The New Mac Pro Line and Pro Tools

[johnpaulgeorgeringo]

So I'm ready to pull the trigger and buy a new Mac Pro and would appreciate some knowledgeable feedback on which model to buy. My budget is only allowing for two possibilities and I would like to know which is a better bet:

a) The 8-Core. Two 2.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” processors

or

b) The 6-core. One 3.33GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” processor

I've been reading several reviews online, basically saying the 2.4 model is a "dud" This argument seems to hold some weight as the processing has made no great strides since the 2009 model?

The main argument I see against the 6 core is that it's only a one processor model and will always be so.

Once I have the new Mac I'll upgrade to PT8. Does anyone know how many cores PT8 is written to use?

At the end of the day, which is a better choice. The 6 or the 8?

Would appreciate all feedback

Thanks,
Mark

[gclef101]

This is what I was told by a tech at RSPE Audio Solutions about getting a 2.4 8 core vs 6 core 2010 Mac Pros. If you are doing native plug-ins get a 8 or 12 -core if you have TDM system get a 4 or the 6. He also said which was more important that the more money you put into a faster processor or higher cores is doesn't pay out in audio processing.

I also saw this from AppleInsider.com (price guide tab), hope this helps anyone looking for a new 2009 2.26 Apple Mac Pro. Amazon has it for $2.399.00 + $30.49 S/H new at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...F8&me=&seller=. They also have 4 core 2009. The retailer has a 99% positive rating if this helps and they are an Apple authorized retailer. It is $900.00 off original price. save $$$...

[zodo]

Go with the 6-core.

Having multiple physical CPUs means that system ram will be split between them, relying upon NUMA (non-uniform memory access) to communicate with the other half. In short, that means that half of the ram at any given time will be "remote" to one of the CPUs, causing greater latency when accessing that data. Such inconsistencies don't play well with apps that rely on everything being 'Real Time' and consistent, such as Pro Tools. This can cause a moderate increase in CPU performance errors and general inconsistency when heavily loading the CPUs.

Having a single physical CPU with more numerous cores will avoid such problems and give generally more reliable performance, even if it is theoretically slightly 'slower'.

[RKrizman]

It would be nice for Digi to chime i on one of these thread and tell us what the deal is with approving the newer Macs. A lot of people are in this dilemma.

-R

[roundbadge]

Ive been hearing good things about the westmeres and PT
I recently went from a G5 to w/ a nehelem 09 8 core [only because of some potential magma PCI probs].
aside from some rtas plug in bumps in the road, so far pt 8.1 seems ok.
cautiously moving forward to the latest ..

[bobo mark]

I did, just setup Westmeres MacPro 12 Cores. except System usage meter is not showing correctly. And Waves tech support saying 7.1 is NOT support in 8.1 yet. other than i can finish very complicated mix.

[WorldStudios]

Word. We are quite a few people holding back on our new Mac Pro purchase waiting for this big question to be answered. Should you go 6, 8 or 12 core? I would also like to know how much memory you need to succesfully run a HD3 accel system on one of the new MacPros.

So, has anybody compared the raw RTAS power availiable in these machines, because that is what the difference is all about. The TDM side will run as slow no matter the number of cores, I guess.

You can measure all you like, but the proof is in the real life use. It seems silly to pay thousands more for a potentially weaker machine in real life. To paraphrase what I tell the girls: it is not in the number of cores - its what you can do with them that counts.

[DetroitT]

2.66 12 core, 12GB, here.
Magma HD3 PCI bridged in.
3 Monitor (19-27-19) all running well (64bit kernel boot).
PT's 8.1cs1.
Still getting my head around Surround between systems with and without C/24 controller. (I/O Mapping and older sessions)
(Rebuilding I/O templates will no doubt help.)
Unlike my previous G5 setup, When editing quickly the occasional processing-Ball may spin but now PT's does not crash. (Not once-Knock Knock)

VI's include:
NI, Play, TT S-Drummer, Real GTRs (VST Wrapped), Aria, Arturia, RSN-Record... All running the best ever.

PS. I went the 12c 2.66 vs. the 6c 3.33 (First choice) due to a deep discount.
(Kore HW controller still NA in 64 bit)(Software part is fine)

[studiojimi]

Originally Posted by WorldStudios

To paraphrase what I tell the girls: it is not in the number of cores - its what you can do with them that counts.

why is it that you have to keep telling them that?

[johnpaulgeorgeringo]

Thank you everyone for all the replies. As is often the case, I'm still confused

@ gclef101 .... thanks for passing on the information. Perhaps buying a 2009 model isn't a bad idea when you measure up those 8 cores verse the new "westmere" 8 cores. I see very little difference unless there is some magical thing about "westmere" processors that I'm not aware of?

@ zodo .... thanks for the definitive response. I like that! Not sure I honestly understand the "tech" part of your post (I'm no tech head that's for sure) but the 6 core with the faster processor would technically be 'faster' yes? Or is it the number of cores and not the ghz speed which makes the machine more efficient (at least with Pro Tools and other 'real time' programs?

@ RKrizman .... YES! indeed it would be nice for Digi/Avid to chime in ..... Digi ... Avid ... is anyone there ... hello???? echo "hello... hello .... hello

@ WorldStudios (Johan) .... YES! the proof is indeed in real life use and I. like many folks it seems is a little concerned about paying thousands for a potentially weaker machine

Thanks again everyone ... more replies still welcome

Mark