Your diagnosis - please - CPU or Hardware

[NewdestinyX]

Hey gang,
I was doing some more testing of my 'super rig' at 96K. Using my Rig 3 in my signature - MBPro dual i7 2.8 (13" MBP) - I wanted to track about 16 tracks at 96/24. The Profire LightBridge allows me to ramp buffer down to 64 as the lowest for 96 (down to 32 at 48). Though the recording does work - I hear occasional cliks and pops if I leave the check mark under "don't stop transport at overload". If I turn off that checkmark in the PlayBack Engine - then the transport stops and give me the "ramp up the buffer size" message.

I just bought this baby recently and am thinking about eBay selling it and getting the quad i7 2.2 instead.

In your experience and technical knowledge - is the issue about 'muscle enough' to record at 96 with low buffer settings more about CPU strength in native or the bottle neck of Firewire and then particularly of any anomalies with a ProFire Lightbridge? (and yes I know the ProFire is discontinued - and am convinced that's not in this equation)

Thanks in advance for any expert input. I don't want to go thru the hassle of eBay and the loss of $ if I should just sit tight and wait for the Apollo.. . Plus some are saying the next MBPros are coming out next month with a sleeker look.

[Drew Mazurek]

An HDX rig would have no problem doing this.. (couldn't resist)

Guess it's not so Super, is it??

[albee1952]

The i7 should run circles around the dual core

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by dmazurek

An HDX rig would have no problem doing this.. (couldn't resist)

Guess it's not so Super, is it??

Remember, all my comments in that thread were about my MacPro 12core in the pro studio setting running in all native at 48k sessions. We were never talking about 96K. Most pro studios still aren't cutting at 96K multitrack these days - so it wasn't even part of the general understanding of that thread. And you know that.. - like you said - you can't resist.. LOL!! Fair enough. I'm changing the question now - to 96k scenarios - fully willing to bow to HD (not even HDX being needed for stable 96k-HD Accel is plenty stable) for 96K stability for multitrack.

Originally Posted by albee1952

The i7 should run circles around the dual core

They're both i7's I'm talking about. I'm asking for a comparison between "i7 dual core 2.8GHz" and "i7 quad core 2.4GHz" (fastest made now for MBPros).

Also does anyone know when we'll see updates MBPros? This year, next year? I've read the rumor sites which seem to indicate only a few more GHz this year - and then a MBAir-like redesign and no more hard drives or Ethernet or Firewire by next year. Is that what we're hearing?

[albee1952]

i was not aware that an i7 dual core existed. In any case, be aware that mobile i7 cpu's are not the same beast as the desktop versions and won't match the performance of them in most cases.

[Dism]

Originally Posted by albee1952

i was not aware that an i7 dual core existed. In any case, be aware that mobile i7 cpu's are not the same beast as the desktop versions and won't match the performance of them in most cases.

Albee you're getting old.

The first gen of Macbook Pros with i7s were all dual core.

But you are correct. The mobile i7 dual is nowhere close to the desktop i7 quad, but the i7 quad in the modern Macbook Pros should be MORE than enough to track 96k @ 64.

I definitely wouldn't consider any 13" Macbook for that kind of heavy lifting.

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by Dism

Albee you're getting old.

The first gen of Macbook Pros with i7s were all dual core.

But you are correct. The mobile i7 dual is nowhere close to the desktop i7 quad, but the i7 quad in the modern Macbook Pros should be MORE than enough to track 96k @ 64.

I definitely wouldn't consider any 13" Macbook for that kind of heavy lifting.

And in the Mac World i7 desktops don't exist. 12Cores are our reality. i7 desktops I guess are a PC thing. Though my i7 dual core 13" MBP can pretty much do anything my 8core 2.8GHz Harpertown Desktop can. Oy..

And 13" isn't the issue as the same dual Core i7 is a common config in the 13" too. That's what I bought. But are we sure the ProFire itself and FireWire 400 aren't a part of this equation? It's all the CPU?

Thanks for the info so far, guys!

[albee1952]

Originally Posted by NewdestinyX

And in the Mac World i7 desktops don't exist. 12Cores are our reality. i7 desktops I guess are a PC thing. Though my i7 dual core 13" MBP can pretty much do anything my 8core 2.8GHz Harpertown Desktop can. Oy..

And 13" isn't the issue as the same dual Core i7 is a common config in the 13" too. That's what I bought. But are we sure the ProFire itself and FireWire 400 aren't a part of this equation? It's all the CPU?

Thanks for the info so far, guys!

You forgot about the i7 iMac and Mac Mini Both are quads.

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by albee1952

You forgot about the i7 iMac and Mac Mini Both are quads.

Ah, yes.. Of course. But the Mac mini and iMacs aren't considered desktops really.. They're more like beefed up laptops.. .. There's no difference in performance between the same i7 dual or quad in MBPro or Air and in a Mac mini or iMac. They're all equal if the processor listed is same type.

The only time you get into difference in performance (alleged better) is in i7s in some PC Desktops. But this isn't a function of the processor itself all things being equal. At that point it's just about iOS and/or motherboard efficiencies.

[epiphone]

I7 quad comment. I was just looking at the performance specs the current imac i7 quad 3.0 k(?) vs an 09 i5 point being on some tasks the i7 was faster than some mac pros. Are you sure the i7 chip in the mini, laptop and imac are the same ?