Quote:
Originally Posted by thebeatless
I ordered an ultra, but now I’m seeing the leaked geekbench results. Multi core looks great, but in my experience single core is way more important for what we do. Do you guys think that the two physical cpu’s will give better “single core”performance with pro tools than a single CPU in real use? Or… will we get the same old spike in the middle of the cpu meter? My current windows machine gets basically the same geekbench single core score. It’s really great, but I want this new computer to be a beast and a step up in power with the added bonus of iMessage!! Not just more of the same while using less energy. On my i9 iMac a few plugins with oversampling will cause constant cpu errors. I really hope that won’t be the case!!!
|
Well I believe a single chip multi core does better than dual cores. It think that has been proven.
This is a whole new game though. Now that there are efficiency core along side of high performance cores so maybe those single core processes are being done on the efficiency cores while higher processor activities are done on the high performance cores.
This is a COMPLETELY different architecture. The CPUs, GPUs, Neural Engine and RAM are all on one chip together.
There is no more x86 code other than through Rosetta 2.
As I understand it, being that they are one together in ARM, the communication between all these areas are much faster and cooler then running 2 CPUs, GPU's on a PCIe slot and RAM in their slots.
You are comparing Old Intel technology x86 to Apple M1's and they are completely different.
Granted, AVID has a lot under the hood to work on to get it Native and working better through Rosetta. As I hear now, you don't really get accurate CPU data in PT at this point.
So you have to look at if it is functioning more and what isn't in the interim.
Lower power and heat as well. I expected the 32 cores this year, but that might come next year. Look for the 64 cores as well.
I suspect a Desktop pro version with 64-128 cores and 512 or more gigs RAM plus in the next 5 years.
Might seem expensive thinking now, but I think it will probably stay around these prices.
I mean the Mac Pro with 16 cores, on older x86 tech is still more then the Ultra.
The difference this time is, we have some data and much better tech. MS is about 7-10 years behind in the ARM game as I've been told they are working on their own chips as well, but are way behind Apple.
So windows might be an x86 platform for quiet a while.