HELP! which 09 Mac pro for PT 10 HD native?

[DanielEhrlich]

i just completed the hw exchange from HD2 to HD native. I now need to get a new(er) mac. I currently still use my old G4 mirror dual 1.2 antique. PT7.1 with a blue 192 i/o. I know its old but it works and has been rock solid for years so I have resisted messing with it. the whole PCI to PCIe crossgrade seemed crazy expensive since that change happened only a couple months after I got the PCI cards. the legacy exchange to native was too good to pass up.

for reference, my sessions are usually 40-50 tracks at most including aux tracks. I use a lot of plugs, sometimes I hit my limit with the HD2 acel but not that often. due to the slow computer, I almost never use rtas plugs.

here is my dilemma.. I've been reading and reading on here but can't find a solid answer as to which of these 2 macs will be best for PT 10 HD native.

2009 quad 2.66 or 2009 2Xquad 8-core 2.26?
I understand I need a 2009 model. but Ive read where the quad outperforms the 8core. ive also read the opposite.
I've read that cpu speed is more important than number of cores. ive also read the opposite.
I've read that PT won't see more than 4 cores. I've also read the opposite. I've read that PT can't use more that 4gig ram. I've also read the opposite.

I need to make a purchase this weekend so please, can anyone give me a definitive answer to these questions? it would help me a lot as I'm scared I'm gonna get the wrong one. thanks!

[karljohnson]

The 2.26 in someways is the faster machine but the 2.66 will be faster in some ways for virtual instruments and initial quick thinking tasks - the 8 core 2.26 is roughly like 18 ghz where as the 4 core 2.66 is 10.5 ghz- however the 2.66 will be a bit quicker on tasks needing a lot of demanding processing quickly but the 2.26 faster on largertrack counts asit can spread resources over several cores - depends what you do - large track counts orlots of Virtual Instruments - How much RAM is another issue - especially nowwith the Disk Cache feature.
Thanks
Karl

[DanielEhrlich]

thanks, that makes sense. I don't use too many VI's. maybe a couple per session. I guess I should go for the 8 core. this with HD native should smoke my HD2 G4 rig, right?

[Doc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by DanielEhrlich

i just completed the hw exchange from HD2 to HD native. I now need to get a new(er) mac. I currently still use my old G4 mirror dual 1.2 antique. PT7.1 with a blue 192 i/o. I know its old but it works and has been rock solid for years so I have resisted messing with it. the whole PCI to PCIe crossgrade seemed crazy expensive since that change happened only a couple months after I got the PCI cards. the legacy exchange to native was too good to pass up.

for reference, my sessions are usually 40-50 tracks at most including aux tracks. I use a lot of plugs, sometimes I hit my limit with the HD2 acel but not that often. due to the slow computer, I almost never use rtas plugs.

here is my dilemma.. I've been reading and reading on here but can't find a solid answer as to which of these 2 macs will be best for PT 10 HD native.

2009 quad 2.66 or 2009 2Xquad 8-core 2.26?
I understand I need a 2009 model. but Ive read where the quad outperforms the 8core. ive also read the opposite.
I've read that cpu speed is more important than number of cores. ive also read the opposite.
I've read that PT won't see more than 4 cores. I've also read the opposite. I've read that PT can't use more that 4gig ram. I've also read the opposite.

I need to make a purchase this weekend so please, can anyone give me a definitive answer to these questions? it would help me a lot as I'm scared I'm gonna get the wrong one. thanks!

Those are both great machines. I have the 2.66 8-core [2009 machine I think] and its flawless with Pro Tools 10 and everything else we use; including DP, Logic, with VI's all over the place.

My studio partner does WAY more VI stuff than I'll ever DREAM of pursuing, unless I am getting $$$$$$ for doing it, and he says there is no brick wall for his applications.

I haven't found a brick wall for mine with Pro Tools yet, and I'll say this machine is quite capable of being slathered with plug in's and tracks, running down to 32 samples, and it breaks no sweat. I am finding an optimum thread allocation at 7 cores, and 99% CPU.

The Disk Cache Feature of PT10 HD is absolutely a great feature. It lets you load the entire session into available ram. I have 16 gig's in my computer [bought it from a kid that did a lotta VI's] and sessions above 24-32 track -use about 25% of timeline cache. Its pretty awesome actually....Flying like a bird with this machine....

[DanielEhrlich]

thanks! I was able to pick up a 09 8core 2.26 machine for $1,675 today. can't wait to get it all set up.

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by Roc Mixwell

Those are both great machines. I have the 2.66 8-core [2009 machine I think] and its flawless with Pro Tools 10 and everything else we use; including DP, Logic, with VI's all over the place.

My studio partner does WAY more VI stuff than I'll ever DREAM of pursuing, unless I am getting $$$$$$ for doing it, and he says there is no brick wall for his applications.

I haven't found a brick wall for mine with Pro Tools yet, and I'll say this machine is quite capable of being slathered with plug in's and tracks, running down to 32 samples, and it breaks no sweat. I am finding an optimum thread allocation at 7 cores, and 99% CPU.

The Disk Cache Feature of PT10 HD is absolutely a great feature. It lets you load the entire session into available ram. I have 16 gig's in my computer [bought it from a kid that did a lotta VI's] and sessions above 24-32 track -use about 25% of timeline cache. Its pretty awesome actually....Flying like a bird with this machine....

Adam, what processor is that in your Mac? I have a Harpertown Mac Pro and it's a no go for PT11 with HDX so I want to at least get current enough to use HDX. So HDX will work with any of them except Harpertown?

TH

[Doc Mixwell]

Nelaham

I think HDX will work well with any new Mac Pro machine besides the now "infamous" ol' harpertown. I think because HDX is its own cache of power, with pro tools HD, you can use it with anything and be happy, unless you have a large demand of DSP resource outside pro-tools HD. I like the 8-core machine a whole lot for HDX [and then load that sucker up with RAM!!] but also do have clients with the 6 core machine doing big things.

We have an HDX system running stupendously on a brand new Mac Pro Quad Core, and man does it blaze out without a worry. I guess It all depends on how much raw native horsepower you want for your applications and the "theoretical brick wall" with native processors. I am very happy with my setup these days, its performing like a champ and I have far more power than I need, keeping things cozy...