Advice? '09 8-core Mac or '10 quad-core for PT 10 Native?

[storypod]

Hi, I'm finally making the leap (from a Mix 24 system, strangely enough) to Protools 10 Native with an Omni I/O, and I wondered if anyone has any advice on the Mac Pro that might be my best option for the long haul? I can't afford the newest (2010) 8-core, so my options are probably either a used 2010 quad core or a 2009 8-core. Were there enough upgrades to the 2010 Pro's that would make a 2010 quad-core better than a 2009 8-core, or should I just go for the most cores and highest cpu speed, regardless of year? Is there anything that the PT Native core or PT10 would 'like' better between these 2 cpu's, or anything to look for that might make this usable longer, thru more upgrade cycles, etc. Thanks for any help, it's very much appreciated.

[Oblivion777]

Hi!
Personally I would recommend in this order (priority):
1. Higher CPU speed
2. More cores

So I would rather take a 3.2GHz 4-core CPU that a 2.2GHz 8-core CPU.

I don't think there's that much of an improvement in 2009 vs. 2010 MacPRO that I would immediately discard the 2009 model.

But please consult with some other people on the forum as I am also currently running my system on a 2009 MacPRO (8-core @ 2.93GHz) and have not bought the 2010 model (nor do I intend to).

[getz76]

You will run out of addressable memory before you come close to hitting your processor limit with the 32-bit Pro Tools application.

[Diccer]

The 6 core 3.3ghz from the apple buisness unit seems to be the best value and performace as it eliminates the core to core bus. Most software isn't written well enough to use the extra cores. But many of your 3rd party plug ins are 64 bit, and can act as such even though running in the 32bit Pro Tools.
The buisness unit can get you a better deal as well.
See if you find a used 6 core, or wait a couple of months for Sandybridge, as it will have the (less than popular) Thunderbolt

[crizdee]

Hi,

I think this could depend on what you do and which plugins you use to a degree.

As pro tools tracks can only perform its processing on one core (ie not spread the processing across cores) you might benefit from having 8 cores! If you are likely to be using 8 tracks with CPU intensive plugins on each for example youre likely to get better performance.

Chris

[storypod]

Thanks, everybody, all the feedback is very much appreciated. Though it will take me awhile to build up the plug-in library I had in my Mix system, I do tend to use a lot of them. The sessions aren't typically extremely track heavy (usually 16 to 32 tracks). DICCER, the 6-core you mentioned from the business division, was that available 2009, 2010, or both years? There's a Bench Test site I found that tested the performance of lots of Mac Pro's, and (aside from the ridiculous stats of the 12-cores, oh boy) the 2009 8-core scored pretty decent, and used ones seem in a fairly good sweet spot for price. But of course these bench tests don't necessarily apply to the specific needs and idiosyncrasies of PT's cpu usage, so all your pro '2 cents worth' is definitely worth more than mine! Thanks again for any input..

[ejwells]

It's too bad there isn't a guy that lives 4 miles from you with an 8 core Westmere/HD Native rig, who'd let you come over and spend a day messing with his rig.
Hey...wait a minute....