Looking to replace 4,1 Mac Pro with 7,1 Mac Pro 8 core base model

[JoeM]

Hi all,
I'm currently running PT 11.3.2, Native HD card and Omni HD I/O and an Eleven Rack, used sometimes for guitar sounds along with a UAD Quad PCIe card on a 4,1 Mac Pro, 32 GB RAM and OS Yosemite. I do small, singer/songwriter sessions for myself with track counts that usually don't go past 24 and I have no issues with having enough plugins being available for my sessions.

The system is very stable but obviously old and I'd like to purchase a new 7,1 Mac Pro for my audio work but also for my photography and graphic design work. Based on how my current Mac Pro covers my work, I think I would be ok with the 8 core base model, base graphics card but with 64 GB RAM and a larger 2 or 4 TB SSD. I'd keep my UAD Quad card and add an Octo card or sateliite. I think a 12 or 16 core would be overkill for my needs, besides being way too expensive for me personally. I'm not interested in any other Macs like minis or iMacs and I passed on the 6,1 Mac Pro as I don't want all the extra peripherals hanging around due to my small space.

I've already purchased a PT upgrade to Ultimate and have just been waiting for Avid to confirm the 7,1 even though I know people have already started using them. I've read the Eleven Rack doesn't work with OS Catalina but other than that and whatever workaround I can come up with for it, my plan would be to move to the new 8 core base Mac Pro with the ability to possibly upgrade it down the line, as many think this will be possible with cheaper 3rd party solutions.

Given the modest use I outlined, do you guys think the 8 core will work for me?

Thanks in advance,
JoeM

[JFreak]

2019 Mac Pro is not yet supported and some have surprisingly reported HDN card not working in it. Sit tight and wait.

[JoeM]

Originally Posted by JFreak

2019 Mac Pro is not yet supported and some have surprisingly reported HDN card not working in it. Sit tight and wait.

Thank you! I had not heard that some with the HD cards were having issues. That's good to know. I am holding off at this point until we hear more from Avid.

Any thoughts on being able to get by with the 8 core when it does get approved? I would love to save the $2K that it would take to get the 16 core, if the 8 core would work for my modest needs..

[K Roche]

I had not heard that about HDN not working either.

Note I am doing similar projects on my 6 core 5.1 and with the upgrades am hoping for another 3-5 years. Albeit looks like Mojave is where I will be at until then. For audio 6 core has been working for me. however I some video In FCPX it works but sometimes the rendering is pretty slow

For just audio you would probably be fine, I do not know about graphics and photo applications but the people I know that do video are not considering anything less than 12 core and most are looking at 16

[Meads]

At least get the 12 core to get the full memory clock.
The 8 core is a bad choice overall. Especially if you want to use the machine for years to come. And in that light the addl amount of cash shouldn't hurt anyways.

I mean, you can upgrade the CPU down the road yourself when prices come down. But if you don't want to fiddle with it, don't get the 8-core.

[JoeM]

Originally Posted by K Roche

I had not heard that about HDN not working either.

Note I am doing similar projects on my 6 core 5.1 and with the upgrades am hoping for another 3-5 years. Albeit looks like Mojave is where I will be at until then. For audio 6 core has been working for me. however I some video In FCPX it works but sometimes the rendering is pretty slow

For just audio you would probably be fine, I do not know about graphics and photo applications but the people I know that do video are not considering anything less than 12 core and most are looking at 16

Thanks for the feedback and opinion! I’m not doing any video which is why I think the 8 core would be fine. My rep at Sweetwater who sold me my original HDN setup and knows the kind of projects I do was the one that suggested that the 8 core would probably be more than enough for my use.

JoeM

[JFreak]

Probably. But as said, take a moment to think about how many years you are likely going to use it and what would you think about your decision at that time

[JoeM]

Originally Posted by Meads

At least get the 12 core to get the full memory clock.
The 8 core is a bad choice overall. Especially if you want to use the machine for years to come. And in that light the addl amount of cash shouldn't hurt anyways.

I mean, you can upgrade the CPU down the road yourself when prices come down. But if you don't want to fiddle with it, don't get the 8-core.

Thanks, I hear what you’re saying and it makes technical sense but my original thought was to use the 8 core to start since my 2009 Mac Pro eight core 2.26 Nehalem covers my needs right now and then upgrade the processor myself when third parties catch up, if I find I need it. I’ll probably be able to do so for half the price I’d need to spend on the Apple 12 core. Third party RAM and SSDs are already available at steep savings and I can use the processor savings when getting the 8 core to put towards the RAM and SSDs.

JoeM

[JoeM]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Probably. But as said, take a moment to think about how many years you are likely going to use it and what would you think about your decision at that time

Thanks, I’m going to wait, as advised, for Avid to list it as supported and in the meantime continue to monitor posts and articles referring to 8, 12 and 16 core real world use.

JoeM