PT9 - Mac Pro - One or two processors?

[nanoweber]

Is there a big performance payoff for the dual processor models verses the single quad.....specifically for PT9?

[albee1952]

Absolutely. The real question is; how much horsepower do you really need? If you plan on using lots of VI's and maybe running huge sessions, maybe with some video tossed in, I would try to squeeze the budget for an 8 core(just an opinion):rolleyes:

[AxeDye]

for what pro tools 9 is capable of I would say not really. Sure a difference may show, but really with quad core I wouldn't sweat it at all. maybe if you were comparing a Power Mac G5 single, dual and quad hell yeah it would make a huge difference, but the xeon processors are powerful as hell and were designed for intense animation, game design and servers not audio recording. but yeah it will do audio recording just don't spend the extra money when it could go into a bitchin new microphone or something. it's up to you entirely.

[Guibara]

I'm shopping for a Mac Pro and would also like to find out if a Quad Core at a faster speed will be better than an 8 Core at a slower speed. I've been going thru the forums, Avid support pages, etc and I can't really find a good answer.

I'm trying to stay at around $2k so I'm specifically looking at these Mac Pros:

2.33GHZ Quad Core from early 2009
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/608729-REG/Apple_MB871LL_A_Mac_Pro_Desktop_Computer.html

2.26 GHZ 8 Core from early 2009
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/608730-REG/Apple_MB535LL_A_Mac_Pro_Desktop_Computer.html


I'll be using PT9, mainly host based but may add an Mbox Pro in the near future. Most of my work will be working to video (shorts, docs and features, potentially several tracks at times) and conforming/editing music, audio and sound design to it. Also some music composing/mixing/production but no huge sessions.

Any input will be much appreciated!

[musicman691]

I'm shopping for a Mac Pro and would also like to find out if a Quad Core at a faster speed will be better than an 8 Core at a slower speed. I've been going thru the forums, Avid support pages, etc and I can't really find a good answer.

I'm trying to stay at around $2k so I'm specifically looking at these Mac Pros:

2.33GHZ Quad Core from early 2009
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/608729-REG/Apple_MB871LL_A_Mac_Pro_Desktop_Computer.html

2.26 GHZ 8 Core from early 2009
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/608730-REG/Apple_MB535LL_A_Mac_Pro_Desktop_Computer.html


I'll be using PT9, mainly host based but may add an Mbox Pro in the near future. Most of my work will be working to video (shorts, docs and features, potentially several tracks at times) and conforming/editing music, audio and sound design to it. Also some music composing/mixing/production but no huge sessions.

Any input will be much appreciated!
Actually the first machine you have a link for is a 2.66 GHz machine, not 2.33 GHz. That being said, I'd rather go for a faster machine with a single cpu versus a slower machine with a slower multiple cpu's. Get the 2.66 GHz and load it with aftermarket ram and you'll be in business. BTW, B&H is a great place to do business with - not connected with them other than a very happy customer.

[Bob Olhsson]

The issue is how many DSP calculations the CPUs can perform in a given amount of time.

Newer generation Intels can do more calculations per clock cycle so it isn't quite as simple as the number of GHz. and CPUs. I've been told that anything over four cores is the point of diminishing returns from parallelism so the same generation 4 core processor at a higher speed may well offer better performance than a slower 8 core.

[Infiltrator]

The issue is how many DSP calculations the CPUs can perform in a given amount of time.

Newer generation Intels can do more calculations per clock cycle so it isn't quite as simple as the number of GHz. and CPUs. I've been told that anything over four cores is the point of diminishing returns from parallelism so the same generation 4 core processor at a higher speed may well offer better performance than a slower 8 core.

So what should I get? Can somebody please clarify all these concepts? What is the highest end type of computer to run PT9? Is it a PC, Mac, or none of the above? In that case which type of computer should my next pro tools system be on? Is there anything as advanced in the computer DSP world as there is in the Axe-FX analog guitar amp simulator DSP hardware unit which has over 2 billion float point instructions per cycle? (and believe me, it sounds exactly like the real thing, even better). So which computer can compete with such a high end piece of gear as the computer in the Axe FX?

I was told the Rain machines are pretty high end... but I could be wrong. Is that windows I guess?

In addition, at the mac store, the salesman quoted me a price of 10 grand on a system. But I do not believe that was an efficient shopping session... but the guy probably was clearly not experienced DAW music production nor what the most efficient match-ups in DAWs and computers are. So if I go mac, what am i supposed to look for? And what is a reasonable amount to spend on a computer these days for a home studio wanting to sound like a pro one?

(Right now I have an old Sony Vaio running PT7, with only 2 Gigs of ram, but i was considering getting PT9.... but only if it takes up less CPU running the same sessions than PT7 already on it.... and finally can I have both 7 and 9 on it?

[Infiltrator]

I was also told Rains have the fastest processors.

So I have also tried a quote from the Rain shopping cart for a 12-core computer and it turned out cheaper than the Mac Store Quote.

Element

Selected options:
Operating System: Windows 7 [64-bit]
Processors: Two 3.33GHz Intel "Westmere" Xeon 6-Core
Memory: 24GB Triple Channel (6 x 4GB)
Hard Drive - Bay 1: 640GB SATA II 7200RPM (32MB Cache)
Hard Drive - Bay 2: 2TB SATA III 7200RPM (64MB Cache)
Hard Drive - Bay 3: 160GB Intel Solid State Drive (SSD)
Hard Drive - Bay 4: None
Hard Drive - Bay 5: None
Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 4650 [1GB] (2 x DVI)
Optical Drive: StormDrive Dual Layer CD/DVD Writer
Optical Drive 2: None
PSU: 850 Watt
Wireless: None
RainCare Support: RainCare Support [1yr] w/ Free 30-Day Audio + Video Support Trial
$8619.00 x 1 = $8619.00

But then i noticed this was mainly for a video editing machine, so then I got a 3 grand quote for only quad core Solstice. Now Im really lost! Because 12 cores would be killer. But then might not be compatible with the finicky stuff from certain plug-in companies.

Is this Rain systems thing a better option, or is there an even better option out there for Pro Tools 9? I need a machine that is best optimized for music audio. I dont care about video, only basic editing with pinnacle studio for that.

So in the end, what will be the most solid platform? Or is there something else entirely different and light years ahead of both PCs or Macs? (like in the technology of an Axe FX). Different OS maybe? Can any other different OS or computer altogether run PT9? As these are vital questions for a home studio trying to match the quality and performance of a pro studio.

[nst7]

Depending on what you're doing, you may not need a top line computer.

A Mac Mini can do many tracks and plugins without a problem.

[musicman691]

So what should I get? Can somebody please clarify all these concepts? What is the highest end type of computer to run PT9? Is it a PC, Mac, or none of the above? In that case which type of computer should my next pro tools system be on? Is there anything as advanced in the computer DSP world as there is in the Axe-FX analog guitar amp simulator DSP hardware unit which has over 2 billion float point instructions per cycle? (and believe me, it sounds exactly like the real thing, even better). So which computer can compete with such a high end piece of gear as the computer in the Axe FX?

I was told the Rain machines are pretty high end... but I could be wrong. Is that windows I guess?

In addition, at the mac store, the salesman quoted me a price of 10 grand on a system. But I do not believe that was an efficient shopping session... but the guy probably was clearly not experienced DAW music production nor what the most efficient match-ups in DAWs and computers are. So if I go mac, what am i supposed to look for? And what is a reasonable amount to spend on a computer these days for a home studio wanting to sound like a pro one?

(Right now I have an old Sony Vaio running PT7, with only 2 Gigs of ram, but i was considering getting PT9.... but only if it takes up less CPU running the same sessions than PT7 already on it.... and finally can I have both 7 and 9 on it?
First off - what was in the system that the guy at the Apple store quoted you? You NEVER EVER buy ram and hard drives above what Apple puts in a stock machine. Go after market for those. OWC is one of the best bets out there for aftermarket Ram and drives if you want a one-stop source for these parts.

Second - the Axe-fx is a specialized machine built to do one thing and one thing only - guitar fx and amp sims. It can't do anything else. Sure, it may do those faster than a general purpose computer but it's just a one-trick pony.

For a third - you want a home studio to sound like a pro one? Well - that's going to take a heck of a lot of money, time, and work. First you'll have to make sure your recording space is acoustically as good as it can be. Without that you're just spinning your wheels. Then worry about the computer and associated hardware. Don't forget to leave room in your budget hardware-wise for decent monitor speakers, AD/DA converters, preamps, etc.

Rain computers are Windoze only. And they tend to be a bit on the acoustically noisy side unless they've fixed things. Early reviews panned because of this. Good, fast machines but budget for an isobox if you get a Rain.

No one can answer your last question as we don't know what's in your Vaio. Is it a laptop, desktop or what? Either way around, with 2 gigs of ram you're not going to be able to do much. You'll be more bound by ram constraints than cpu speed as all the cpu speed in the world won't help you if you're choking it with a small amount of ram.

Basic recommendations and bang for the buck: get a single hex core 3.33 GHz MacPro and load it with aftermarket ram, hard drives, monitor (along with the rest of the audio gear you're going to need) and have at it with PT9.

Edit for additional:
Just ran up some figures from what's currently available online:
Apple Mac Pro 3.33 GHz single hex core $3699
Apple Mac Pro dual hex core 2.93 GHz $6199
OWC 64 gig ram $1910
OWC 32 gig ram $970
1 TB Western Digital Caviar Black drives (3) $294
2 TB Western Digital Caviar Black drives (3) $597
Viewsonic VP2655wb 26" LCD 1920x1200 display from Provantage $916.38

So without all the audio goodies your'e looking at a price tag of $5879.38 with the 1 TB drives and $6182.38 with the 2TB drives for the single hex core machine. The dual hex core will set you back $9320 for 1TB drives and $9623 for 2 TB drives. I only consider 3 drive instead of 4 if you plan on keeping the stock 1TB drive that comes with the Mac Pro. Unless you're planning on big-time production in an acoustically perfect studio a dual hex core machine will be overkill.

[Goldencd]

I'm trying to stay at around $2k so I'm specifically looking at these Mac Pros:

2.66GHZ Quad Core from early 2009
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/608729-REG/Apple_MB871LL_A_Mac_Pro_Desktop_Computer.html



I'll be using PT9, mainly host based but may add an Mbox Pro in the near future. Most of my work will be working to video (shorts, docs and features, potentially several tracks at times) and conforming/editing music, audio and sound design to it. Also some music composing/mixing/production but no huge sessions.

Any input will be much appreciated![/QUOTE]


I just purchased this computer a month ago. It is great! It is more powerful than my old pci HD2 system. I think you can save money and have plenty of power for the type of work you will be doing. I use mine to compose for commercials. I can have 30-40+ tracks plus video and plugs and not have any problem.

[Kevin Windrem]

Unless you are considering Pro Tools HD, or PCI hosted audio interfaces, a Mac Pro may be overkill for your needs. The modern iMac and Mac Mini boxes are sufficient for medium-sized sessions. One of these would easily fit your $2K budget.

Mac vs PC is a decision you'll need to make based on your comfort level with the two platforms. Choose the one you have the most knowledge of. From personal experience, I find Macs a bit more happy with Pro Tools but your mileage may vary. You can certainly get a PC less expensively than an equivalent Mac. If you go with PC, make sure all the components are on the Pro Tools approved list.

[cody]

I'll be using PT9, mainly host based but may add an Mbox Pro in the near future. Most of my work will be working to video (shorts, docs and features, potentially several tracks at times) and conforming/editing music, audio and sound design to it. Also some music composing/mixing/production but no huge sessions.

I'm in a similar boat as you Goldencd. I've been doing a ton of research for weeks and the prevailing opinion, as far as I can tell on the DUC and at MacRumors and Gearslutz, is if you're running Native, and want to run PT9 with power to spare, then go with more cores over clock speed.

I've been lurking over at Geekbench (http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/) a ton lately, doing searches on all the processors for early 2009 and current 2010 Mac Pro's.

The particular computer you're looking at, the Mac Pro 2.66 Quad (Early 2009), has a W3520 Xeon processor and will get read by the Geekbench app as 2.67 GHz. That computer in its stock state gets a Geekbench score of 8250. Here's some comparisons. Higher is better.

iMac 2.16 Core 2 Duo (Late 2006) Intel Core 2 T7400 2.16 GHz (2 cores) --- 2853
Mac Pro 2.66 Quad (Early 2009) Intel Xeon W3520 2.67 GHz (4 cores) --- 8250
Mac Pro 2.8 Quad (Mid 2010) Intel Xeon W3530 2.8 GHz (4 cores) --- 8360
Mac Pro 2.26 2 8-Core (Early 2009) Intel Xeon E5520 2.27 GHz (8 cores) --- 11753
Mac Pro 2.4 8-Core (Mid 2010) Intel Xeon E5620 2.4 GHz (8 cores) --- 12525

The iMac that's at the top of this list is my current computer. Still chugging along, its churned out a ton of music. :-) I regularly have sessions with 30+ audio tracks, aux inputs, a few VI's, and some serious CPU hogs on the mix buss, but have to do some fancy footwork anymore with the plug-ins and editing to get it to behave. Poor little thing, just isn't what she used to be. That's why its time for a Mac Pro! For me, I think its going to be an 8-core.

I personally think you're going to be just fine on the 2.66 Quad if you're not doing humongous sessions with VI's and RTAS plugins galore. I say go for it! BTW, that's a great price.

[wcody]

Deciding upon the number of cores is largely a factor of how well the application is able to distribute tasks across multiple processors. In the case Pro Tools, all the cores in multiple-core Mac Pros are used. You have control of task distribution in PT preferences. I have an 8-core Mac Pro, and I use a CPU activity monitor to watch how PT uses the cores, and they are all consistently busy.

If you are considering working with video, and use an app like Final Cut Express (an excellent video editing program), it too takes advantage of multiple cores very nicely. I believe even iMovie exploits multiple cores.

Bottom line, I believe the 8-core is better bang for your buck.

[Goldencd]

I guess I need to learn how to use The quote function a little better.

I already purchased the quad 2.66 and with a symphony 32 and rosetta 800 I can track at 64 with plugs, while running multiple instances of VI, and a video That is more than I could do with my g5 hd2 system.

If I had the dough I would have gotten a 8 core... but the 4 core machine is treating me very well at this point for tracking, mixing, plugin count and VI count. (although I always print stuff anyway and don't use a ton to being with)

I don't think you can go wrong either way

[musicman691]

Unless you are considering Pro Tools HD, or PCI hosted audio interfaces, a Mac Pro may be overkill for your needs. The modern iMac and Mac Mini boxes are sufficient for medium-sized sessions. One of these would easily fit your $2K budget.

Mac vs PC is a decision you'll need to make based on your comfort level with the two platforms. Choose the one you have the most knowledge of. From personal experience, I find Macs a bit more happy with Pro Tools but your mileage may vary. You can certainly get a PC less expensively than an equivalent Mac. If you go with PC, make sure all the components are on the Pro Tools approved list.
The problem with the Mac Mini is that unless you either change out the hard drive or get the server version you're stuck with a 320 gig 5400 rpm drive. The server version has two 7200 rpm drives but no optical drive. The good thing with a Mac Mini is it's as quiet as can be. I'd not be afraid to record with it right next to me with an open mic. And the mid-2010 model is $699 with the server model priced higher at $999. These are Apple prices - street may be less.

The biggest problem with either the Mac Mini or iMac is expansion - unless you're hanging stuff off the USB or FW ports you're stuck. Not even an Express Card slot between the two machines. That said I do like mine and may change out the hard drive for a faster & bigger one soon.

[Bob Olhsson]

...the prevailing opinion, as far as I can tell on the DUC and at MacRumors and Gearslutz, is if you're running Native, and want to run PT9 with power to spare, then go with more cores over clock speed...That's conventional wisdom however according to a DSP developer I know those general purpose benchmarks don't actually reflect floating point DSP performance.

[jsmooth226]

i'm upgrading 3 of my 2.66 quads for 3 8 core models for video production ... letting them go pretty cheap ... email me at music226@gmail if you are interested ... happy new year!!!

[rosemeister]

Intel just released new chips. We'll be seeing quad core laptops this winter coming out.

I wouldn't spend too much on the Mac pro. Go for the least expensive, because a new laptop may have similar performance (minus the expansion capabilities).

[Goldencd]

Laptop performance is still 2 years behind. They are still mobile chips which do not have the power of desktop chips. All i7's are not equal:D

[guitarhead]

i am looking for a new mac. affordable options
2.66 quad $1799
2.93 quad $2049
2.26 octo $2349
all at macmall on clearance

I like to use several VI's while I am writing and tracking guitar and vocals
superior 1 or 2 instances, amplitube 3 1 or 2 instances, sampletank and some NI stuff but with all these things going on and still being able to track at low buffers what machine would work best. I am leaning towards the 2.93 quad any thoughts would be great.

I am currently using pt8 but will be upgrading soon

[rosemeister]

If these are your options, go with either the 2.66 quad or the Octo. If you have the money, buy the Octo.

[Goldencd]

Not to throw another thing into the mix here, but whether you can do that has as much to do with your interface and the drivers.

I could not do it below 256 with my Apogee Ensemble. Switched to symphony 32 and rosetta 800 and I can do it no problem.

It isn't always just the speed of the machine that limits you.