setting. With small buffers, Windows has a clear advantage. Check dawbench.com. The issues you had are probably system related, because building a working PC is one thing, but configuring a solid professional workstation another. Indeed also Play runs better on Windows.
But as Phased stated, if you are happy all is fine, if not, there are alternatives.

[jcschild]

Originally Posted by phas3d

You see mostly Macs. But the question should be are you happy with it or not? If you are continue on the same path. If you're not there are alternatives.

i seriously doubt that anymore.

[xgman]

It's hard to find a substitute for raw speed for the most part. Id' go faster over more cores any day of the week.

[bastawa]

i was using PC for 8 years with cubase and logic and i've always had problems with midi latency asio drivers etc. since i moved to mac in 2007 i'm very pleased how it handles audio/midi. much better than pc!

[Realziment]

Originally Posted by jcschild

i seriously doubt that anymore.

? That you dont see macs in studios?