Questions about deciding between 3.0ghz 10-core and 2.ghz 14-core iMac Pro

[Esteban De La Noche]

I'm in the market for a computer upgrade and I'm struggling to find a clear explanation of what CPU scenario will be most effective for Pro Tools.

Specifically really large mixing sessions with hundreds of tracks, lots of cpu intense plugins, tons of automation, etc...

I'm wondering if I should favor speed of the core or amount of cores. I've read some very mixed opinions and I'm hoping to find others in a similar situation currently using computers with similar specs.

My main goal is to be able to handle large, plugin heavy sessions, without getting CPU overloads, needing to freeze tracks, etc.

Thoughts?

[TNM]

The best bang for buck and single core performance (very important for DAW's) imac pro is the ten core. It's the one to get, believe me.

All ten cores will sit at 4ghz all day in Pro tools with a massive single core performance for arming Vi's and playing them live, etc.

If i had the money to spend right now, i'd be on a ten core, 64Gb ram, 2TB SSD, Vega 56 (which is plenty). But it's 11139 here for that..

That config in the US, is the same as the base model here without options, or something like a couple hundred dollars more. That's how bad we suffer in OZ.

I was just going to get the 8 core stock but with 64Gb ram and that's it, but now i've done something nuts and decided to try a PC which will be here in 2 days with windows 10.. it cost 2 grand, 8 core ryzen, NVME ssd.. 27" screen.. I just *have* to know once and for all!

[Bob Olhsson]

More cores improve rendering times while higher core speed improves real time performance.

[Esteban De La Noche]

Originally Posted by TNM

The best bang for buck and single core performance (very important for DAW's) imac pro is the ten core. It's the one to get, believe me.

All ten cores will sit at 4ghz all day in Pro tools with a massive single core performance for arming Vi's and playing them live, etc.

If i had the money to spend right now, i'd be on a ten core, 64Gb ram, 2TB SSD, Vega 56 (which is plenty). But it's 11139 here for that..

That config in the US, is the same as the base model here without options, or something like a couple hundred dollars more. That's how bad we suffer in OZ.

I was just going to get the 8 core stock but with 64Gb ram and that's it, but now i've done something nuts and decided to try a PC which will be here in 2 days with windows 10.. it cost 2 grand, 8 core ryzen, NVME ssd.. 27" screen.. I just *have* to know once and for all!

Thanks for the reply. We seem to be in similar situations. So if the 10-core will sit at 4ghz won’t the 14-core do the same since they both have similar turbo boost numbers?

I built a PC last year because I needed to know as well! I chickened out after it was built and I realized the can of worms I was opening by switching my entire workflow over to windows. I have a PC next to my desk pretty much collecting dust... still use it for VR do not a total loss.

[Esteban De La Noche]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

More cores improve rendering times while higher core speed improves real time performance.

So if I’m looking for the most reliable system for mixing with lots of hungry plugins and using a lot of VI’s all in real time, I’d be better off with faster but fewer cores?

Would the higher core count be better for people working in film where render times can be daunting?

Thanks for the reply!

[Bob Olhsson]

Yes, as I understand it. The other factor is that you want the latest generation Intel CPU for the best floating point performance.

[TNM]

Originally Posted by Esteban De La Noche

Thanks for the reply. We seem to be in similar situations. So if the 10-core will sit at 4ghz won’t the 14-core do the same since they both have similar turbo boost numbers?

I built a PC last year because I needed to know as well! I chickened out after it was built and I realized the can of worms I was opening by switching my entire workflow over to windows. I have a PC next to my desk pretty much collecting dust... still use it for VR do not a total loss.

First, sorry for the delay, I just saw this..

And..no, I was wrong.. even though they have the same TDP, when pushed, the 10, 14 and 18 core use more power respectively, therefore more heat, than the 8 core.

The imac pro in it's base config, has it's thermals challenged to the limit as is.

Without the vega 64 which adds 70 watts, the 8 core, in a DAW situation, can sit at it's all core turbo of 3.9ghz all day.

The others have a SINGLE core turbo of 4.5ghz, but with pro tools and an empty project even, all cores are *touched* and therefore the single core turbo is never reached.

The all core turbo of the 10 core is 4ghz, the 14 and 18 core are mid 3's i think.

HOWEVER, and this is the big thing, when all cores are under load, the 10 core can not maintain 4ghz, it's actually more around 3.5ghz. In severe multi core stress testing it drops to 3.2ghz and hits 95 degrees. Since a DAW will never use 100% real cpu, especially the lower the buffers get, a 10 core should be able to maintain around a 3.5 to 3.6hgz speed on every core when using pro tools. (this is all due to heat and the imac pro not being able to dissipate it quickly enough).

The 14 and 18 core get so hot, that they can even drop below their base clock, I have seen the 18 core under load drop to 2ghz.. with my own eyes.

The 10 core is still the best all rounder, absolutely.

This is my imac pro recommendation for DAW use.. 1TB SSD, 10 core, 64gb ram, Vega 56.

I made a mistake in getting the 2TB SSD instead of the 10 core for the same price..

as in plugin count there will be about a 15% or even 20% difference. I could return it, but i got a surprise 500$ discount, no guarantee i'd get that again.. and not getting it would mean the price difference would be 1780 AUD to just upgrade to the 10 core. Not worth it. But at order time, yes, when i had that lovely lady, i should have gone for it.

The only reason the 10 core gets so high on single core in geekbench, is because geekbench single core test really only uses a single core, therefore it can hit 4.5hgz vs the 4.2 of the 8 core. (like i can see mine go to 4.2ghz in geekbench). But even so, in geekbench, I got 5200 for mine for single and 31K multi.. very very good.. almost 3 times as fast as my previous imac with i7-2600.

I have tested with Cubase, Logic and Pro tools, and just being opened, the imac pro can only go to it's all core turbo.. they are never considered single core apps.. so don't even worry about the 4.5ghz theoretical figure of the 10 core or 14 and 18 core when using pro tools. It will never, ever happen.

if you work at 32 or 64 buffer, and arm a track, pro tools activates all cores even more so.. so i would guess the 18 core would be around 3.5ghz to play Vi's (before a project is really heavy) vs 4ghz on the 10 core and 3.9ghz on the 8 core.

Single core speed matters for Vi's and more so at low latency.. especially for decent polyphony counts. Also with the 18 core, once the cores are loaded, it could theoretically drop to a clock speed too low to handle one instance of a certain vi on one core, and then overload when it was fine before the cores were loaded.. and 99% of Vi's use one core at at time. This is why i am saying DON'T get it if you use Vi's.

If you ONLY use audio tracks, then sure.. Maybe. I will never own one, and finding real users' DAW results for it is like finding a needle in a haystack.