Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Pro Tools Software > Pro Tools 2019

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:01 PM
arche3's Avatar
arche3 arche3 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 815
Default Re: 2019.5 Ultimate on a Mac Pro 5,1

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDDP View Post
Hey Darryl,



Thank for the input. yes I fully know about NEVER updating during a project, but the only reason I upgraded from my PT11 HD to 2019.5 was really for the 384 tracks. My mix is only about 125 tracks and have not merged SFX, Foley, ADR, and MX yet, which will put me well above the 256. I did of course clone my SSD via PCIE Boot drive to another HDD and upgraded that to 2019.5 and worked several full days with no issues. So then reckoned the booth from my SSD with 2018.12 and then updated my SSD to 2019.5 and it kinda started right around when I put in Waves Abbey Rodes plug and..... -9173. Of course I took it out and have tried everything and randomly get -9173 almost anywhere in the timeline. I've been playing with disc cache at normal, then 8GB/10GB/20GB/ETC and just left it at normal. H/W buffer is always at 1024 for mixing. I did turn off DP and with it off immediate 9173 anywhere in the TL. Putting back on did help a little. I can play a bit longer but it's still random.



Running Activity Monotor, Pro Tools uses around 4.5GB to 6GB and the Avid Video Engine is around 2GB. I have 40GB installed as mentioned in my sig





Wanted to get your advice (as I am sure this will help out others who come across this)

I have 4 x 2GB Hynix and 4 x 8GB TransIntl ram sticks and it's clocking speed is at 1066MHz



Would it be worth it and how much of an improvement would I get if I upgrade my CPU to a 3.46GHz and to 6 x 8GB ram @ 1333Mhz?



And I am using dual 1440 (guess 2K) monitors on stock 5770 GPU, would getting a RX-580 8GB XFX radeon GPU help in any shape or form as well?



Rung now I am hovering CPU at around %69-%77 and just jumps to red and of course our beloved -9173 error.



Any advice would be greatly appreciated





Thanks!
I pretty much did what you posted. I have a upgraded 5 1 cheese grater. Upgraded to 12 core 3.46. Matched 8x8 ram to 64gig (hynix 1333. ) radeon 580 pulse. I run 5 monitors.

CPU errors are gone.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:02 PM
Darryl Ramm Darryl Ramm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 13,065
Default Re: 2019.5 Ultimate on a Mac Pro 5,1

Quote:
Originally Posted by arche3 View Post
I pretty much did what you posted. I have a upgraded 5 1 cheese grater. Upgraded to 12 core 3.46. Matched 8x8 ram to 64gig (hynix 1333. ) radeon 580 pulse. I run 5 monitors.

CPU errors are gone.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
On what macOS?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-17-2019, 03:03 PM
bartosz idzi bartosz idzi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Poland
Posts: 51
Default Re: 2019.5 Ultimate on a Mac Pro 5,1

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDDP View Post
H

Would it be worth it and how much of an improvement would I get if I upgrade my CPU to a 3.46GHz and to 6 x 8GB ram @ 1333Mhz?
Yes, it is worth it. I upgraded from baseline dual 2,26 GHz Xeon config to 2 x 3,46 X5690 processors and the difference is huge. Even with PT2018 my computer gained a new lease of blood, so to say, BUT! - what you need to consider is - that these most powerful CPU's produce a lot of heat, so your fans may ramp up and the workstation will start to get much noisier than before. You can control your fans and watch temperatures with MacsFanControl software.

The smart compromise is not to get the fastest 130W X5690 xeons, (they are also much more expensive) but slightly lower clocked ones, like for example 95W X5675, they should be much quieter. A lot of useful info here:

Tons of memory are of course good for disk cache. Especially if you use network shares and sound for picture.


https://forums.macrumors.com/threads...-list.1954766/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads...ssion.2099092/
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-17-2019, 04:26 PM
arche3's Avatar
arche3 arche3 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 815
Default Re: 2019.5 Ultimate on a Mac Pro 5,1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm View Post
On what macOS?
High sierra

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-19-2019, 02:46 PM
SDDP SDDP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angles, CA
Posts: 499
Default Re: 2019.5 Ultimate on a Mac Pro 5,1

Quote:
Originally Posted by bartosz idzi View Post
Yes, it is worth it. I upgraded from baseline dual 2,26 GHz Xeon config to 2 x 3,46 X5690 processors and the difference is huge. Even with PT2018 my computer gained a new lease of blood, so to say, BUT! - what you need to consider is - that these most powerful CPU's produce a lot of heat, so your fans may ramp up and the workstation will start to get much noisier than before. You can control your fans and watch temperatures with MacsFanControl software.

The smart compromise is not to get the fastest 130W X5690 xeons, (they are also much more expensive) but slightly lower clocked ones, like for example 95W X5675, they should be much quieter. A lot of useful info here:

Tons of memory are of course good for disk cache. Especially if you use network shares and sound for picture.


https://forums.macrumors.com/threads...-list.1954766/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads...ssion.2099092/
I've actually read a lot lately about not going all out and maxing on 3.46 and going just below to just the lower since they don't run as hot. what a predicament

With 2910 having 384 track one would need the MOST CPU juice possible, but I am in the SFV and it does get EXTREMELY hot out here and my studio gets even hotter and the Mac gets even MORE hotter.

I ordered a RX 580 and should get that in a few days and want to see how much that helps and had planned on upgrading my 2.4 to the 3.46 with 6 x 8GB ram @ 1333GHZ.

But from what you're also saying that might not be the best and go just one step lower on the chips?


BTW I modified a 1,400 BTU dual AC unit (made for a 500 sq' room) to pump cold AC into a partial enclosure of about 9 sq' where the cheesegrater resides.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_6608.jpg (61.7 KB, 0 views)
__________________
-Mac Pro 5,1 12core 2.4GHz Westmere 40g
-RX 580 8GB GPU
-OSX 10.12.6 on a 1TB SSD Via PCIE card
-PTHDN 2019.5 Ultimate
-HD Omni
-BM Intensity Pro

-Waves Mercury+SSL4000 Collection+Abbey Roads
-iZotope RX7 Advanced
-iZotope Post Production Suite 3
-iZotope Music Production Suite 2.1
-HALO UP/DOWN MIX
-ANYMIX
-Delonghi Perfecta ESAM 5600.S
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-19-2019, 04:01 PM
bartosz idzi bartosz idzi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Poland
Posts: 51
Default Re: 2019.5 Ultimate on a Mac Pro 5,1

Yeah, the cooling system was not designed for dual 130 WATT processors, for sure.

But your Mac has single cpu socket only? If so, I'd go for the more powerful cpu. The single heatsink is bigger, and you only have 130W to dissipate (as compared to 260W when dual cpu's are used) On 5,1 (i have modified 4,1) is easier to install, chips are cheaper because you do not have to de-lid, and you can always exchange for the lower, even cheaper chip if you find the heat/noise too much.
This should buy you some headroom. There is significant difference with cpu headroom between a 2,4 ghz cpu and 3,46-3,70 (turbo speed) one.


re: 2019.5, i found it much better cpu-wise than 2018.12, under Sierra 10.12.6. I was already pretty happy with 2018.12, but now it seems as finally some optimizations have been done on a very old engine of PT. I can now use very low buffers for playback and it does not affect cpu consumption much. Pretty weird actually ;-) So i can recommend that config.

My GPU is RX 560, as i did not need more powerful 580 (which again, has more TDP than 560 (its about 75W vs 150W) - so, more heat, again) and it's super smooth on both Sierra and Mojave. So you may consider that. The main difference for us sound people is that with 560 you can use only 3 monitors vs more with 580 (is it 5? 6? )


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDDP View Post
I've actually read a lot lately about not going all out and maxing on 3.46 and going just below to just the lower since they don't run as hot. what a predicament

With 2910 having 384 track one would need the MOST CPU juice possible, but I am in the SFV and it does get EXTREMELY hot out here and my studio gets even hotter and the Mac gets even MORE hotter.

I ordered a RX 580 and should get that in a few days and want to see how much that helps and had planned on upgrading my 2.4 to the 3.46 with 6 x 8GB ram @ 1333GHZ.

But from what you're also saying that might not be the best and go just one step lower on the chips?


BTW I modified a 1,400 BTU dual AC unit (made for a 500 sq' room) to pump cold AC into a partial enclosure of about 9 sq' where the cheesegrater resides.
__________________
Mac Pro 2 x 3.46Ghz - 64 Gb RAM - SSD 256 Gb - SSD 1TB - OS 10.12.6 - Metric Halo 2882 - Pro Tools 2019.5
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-19-2019, 04:58 PM
SDDP SDDP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angles, CA
Posts: 499
Default Re: 2019.5 Ultimate on a Mac Pro 5,1

Quote:
Originally Posted by bartosz idzi View Post
Yeah, the cooling system was not designed for dual 130 WATT processors, for sure.

But your Mac has single cpu socket only? If so, I'd go for the more powerful cpu. The single heatsink is bigger, and you only have 130W to dissipate (as compared to 260W when dual cpu's are used) On 5,1 (i have modified 4,1) is easier to install, chips are cheaper because you do not have to de-lid, and you can always exchange for the lower, even cheaper chip if you find the heat/noise too much.
This should buy you some headroom. There is significant difference with cpu headroom between a 2,4 ghz cpu and 3,46-3,70 (turbo speed) one.


re: 2019.5, i found it much better cpu-wise than 2018.12, under Sierra 10.12.6. I was already pretty happy with 2018.12, but now it seems as finally some optimizations have been done on a very old engine of PT. I can now use very low buffers for playback and it does not affect cpu consumption much. Pretty weird actually ;-) So i can recommend that config.

My GPU is RX 560, as i did not need more powerful 580 (which again, has more TDP than 560 (its about 75W vs 150W) - so, more heat, again) and it's super smooth on both Sierra and Mojave. So you may consider that. The main difference for us sound people is that with 560 you can use only 3 monitors vs more with 580 (is it 5? 6? )
Its in my sig, it's a 12 core which is 2 x 6 cores.

I found the main culprit which I have no idea how I am going to get around other than hoping the RX 580 will address, of not then going to a CPU with 3.46 and 6 x 8GB ram sticks (already found someone in LA who installs the CPU WAY cheaper than OWC, of course with a trade in of mine)...

It's INSIGHT 2 (5.1) plug-in

The moment I took it off one of my monitors (still have the plug active though) I stopped getting the -9173.

This is a HUGE conundrum, since of course I need that running for levels and specs and if I freeze the tracks that have the most pugs, I won't be able to play with levels

So while 2018.12 was solid with this on the lower right screen minimized enough to just see the levels and #s. but I haven't not merged my Foley, Music, ADR sessions which would put me higher than 256 voices, which is the reason I even bothered getting the reinstatement plan easier this year when I heard about the extra 128 tracks announced at NAMM.

All that wait, fixes, coding, etc to give us 384 only to find out it can't be efficiently utilized.

I have the RX coming arriving in a few days. So will run the session for a whole day on it to see how much if any difference it makes:


https://www.bestbuy.com/site/xfx-amd...EozZGxz70Wmlh8
__________________
-Mac Pro 5,1 12core 2.4GHz Westmere 40g
-RX 580 8GB GPU
-OSX 10.12.6 on a 1TB SSD Via PCIE card
-PTHDN 2019.5 Ultimate
-HD Omni
-BM Intensity Pro

-Waves Mercury+SSL4000 Collection+Abbey Roads
-iZotope RX7 Advanced
-iZotope Post Production Suite 3
-iZotope Music Production Suite 2.1
-HALO UP/DOWN MIX
-ANYMIX
-Delonghi Perfecta ESAM 5600.S
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-19-2019, 05:37 PM
arche3's Avatar
arche3 arche3 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 815
Default Re: 2019.5 Ultimate on a Mac Pro 5,1

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDDP View Post
Its in my sig, it's a 12 core which is 2 x 6 cores.



I found the main culprit which I have no idea how I am going to get around other than hoping the RX 580 will address, of not then going to a CPU with 3.46 and 6 x 8GB ram sticks (already found someone in LA who installs the CPU WAY cheaper than OWC, of course with a trade in of mine)...



It's INSIGHT 2 (5.1) plug-in



The moment I took it off one of my monitors (still have the plug active though) I stopped getting the -9173.



This is a HUGE conundrum, since of course I need that running for levels and specs and if I freeze the tracks that have the most pugs, I won't be able to play with levels



So while 2018.12 was solid with this on the lower right screen minimized enough to just see the levels and #s. but I haven't not merged my Foley, Music, ADR sessions which would put me higher than 256 voices, which is the reason I even bothered getting the reinstatement plan easier this year when I heard about the extra 128 tracks announced at NAMM.



All that wait, fixes, coding, etc to give us 384 only to find out it can't be efficiently utilized.



I have the RX coming arriving in a few days. So will run the session for a whole day on it to see how much if any difference it makes:





https://www.bestbuy.com/site/xfx-amd...EozZGxz70Wmlh8
The rx580 graphics will make the 9073 issues go away. I run 5 monitors off it. In a mac pro 51 12 core 3.33. And another rig 5 monitors mac pro 51 12 core 3.46. Hdx. Hdx3.

It's well documented and as soon as I upgraded the graphics the issue was solved on both rigs. One at my studio. One at home.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-20-2019, 05:03 AM
bartosz idzi bartosz idzi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Poland
Posts: 51
Default Re: 2019.5 Ultimate on a Mac Pro 5,1

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDDP View Post

It's INSIGHT 2 (5.1) plug-in
Oh yeah, had that on trial when it came out, it was _sluggish_ indeed. Now that you mention it, i remember having cpu errors with it on.
I forgot about it quick, imho it's not worth it. If you want a lufs meter, youlean loudness meter is great, cheap and does the work and has some nice extras, and a very cultured developer who responds to emails frequently ( i found couple issues myself and they were fixed very fast)
__________________
Mac Pro 2 x 3.46Ghz - 64 Gb RAM - SSD 256 Gb - SSD 1TB - OS 10.12.6 - Metric Halo 2882 - Pro Tools 2019.5
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-20-2019, 07:11 AM
K Roche's Avatar
K Roche K Roche is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wilds of Wyoming
Posts: 959
Default Re: 2019.5 Ultimate on a Mac Pro 5,1

Quote:
Originally Posted by arche3 View Post
The rx580 graphics will make the 9073 issues go away. I run 5 monitors off it. In a mac pro 51 12 core 3.33. And another rig 5 monitors mac pro 51 12 core 3.46. Hdx. Hdx3.

It's well documented and as soon as I upgraded the graphics the issue was solved on both rigs. One at my studio. One at home.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
I am merely computer functional not super savvy, so I
am considering this graphics card and 2 into 1 power connector (bottom under Frequently bought together)) https://www.amazon.com/Sapphire-11265-05-20G-Backplate-Graphics-Graphic/dp/B06ZZ6FMF8 and since I have an late 2010 Apple Cinema Display I am getting the adaptor connector also in the Frequently bought together....

Couple quick questions
As per my system below I have the original Apple stock Graphics card in the bottom slot (#1) then the Avid HD Native PCIe card in the next slot up #2 then the Samsung SSD PCIe in #3 So will the Sapphire 580 fit in the bottom #1 slot ?

And I have read there will be no Apple logo boot up screen with the 580 is that correct ?

Also I do some occasional video editing in Apple Final Cut Pro X and currently with the stock graphics card and storing the files on the original spinner Hard drive disk the rendering can at times be a bit slow.
Do you know if the 580 will speed things up ? and or would I have to upgrade the HDD with an SSD into the HDD bay to notice any significant improvement in render time ?
__________________
System :
Avid HD Omni I/O Interface ...Mid 2010 Mac Pro/ processor- 3.33 6-core Intel Xeon "Westmere" w/ Memory- 24 GB........PTHDN 2018.12 on OS 10.13.6 High Sierra on primary boot drive (SSD PCIe 512 GB Samsung SM951) FCPX files storage on Apple 1TB HDD and PT sessions storage on Apple 2TB HDD--


"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding" Albert Einstein

Enjoy the Journey
.... Kev...

Last edited by K Roche; 05-20-2019 at 07:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2019 ultimate and heat mixer Pro Tools 2019 27 05-23-2019 11:26 PM
2019.5 Ultimate on Mac not seeing iLok license (and other possible problems) Pete Gates Pro Tools 2019 21 05-19-2019 10:40 AM
D-Command & PT Ultimate 2019.5 rmccam ICON & C|24 5 05-09-2019 12:49 PM
Vista Ultimate 64 (the ultimate dissapointment) Filmusic 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 5 08-03-2009 04:44 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:19 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com