Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   Music Computers (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/)
-   -   What is the toughest mac? (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/982844-what-toughest-mac.html)

datafeist 27th January 2015 01:18 AM

What is the toughest mac?
 
What will be the "toughest" mac? It needs to run plugins, softsynths,...

1/ imac

3,2-GHz quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost tot 3,6 GHz
8 GB 1600-MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x 4 GB
7200-rpm seriƫle ATA schijf van 1 TB
NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M 1 GB GDDR5

2/macbook pro

2,2-GHz quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost tot 3,4 GHz
16 GB 1600-MHz DDR3L SDRAM
256 GB PCIe-flashopslag
Intel Iris Pro Graphics

Thanks

swartzfeger 27th January 2015 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chokobo (Post 10762422)
I'll also throw this out there. Due to the way OS X works you have to keep your plugins in the system folder. Because of this it's real easy to create a boot drive that is greater than 256 gb. Real easy. You may find that the tiny little flash drive (256) will be insufficient for your needs.

This is true in theory, but most AU/VST aren't monstrously large. I've got a metric **** ton of Logic Audio Units and the entire plugins folder is 5GB. Big? Yeah. But I probably never use half of them and could be pruned.

The big stuff like STEAM (Spectrasonics), Kontakt library, etc etc -- that folder of mine weighs in at 200+GB. And I'm sure people have audio folders 2-3x as big as that. Those folders don't have to go in the user's Library directory.

Going back though, I'll agree with you -- 256GB is woefully small.

But if I had a choice between 16GB ram + 256GB drive or 8GB ram and any sized drive, I'd have to go with the ram.

I'm done playing devil's advocate with myself. :)

steveswisher 27th January 2015 06:51 AM

The Canadian wrestler, Scotty Mac is probably the toughest one I've heard of.
http://reviewfix.com/wp-content/uplo...11/07/smac.jpg

RiF 27th January 2015 01:15 PM

According to the Geekbench Mac Benchmark Charts (click on th 64-Bit Multicore tab):
iMac (27-inch Late 2012), Intel Core i5-3470 3200 MHz (4 cores) = 10313
MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Mid 2014), Intel Core i7-4770HQ 2200 MHz (4 cores) = 12927

So the MacBook Pro is faster than the iMac (at least the models compared here, where one is from 2012 and the other one from 2014).

Not sure which one is the toughest, though. Both wouldn't survive a drop on a tiled floor.

jimmydeluxe 27th January 2015 01:26 PM

I don't know the reasoning behind those specific machines, but if you're not glued to those exact two, a mac mini i7 quad core from dec 2013 with 16gb will be cheaper, quieter, and better than either afaik, though I'm no expert.

RiF 27th January 2015 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmydeluxe (Post 10763388)
I don't know the reasoning behind those specific machines, but if you're not glued to those exact two, a mac mini i7 quad core from dec 2013 with 16gb will be cheaper, quieter, and better than either afaik, though I'm no expert.

@ datafeist : Why did you choose these two machines? Do you have an offer to get those used?

And yes, the older (late 2012) 4-core Mac Mini has a Geekbench score of 12000, while the new one has only a mere 7000.

gdoubleyou 27th January 2015 05:50 PM

The iMacs contain desktop CPUs, vs the Mobile CPUs.

A better value would be the 27 inch quad i7, only Mac Pro's are more powerful.

kfhkh

datafeist 27th January 2015 08:23 PM

I ask this "tough" question because i dont have the $$ to buy and a portable macbook to DJ with and an imac to stay at home to produce.

So...i thought a heavy macbook pro would be the all in 1 solution...

RiF 27th January 2015 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by datafeist (Post 10764661)
So...i thought a heavy macbook pro would be the all in 1 solution...

And it is, if you go for the 4-core i7 15" MacBook Pro.