|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
2008 Mac Pro has more power than an HDX2 ?
My Mac Pro his an 8-core 3Ghz machine. Its just old enough that I can not migrate to Mountain Lion.
However, I can run 90 tracks with ten instantiations each of the Avid Channel Strip Plugin, and it taxes the CPU at about 40%. This exact same session maxes out an HDX2. By extrapolating the numbers, I should be able to expect the Mac Pro to run the same power as an HDX3 with about a 60% load to the CPU. So Why should I buy an HDX core, if a Mac Pro from 2008 has more power running Native? Whats the benefit?
__________________
Veni, Vidi, Funki - I came, I saw, I laid the stank down System 1: Retina MBP 512SSD/16RAM - Thunderbolt HDX1/HDIO System 2: Mac Mini - 512SSD/8RAM - Thunderbolt HDX1/HDIO OSX 10.8.5 Pro Tools 10 HD Pro Tools 11 HD SYNC HD |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2008 Mac Pro has more power than an HDX2 ?
i have an 2010 8 core Mac pro and HDX 1 .....i can run much more then 90 tracks and a hell lot of plugins ......with out maxing out my system ....you must be doing something wrong on an HDX....no way it maxes out that easily....
__________________
Pro Tools 12HD HDX 1 Avid HD 8x8x8 Avid Omni HD MacPro 2.4 Xeon 8 core 24Giga UAD-2 And most of the UAD plugins All AAX DSP and Native Plugins (all most) Tons of Hardware...:) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Try instantiating 10 instances of Revibe native, that will bring your computer to its knees, yet only take up 5 chips on HDX. Also, at the same time try tracking through several instances of native plugins, and you'll hear some latency. I think the combination of HDX with loads of native plugins is the way to go ultimately.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2008 Mac Pro has more power than an HDX2 ?
Interestingly, my immediate reaction was "yeah, tell it like it is Chris" so I tried just that on my 8x3.2GHz early 2008 Mac Pro. 10 Revibe II native no problem, 15... no problem, 20... no problem, 25... no problem but I could feel the strain maybe, 30... no go. Not saying HDX isn't worth it for various reasons, I'm considering it, but it does go to show the amazing amount of power available with native (even on a 4 year old Mac!).
Pete |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1. Whatever power you get native - add the HDX power to it. Native + DSP is greater than native alone. 1+1 =2 rather than 1+0 =1. Not just increased plug count power, but higher track count also 2. Ability to track thru and with plugins at a usable latency. I know this has been argued, but no matter which way you slice it DSP is lower latency ESP when the machine gets loaded.
__________________
http://www.ainsliegrosser.com/ MacBook Pro 2019 64GB OSX 10.15.7, HDX, Sonnet Chassis, PT Ultimate 2022.9, S3, Dock, MTRX Studio |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2008 Mac Pro has more power than an HDX2 ?
I think what gets forgotten in these arguments is that an HDX/TDM system COMBINED with native will ALWAYS be more powerful than native alone... It's not like you loose the power of native on a DSP based system.
__________________
Dave Marsden UK |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Long hangs/crashes 11.02 HDX2 | fsavell | Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) | 1 | 12-18-2013 04:27 PM |
Anybody successfully running a HDX2 on a Mac Pro 8-core Early 2008 Harpertown? | Eduardo Apolonia | Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) | 7 | 11-23-2012 12:58 AM |
HDX1+96 IO to HD3 and HDX2+96 IO to backup | betojapa | VENUE Live Sound Systems | 4 | 05-10-2012 05:34 AM |
harddisks and HDX2 | mr.armadillo | Post - Surround - Video | 1 | 04-23-2012 09:46 AM |
Can I run HDX2 with two video cards in my Mac Pro? | conrad787 | Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) | 1 | 04-22-2012 08:46 AM |