A Closer Look at Processor Options and Performance for Apple's New Mac Pro

[Lolito]

Looking at benchmarks, 2012 mac mini with i7, is almost as fast as the base new mac pro:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geek..."Intel Core i7-3720QM" frequency:2600 bits:64

Therefore, next gen mac mini will be even faster. this new mac is just another apple rip off, again...

 

[flat five]

I'm a tech geek and software developer, but I don't work in the video/3d modeling/media industry. I don't understand the point of this machine's focus. Can someone with the requisite experience and knowledge comment.

1)Why is Apple getting rid of the dual-CPU architecture of the last gen and moving to a single CPU? This seems completely counter-productive as much of the clientele using the machine wants as much CPU performance as possible for 3D rendering, pro video/audio compositing/rendering, etc.

just speaking of one of those.. the 3d rendering part--

what are you rendering? a model but who drew it? the most time consuming part for the user, by far, is the modeling phase.. a typical project for me would be something like 4 days to model/texture, 1/2 day to run previews, 4 days to render..

for the 4 days of modeling, the time i'm actually sitting at my computer and interacting with it, i want the highest clock speed available.. all of the drawing processes are linear and can't be multithreaded.. a faster clock speed will allow for higher poly models as they won't choke as soon during navigation etc.. transformations are faster.. booleans are faster.. everything about it is faster and smoother/less glitchy when using a fast core..

the preview renders can happen on low resolution versions so while a user may still have to wait on a low core count system, it can be kept under control (a minute or so for a judge_able preview)

the 4 days of rendering.. yeah, adding more cores can cut that time drastically.. but, you're not actually shortening your personal workload at all.. you're shortening the computer's workload (work time).. if my renders come back in 2days instead of 4, i've still worked 30hrs on the project..

whereas if i did the same thing with clock speed, say 2.5ghz vs 4ghz.. a 30hr project on 2.5ghz may be done in 26hrs with 4ghz.. and i'll have a less frustrating overall vibe going on..

to me, shaving off 4 hours of my personal time > overall project time..

if all you're doing is rendering other people's models then yeah, more cores is definitely the right path.. but the people i know of who are in that business have hundreds of cpu cores at their disposable.. and i highly (highly!) doubt anyone is going to buy 5- 24core macpros to build a renderfarm with.. they're getting their cpu elsewhere even if it's a mac pro driving the farm..

but back to the individual modeler/renderer.. that's where the GPU for rendering comes into play.. the things have thousands of cores in them.. i did a quick example in one of these threads around here using my 5770.. one image with openCL enabled then the same image without.. the render time sped up more than 2x just using a 5770.. more powerful cards and two of them at that? it's pretty much a no brainer where someone like me needs to be looking towards for enhanced render times.. all the while, keeping my fast clock speed and saving some $ as well..

add(i couldn't even afford/justify buying a 24core macpro.. i can definitely afford/justify spending $5000 on a computer.. and i really do believe a fast 6core with dual GPU and openCL applications will complete my renders faster than a 24core computer can.. and at the same time, the much cheaper computer will also be faster/smoother during the times I'm actually sitting at the desk)

 

[flat five]

As I understand it, both video encoding (Adobe Premier, Final Cut Pro) and 3D rendering (Maya, Cinema 4D, whatever) is still done on the CPU because although the GPU could be much faster, the algorithms used on the CPU result in much better image quality. Are the GPUs just used for working/preview purposes and then final rendering is done on their local CPU or a server farm?

see here:
http://www.thearender.com/cms/index.php/features/engines/presto-gpu.html

----------

Looking at benchmarks, 2012 mac mini with i7, is almost as fast as the base new mac pro:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geek..."Intel Core i7-3720QM" frequency:2600 bits:64

Therefore, next gen mac mini will be even faster. this new mac is just another apple rip off, again...

i think if you're going to judge computers based solely on geekbench scores, it would at least be wise to know what you're looking at first..

 

[mrxak]

add(i couldn't even afford/justify buying a 24core macpro.. i can definitely afford/justify spending $5000 on a computer.. and i really do believe a fast 6core with dual GPU and openCL applications will complete my renders faster than a 24core computer can.. and at the same time, the much cheaper computer will also be faster/smoother during the times I'm actually sitting at the desk)

Heck, you might even be able to save money with a 4-core system (and put the rest into more RAM, maybe), if most of your work is being done with the GPUs and a single thread on the CPU. Both the 4-core and 6-core have the same speed single threaded.

 

[sokobanz]

So my 5,1 (3 year old technically) with pair of x5690 and geek bench >31000 has much more power then a new one Pro and not so pricy.

 

[HyperZboy]

I think people were expecting a machine you could upgrade down the road, like CPU, HDD, GPU, add-on PCI-e cards. Hell, how about the ability to swap out even one (mechanical) hard drive?

Apple's aim is to make the iTrashcan just as consumable as their laptop line so you have a buy an entirely new machine to get upgrades.
Think Apple likes the fact that there are still Mac Pros chugging along after 5+ years of service?

After initially griping like this, I have resigned myself to the fact that Apple is treating the (mechanical) hard drive like it treated the floppy drive and moving on to SSD, which will ultimately be the future, first for pro machines, then eventually mainstream. Obviously, there are plenty of high capacity external HD storage options. But my problem with this Mac Pro still is what if you want a higher capacity SSD in the future? You throw out the expensive one already inside? I don't think so, not at the current prices. I can easily add another internal SSD drive to my 2009 Mac Pro. Not so with this new one and I don't want any more more external cases and wires. To me this is a major flaw.

As for GPU upgrades, I'm not sure the word is out on that yet, but obviously there are tons of GPU cards I could buy for my 2009 Mac Pro.

I'll admit, just ONE PCI-E slot would have been nice but that's the size trade-off. I'll admit, I don't like the trash can joke, but it does seem to be catching on. I wish the machine was just slightly more expandable and slightly larger for what I've mentioned above.

Also, due to the size of the new Mac Pro, this would make for a great desktop machine of the future. I realize that was not Apple's intention, but maybe they should have at least thought of it. So I agree with a previous post that there should be an entry level Mac Pro at $1999 to $2499 like in previous generations. The original lowest priced G5 tower sold for $1799. The original Mac Pro sold for $2199. A lot of that market has transitioned to laptops & iMacs, true. But that doesn't mean people aren't still buying desktops at all anymore and this machine with its size could make for an incredible home media center at those type price points. Let's face it, Apple TVs are not exactly flying off the shelves. I can stream all kinds of content from even my old ATI 5770 & 3Ghz Mac Pro to my HDTV and I can still upgrade that graphics card if I wanted but it will drive 3 displays easily. This design would be perfect for that, but not at that price starting price point.

I'll wait to see the reviews before passing judgment, but I think there is sort of another Apple mistake here... One Size fits all is not exactly a mantra the Pro community likes to hear. This Mac Pro could be a lot of things, but it seems too constrained to a very limited market and doesn't exactly replace the Mac Pro it supposedly replaces on some levels. I do think it will sell well to a limited crowd, but the potential to sell more has been missed in my opinion.

 

[HyperZboy]

I've always wondered why companies like HP or Dell never released a hackintosh.

I'm not saying they should release a computer with OSX installed, but release a computer with components that are all OSX compatible and sell the computer with Windows installed.

Then put out the info on sites like this saying 'HP Laptop' or 'Dell Desktop' work with OSX right out of the box - just BYO OSX.

If it were priced right and people caught on I'm sure they would get an increase in sales - particularly in the Pro Desktop market.

Simple answer. You'd kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

As in, Microsoft would be ticked off. Apple would be ticked off.

HP & Dell need Microsoft BAD!
That would be seriously risking the relationship between those companies.
Remember, the Justice Dept. let Microsoft off very easy meaning they still have a substantial amount of influence on those 2 companies.
It would be like shooting themselves in the foot or biting the hand that feeds it or both.

If either company even gave out info on how to get Apple machine EFI, etc, that would be like soliciting piracy and result in a lawsuit from Apple. Apple already successfully shut down one company for attempting to just sell a legal copy of OSX to buyers of a hackintosh.

As Steve Jobs used to say, it would be a bag o' hurt. LOL

The only way I can see this happening is if several PC companies did it at the same time and were willing to risk the legal fees. There was a rumor that one of the shut down hackintosh companies was being funded by a major PC manufacturer, but there was never enough proof for Apple to go after them, and they ran with their tale between their legs. Apple won't go after individuals, but they will go after for profit companies that promote or try to sell a hackintosh.

That would be like creating an Android phone that could run IOS7 too.
While somewhat technically feasible given a lot of similar technologies, Apple would sue them out of business almost immediately with all the patents they hold.

 

[designaholic]

Premiere Pro and After Effects are many times faster if you have a CUDA compatible video card (nVidia). The new Mac Pro isn't CUDA compatible. So if you wanted to stick with OS X, it would be much smarter to get a used Mac Pro and put in a CUDA compatible card at a fraction of the price than it would be to get a new Mac Pro with OpenCL. In fact, my guess is most 2013 Mac Pro customers are people who already have an older Mac Pro. My guess is those Macs with a new nVidia card are going to be faster in CUDA software like Premiere Pro than the new Mac Pro.

Google "Octane Render", for example.

That certainly was the case prior to the CC releases, but have a read of this...

http://blogs.adobe.com/premierepro/2013/06/adobe-premiere-pro-cc-and-gpu-support.html

OpenCL improvements are coming too

 

[twoodcc]

well, any of the new mac pros will blow my 2006 mac pro away, but i don't think i can justify the high price. i may reconsider once others get them and hopefully will answer all our questions!

 

[milo]

Oh come on, I can run a full orchestra (or two) on my retina MBP from my internal drive.

Spifire Sable? LASS? Cinebrass, Cinestrings, CinePercussion? 8dio Adagio? Berlin Woodwinds? Any of the big libraries from vienna, particularly using MIR? Heck, even resource heavy stuff like Omnisphere and Trillian? And don't even get me started on the East West Hollywood libraries, those are all huge plus their plugin player runs like crap on a mac.

Which of those libraries are you running? And if none of those, which libraries specifically are you using to run "full orchestra"?

Of course there are small orchestral libraries that will run on virtually any new machine, or a composer can run minimal mic positions and articulations. It's just like any other application, if you are running something light the hardware needs are light…but that doesn't mean that nobody is running deeper projects and needing more resources.

You don't need to load samples in RAM anymore, because SSD are blazing fast, seek time is ridiculous.

Wrong again. You haven't needed to load full samples into ram anymore but for real time playback the start of each sample needs to be loaded. With Kontakt the default is 60k per sample, with SSD that can go down to 6k but with tens of thousands of samples loaded that still adds up.

And SSD is still very expensive when a single sample library can run over a hundred gigs. My installation of Sable is at 134 gigs already and they still have more content and more mic positions coming.

So don't give me crap about having to have fully loaded garbage in RAM + additional SSD to have it stream.

I'm going to give you every last ounce of crap you deserve, thank you very much. And I never said anything about "fully loaded" samples, I'm talking about streaming samples which still requires all the sample starts to be loaded.

You could pull an orchestra off with….

If you are happy to produce results that sound like ass, you can do orchestral sequencing with just about any hardware. And based on what you've said in your posts you're likely deaf as a stump and can't hear the difference.

Dual SSDs + 32GB of RAM isn't enough?

? Not sure where you pulled those specific things from, I certainly didn't mention that.

Get another damn job because you have no clue how instrumentation works on a theoretic level. If you need 150 violins at the same time to make it sound proper you are doing it wrong

Who said anything about 150 violins? I'm talking about standard orchestral scoring, just with high end libraries. Sure, these libraries can have lots of articulations, but that's one part of how they can give such good results.

Also, physical modeling. It runs on CPU, not RAM and SSD.

For once, you give a great example. There are a few great libraries using physical modeling, particularly the SampleModeling stuff which I have a couple of and love. And those are very CPU heavy compared with straight sample playback. But I'm not sure what your point is since I said that high end music production places high demands on both CPU as well as storage and IO.

But hey whatever, Mac Pro 2013 is more than well-fed on the RAM and SSD department. each thunderbolt port takes 20gbit throughput meaning you can connect 2 PCIe SSDs on each port. But I take it its not enough for Audio.

I never said the MP isn't enough for audio. I was disputing the multiple comments that audio never needs high end hardware, which couldn't be more wrong.

Boy, you must do some complex work.

I certainly do, but it's probably not that different than plenty of other guys using these same orchestral libraries.

I'll save this post so I can shove it in your face on Mac OS 11 and Logic 11.

You do that. I certainly hope that Logic is able to take advantage of OpenCL with a future update. But that doesn't make you any less wrong about insisting that the Pro Tools DSP farms are the same hardware as current video cards. And way to push it way off until the next major release of Logic and OSX, if it really does take that long then many Logic users might as well wait to buy the GPU heavy hardware.

If a quad-core i7 isn't enough for any type of genre YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG.

Posting something in bold and all caps doesn't make it true. And by your measure virtually every guy scoring feature films is "doing it wrong". I'm sure they'll be so sad to hear that "Ploki" figured that out.

I had an 8-core 2008 Mac Pro that could take literally everything I threw at it.

You can say the same for any machine if you just have the low end sample libraries.

It nibbled 5.1 96/24 feature films like pancakes.

Again, 5.1 96/24 and big orchestral mockups are apples and oranges. It's very telling that you seem to think doing anything in 5.1 must be more demanding than any other possible musical application.

If you are stacking preset EQs...

Yeah, keep making that straw man argument and ignore my explanation of what actually is so demanding on the system.

So don't tell me that I don't have a clue what I'm talking about...

OK. After this last post it's obvious you have even less of a clue than I originally thought. Cheers.


So Ploki, enlighten us with specifically what libraries you are using for your wonderful full orchestral mockups? I'm dying to know what is behind these laptop symphonic masterpieces. And are you doing those orchestral tracks for a living, or a hobby? Really, we're all just dying to know more specifics on how you're turning out such great work on such modest hardware.

the new Mac Pro being so bad for audio. Guess what, it's not.

Guess what, that's a straw man argument. I don't believe anyone here has said it would be bad for audio processing itself.

What generally has been said is that:
* Current audio apps make little if any use of GPU power, and at this point nobody really knows if openCL is well suited for audio
* Many audio users would prefer a model with single GPU and/or dual CPU instead
* Some audio users have expensive PCIe cards which would require spending money on an expansion chassis to use, same for storage
* Some hardware (PCIe or firewire) could potentially have compatibility issues running via adapters or expansion chassis

Personally I think this machine will for the most part be great for my use. But I have to admit the configuration is more optimal for things like video than audio, and moving my current storage from internal to external is going to be money I wouldn't otherwise have to spend.

 

[DPUser]

^^^ Milo, thank you for taking the time to again to address the remarks of a poorly-informed person whose writing style causes me to suspect trolling is his real objective. Like you, I didn't post here to dispute whether the nMP would be adequate for audio use. And like you, I think the new machine will be fine for audio, but will also require considerable investment beyond the cost of the nMP itself to be as functional as the cheese grater is today.

 

[Ploki]

Spifire Sable? LASS? Cinebrass, Cinestrings, CinePercussion? 8dio Adagio? Berlin Woodwinds? Any of the big libraries from vienna, particularly using MIR? Heck, even resource heavy stuff like Omnisphere and Trillian? And don't even get me started on the East West Hollywood libraries, those are all huge plus their plugin player runs like crap on a mac.

Which of those libraries are you running? And if none of those, which libraries specifically are you using to run "full orchestra"?

East West Libraries are imo not really great.

LASS, Cinebrass, Omnisphere. I've been using WIVI lately for brass/ww since they're far more flexible and can sound exceptional if you know how to program them.


Of course there are small orchestral libraries that will run on virtually any new machine, or a composer can run minimal mic positions and articulations. It's just like any other application, if you are running something light the hardware needs are light…but that doesn't mean that nobody is running deeper projects and needing more resources.

Wrong again. You haven't needed to load full samples into ram anymore but for real time playback the start of each sample needs to be loaded. With Kontakt the default is 60k per sample, with SSD that can go down to 6k but with tens of thousands of samples loaded that still adds up.

If you need tens of thousands of samples loaded that means you don't know how to do orchestral instrumentation on a purely theoretical level in order to achieve a proper orchestral sound.

Besides, if you ever tried loading something with 6K you'd see you need to work extremely hard to fill up RAM. But that is besides the point, the new Mac Pro can take 32GB of RAM which is enough. If it isn't, get that string library which comes with its own machine (or three of them). I always forget how they're called. Not really popular.

And SSD is still very expensive when a single sample library can run over a hundred gigs. My installation of Sable is at 134 gigs already and they still have more content and more mic positions coming.

Who cares if its expensive? We're talking about a Mac Pro and supposedly audio professionals. Surely you can afford something to work more efficiently and faster? SSD is faster in every way, even if you have a bigger pre buffer in K5 it still takes A LOT more time to load them from HDD.

I'm going to give you every last ounce of crap you deserve, thank you very much. And I never said anything about "fully loaded" samples, I'm talking about streaming samples which still requires all the sample starts to be loaded.

If you are happy to produce results that sound like ass, you can do orchestral sequencing with just about any hardware. And based on what you've said in your posts you're likely deaf as a stump and can't hear the difference.

Theres a difference between "giving me crap" and being an *******.

Posting something in bold and all caps doesn't make it true. And by your measure virtually every guy scoring feature films is "doing it wrong". I'm sure they'll be so sad to hear that "Ploki" figured that out.

No. Real composers, like, have their music performed by an orchestra and recorded.

Who said anything about 150 violins? I'm talking about standard orchestral scoring, just with high end libraries. Sure, these libraries can have lots of articulations, but that's one part of how they can give such good results.

I know how large libraries behave. You have to know how to use computer and you have to know how to score stuff.

For once, you give a great example. There are a few great libraries using physical modeling, particularly the SampleModeling stuff which I have a couple of and love. And those are very CPU heavy compared with straight sample playback. But I'm not sure what your point is since I said that high end music production places high demands on both CPU as well as storage and IO.

I also use samplemodeling and also WIVI. I don't know but if I set Voxengo Elephant to 8x oversampling it will spike my CPU way more than a whole brass band. Still, there are rumours WIVI will do strings. Can't wait till that happens... Since I got WIVI I don't use any other brass/ww library. For that few quirks they don't pull off I just get a player to track me something

I never said the MP isn't enough for audio. I was disputing the multiple comments that audio never needs high end hardware, which couldn't be more wrong.

That was never the case. The case was that audio is not as demanding as video which is true. If you ever edited any video you would know that. I did both, so I know where my computer struggles. And trust me, I do half-assed video not half-assed sound since I only do video for hobby.

Again, 5.1 96/24 and big orchestral mockups are apples and oranges. It's very telling that you seem to think doing anything in 5.1 must be more demanding than any other possible musical application.

Oh, so not every audio production is demanding. Perhaps not every producer/engineer knows how to optimise their rig, eh?

I certainly do, but it's probably not that different than plenty of other guys using these same orchestral libraries.

Yeah, keep making that straw man argument and ignore my explanation of what actually is so demanding on the system.

Sorry. Sample libraries. Well, try playing something with S2.0 in cached mode from SSD (that means nothing is preloaded in ram) and see how fast it reacts. You can play it realtime. really. Just because sample libraries aren't yet optimised to yearn the power of super-fast SSDs that doesn't mean that audio is demanding, its just awfully inefficient.

And it boils down to taste anyway, I personally pick Pianoteq or TruePianos over Ivory or QL Pianos any day.

You do that. I certainly hope that Logic is able to take advantage of OpenCL with a future update. But that doesn't make you any less wrong about insisting that the Pro Tools DSP farms are the same hardware as current video cards. And way to push it way off until the next major release of Logic and OSX, if it really does take that long then many Logic users might as well wait to buy the GPU heavy hardware.

I didn't say it farms the same hardware, I said what TDM used to do and that this is the process that could be implemented if people cared.

But yeah. I never really argued that the nMP is aimed at video. dual GPU gives a pretty strong hint, and i never really felt it was a smart decision for apple to only offer video choices. I argued that audio needs oh so much power.

Posting something in bold and all caps doesn't make it true. And by your measure virtually every guy scoring feature films is "doing it wrong". I'm sure they'll be so sad to hear that "Ploki" figured that out.


OK. After this last post it's obvious you have even less of a clue than I originally thought. Cheers.

So Ploki, enlighten us with specifically what libraries you are using for your wonderful full orchestral mockups? I'm dying to know what is behind these laptop symphonic masterpieces. And are you doing those orchestral tracks for a living, or a hobby? Really, we're all just dying to know more specifics on how you're turning out such great work on such modest hardware.

I'll perhaps private message you because you asked so nicely. If I feel like.

I'm not really up to divulging personal information to wannabe hans zimmers on a public forum.

^^^ Milo, thank you for taking the time to again to address the remarks of a poorly-informed person whose writing style causes me to suspect trolling is his real objective. Like you, I didn't post here to dispute whether the nMP would be adequate for audio use. And like you, I think the new machine will be fine for audio, but will also require considerable investment beyond the cost of the nMP itself to be as functional as the cheese grater is today.

Put your money where your mouth is and stop piggybacking on other peoples arguments...

Just like you can argue rendering can be done offline, so can you use 16bit/44.1 samples and only render high quality, and use "eco reverb" mode etc etc. It's the same ****ing argument.

 

[DPUser]

Put your money where your mouth is and stop piggybacking on other peoples arguments...

I might consider it if you were not so crass. Thanks for your time, too.

 

[milo]

LASS, Cinebrass, Omnisphere.

Full LASS with the separate divisi sections stacked up? At least you're using a couple of the newer libraries, but that just scratches the surface. WIVI is ok and you're right about the flexibility but personally I don't think the sound is comparable to real samples of a good player in a good hall. You certainly can't expect everyone to use WIVI instead of samples.

If you need tens of thousands of samples loaded that means you don't know how to do orchestral instrumentation on a purely theoretical level in order to achieve a proper orchestral sound.

Let's look at a specific example. Sable strings Violin 1, all articulations loaded (just volume 1), one mic position. That's a single keyswitched Kontakt instrument. And it's 4777 samples just for that one instrument. Load more mic positions and you double or triple that. Load the five string sections and it's up to 18640 samples. That's five kontakt instruments, just one mic position for each. I guess in your mind nobody using that library knows how to do orchestral instrumentation on a purely theoretical level? How dare we load up the standard string orchestra, that can't be right.

Besides, if you ever tried loading something with 6K you'd see you need to work extremely hard to fill up RAM.

At Kontakt's default 60k buffer, those five instruments need 2.96 gigs of preload. Switch that to 6k and it's 1.04 gigs. That's a decent number for having that many samples loaded, but you can only run at 6k if all those samples are on SSD, and even in that case a higher buffer might be necessary. Not to mention that other sample playback plugins don't have options to go that low, and Kontakt and the DAW use more memory the more stuff is loaded. With that same example of five instruments loaded, Kontakt itself uses a gig and a half of ram.

But that is besides the point, the new Mac Pro can take 32GB of RAM which is enough.

Reminds me of that old (probably apocryphal) quote about a given amount of memory being enough. Maybe enough for you, but it's never a good idea to make blanket statements about nobody needing more. Anyway, the new MP actually takes 64 gigs, and I've never said that 32 (or 64) isn't "enough" for audio.

Surely you can afford something to work more efficiently and faster?

SSD is getting more affordable but as the samples get into hundreds of gigs, it's not exactly cheap to have that much SSD. Someday, but for now the cost is prohibitive for most users.

Theres a difference between "giving me crap" and being an *******.

And based on your comments I have no problem with either of those.

Real composers, like, have their music performed by an orchestra and recorded.

And they never use any samples to supplement those recordings? Or do mockups for the director before the live recording? Or do some lower budget projects that use more samples instead of all full orchestra?

You have to know how to use computer and you have to know how to score stuff.

Of course. But knowing those things doesn't magically make a computer able to handle more than it can handle. Libraries are getting much bigger and the hardware demands are going up as well. Of course there are ways to cut corners but having the power available also allows better workflow, things like the ability to have a big template loaded with instruments and articulations and not having to constantly add and remove things to keep the session lighter.

The case was that audio is not as demanding as video which is true.

Go back and read the thread.

Oh, so not every audio production is demanding.

Did you miss where that was what I said in the first place?

Perhaps not every producer/engineer knows how to optimise their rig, eh?

Some run into issues because things aren't optimized while others are well optimized but are running libraries that are simply more demanding.

Just because sample libraries aren't yet optimised to yearn the power of super-fast SSDs that doesn't mean that audio is demanding, its just awfully inefficient.

Didn't you just deny saying audio isn't demanding? Make up your mind. Of course audio can be demanding, it's just a matter of tracks, effects, polyphony, etc. Just because you're ignorant of how demanding the newest, biggest libraries are doesn't mean audio is never demanding on the hardware. Might as well insist that 3d rendering or video editing isn't demanding because low end content can be created on low end hardware.

So yes, you can get by doing audio on lower end hardware. Just like you can get by doing video editing or 3d on lower end hardware. But in any of those cases being stuck on the lower end hardware limits the quality and options of what can be done, as well as taking longer to do the work.

I'm not really up to divulging personal information

I wouldn't really consider "do it for a living, or hobbyist" to be all that personal info but from your posts it's pretty obvious for us to draw our own conclusions. Whatever. You did say that you're using WIVI for all brass and strings so that's enlightening about why you're in the dark about the latest sample libraries for those. I probably don't want to know what you're using for percussion.

Just like you can argue rendering can be done offline...

"Rendering" for audio? Sure, you can bump some things up before a non-real time bounce, but the track needs to be able to play back in order to play in the parts and mix. Frankly DPUser is probably smarter than I am, having resisted the temptation to waste time responding to comments like that.

 

[Ploki]

I'll PM you... we completely contaminated this thread.
(so open PMs, this has gone far enough off-topic)
----------

I might consider it if you were not so crass. Thanks for your time, too.

Sorry. I'm just annoyed with audio guys barging in threads trying to feel they need as much as video. They really don't.

And Audio is a broad term. If by audio all you thought was "tons of huge orchestral libraries" you should/could have said so, makes for a completely different argument... If we are talking about production in a traditional sense or music composition or sound postproduction. Some are less some are more demanding and your generalisation based on your needs is just as bad as any other.

Recording bands is also audio production and you can do it on a 2009 MacBook. And also mix it there.

 

[milo]

Sorry. I'm just annoyed with audio guys barging in threads trying to feel they need as much as video.

Who said that? Quote please. And it's stupid for you to compare. High end video has high end demands. High end audio has high end demands.

If by audio all you thought was "tons of huge orchestral libraries" you should/could have said so

That's not what I have ever thought or said. It's simply one example of audio production that's demanding, in response to the idiotic notion that nobody doing audio needs a high end machine.

Some are less some are more demanding

That's hilarious considering it's what I've been saying over and over again while you have kept making the blanket statement that audio isn't demanding.

and your generalisation based on your needs is just as bad as any other.

My generalization? I don't even know what that would be. I have been saying over and over that there are audio production situations that place a high demand on CPU, ram etc. You were the one who made a generalization and my response has been over and over that you can't make that generalization.

Recording bands is also audio production and you can do it on a 2009 MacBook. And also mix it there.

Thanks for that bit of amazing insight, it will be truly educational to the hordes of people insisting that recording bands is not audio production and that it can't be done on a 2009 macbook.

 

[Ploki]

So, my 2009 4,1>5,1 Hex 3.33 slightly bests the nMP Quad in the Geekbench Multi-core Performance metric, which is the score relevant for audio work.

Cost to build, including a fast GPU: about 1/2 of the nMP Quad.

Since I was replying to DPUser in my previous post (as I wanted to reply to you on PM) I'm giving his quote, since that part pissed me off as well.

The my initial post that pissed you off only had two things directed at you; one was ME questioning why would you use a top Mac Pro for (which with giant libraries still didn't answer anything, but at least you answered something) and one was for FIR filtering (linear phase filters) as they work on principles of convolution.

Frankly I don't care enough to find it but the whole thread was filled with "what about audio" kind of garbage.

And in restrospect, I still don't know why 12cores top of the line Mac Pro for audio. Except for the smug "you don't have a clue how audio works" type of remarks nobody has offered a concrete case where you would need so much power...

 

[milo]

nobody has offered a concrete case where you would need so much power...

Well, except the painfully long posts explaining why you would need so much power. But clearly you're going to ignore anything you don't want to read, I should have followed DPUser's example in the first place and instead of wasting time with a reply, just had a good laugh at your expense.

 

[blackhand1001]

I just need to save this quote for every time a there’s a herp-a-derp-hackint0sh comment in the context of the MP.

You do know its possible to build a hackintosh with ecc ram, xeons and everything used in a mac pro. Also for most people ecc ram is useless.

 

[nateo200]

This just makes me think 'Shame there's no dual processor 12-core'.

My thoughts exactly. As their is a 8 core single processor I would have liked to see a 16-core option...its not THAT out there, I think 16cores/32threads would keep persons who want all the power they can get without windows from switching or going the Hackintosh route. I think a line up of 6, 8, 12 and 16 core options would be better than the same ol' 4, 6, 8, 12 route.

MY External 3TB USB 3 Time Machine hard drive just died today… Disk Utility and Disk Warrior can't repair it. External Drives are problematic and messy. Cables, power supplies and noisy enclosures are a pain.
Internal Drives have always been more reliable and convenient.
I will definitely get the new Mac Pro but I will miss the ability to stuff 7 HD's in just ONE box...

HDD's can fail any place, anytime, anywhere...of course whether the drive is internal or external can have different effects like heat, movement, bumps, etc. but don't think an internal drive is immune....I've had 3 WD's fail on me, 2 were internals...was a while ago but yeah.

Spifire Sable? LASS? Cinebrass, Cinestrings, CinePercussion? 8dio Adagio? Berlin Woodwinds? Any of the big libraries from vienna, particularly using MIR? Heck, even resource heavy stuff like Omnisphere and Trillian? And don't even get me started on the East West Hollywood libraries, those are all huge plus their plugin player runs like crap on a mac.

Which of those libraries are you running? And if none of those, which libraries specifically are you using to run "full orchestra"?

Of course there are small orchestral libraries that will run on virtually any new machine, or a composer can run minimal mic positions and articulations. It's just like any other application, if you are running something light the hardware needs are light…but that doesn't mean that nobody is running deeper projects and needing more resources.



Wrong again. You haven't needed to load full samples into ram anymore but for real time playback the start of each sample needs to be loaded. With Kontakt the default is 60k per sample, with SSD that can go down to 6k but with tens of thousands of samples loaded that still adds up.

And SSD is still very expensive when a single sample library can run over a hundred gigs. My installation of Sable is at 134 gigs already and they still have more content and more mic positions coming.



I'm going to give you every last ounce of crap you deserve, thank you very much. And I never said anything about "fully loaded" samples, I'm talking about streaming samples which still requires all the sample starts to be loaded.



If you are happy to produce results that sound like ass, you can do orchestral sequencing with just about any hardware. And based on what you've said in your posts you're likely deaf as a stump and can't hear the difference.



? Not sure where you pulled those specific things from, I certainly didn't mention that.



Who said anything about 150 violins? I'm talking about standard orchestral scoring, just with high end libraries. Sure, these libraries can have lots of articulations, but that's one part of how they can give such good results.



For once, you give a great example. There are a few great libraries using physical modeling, particularly the SampleModeling stuff which I have a couple of and love. And those are very CPU heavy compared with straight sample playback. But I'm not sure what your point is since I said that high end music production places high demands on both CPU as well as storage and IO.



I never said the MP isn't enough for audio. I was disputing the multiple comments that audio never needs high end hardware, which couldn't be more wrong.



I certainly do, but it's probably not that different than plenty of other guys using these same orchestral libraries.



You do that. I certainly hope that Logic is able to take advantage of OpenCL with a future update. But that doesn't make you any less wrong about insisting that the Pro Tools DSP farms are the same hardware as current video cards. And way to push it way off until the next major release of Logic and OSX, if it really does take that long then many Logic users might as well wait to buy the GPU heavy hardware.



Posting something in bold and all caps doesn't make it true. And by your measure virtually every guy scoring feature films is "doing it wrong". I'm sure they'll be so sad to hear that "Ploki" figured that out.



You can say the same for any machine if you just have the low end sample libraries.



Again, 5.1 96/24 and big orchestral mockups are apples and oranges. It's very telling that you seem to think doing anything in 5.1 must be more demanding than any other possible musical application.




Yeah, keep making that straw man argument and ignore my explanation of what actually is so demanding on the system.



OK. After this last post it's obvious you have even less of a clue than I originally thought. Cheers.


So Ploki, enlighten us with specifically what libraries you are using for your wonderful full orchestral mockups? I'm dying to know what is behind these laptop symphonic masterpieces. And are you doing those orchestral tracks for a living, or a hobby? Really, we're all just dying to know more specifics on how you're turning out such great work on such modest hardware.




Guess what, that's a straw man argument. I don't believe anyone here has said it would be bad for audio processing itself.

What generally has been said is that:
* Current audio apps make little if any use of GPU power, and at this point nobody really knows if openCL is well suited for audio
* Many audio users would prefer a model with single GPU and/or dual CPU instead
* Some audio users have expensive PCIe cards which would require spending money on an expansion chassis to use, same for storage
* Some hardware (PCIe or firewire) could potentially have compatibility issues running via adapters or expansion chassis

Personally I think this machine will for the most part be great for my use. But I have to admit the configuration is more optimal for things like video than audio, and moving my current storage from internal to external is going to be money I wouldn't otherwise have to spend.

That was beautiful! I don't even know 1/8th of what you know about audio work but the guy you just elegantly tore up seams to be full of himself in all the wrong ways. Anyways I would like to see Logic, Pro Tools, etc. start to leverage the GPU for more power, in fact I'd like to see all sorts of apps whether audio or video be able to take advantage of the GPU, it gives some hope for speeding up machines that couldn't otherwise be upgraded.

 

[Ploki]

Well, except the painfully long posts explaining why you would need so much power. But clearly you're going to ignore anything you don't want to read, I should have followed DPUser's example in the first place and instead of wasting time with a reply, just had a good laugh at your expense.

I was referring to CPU power. And your case while highlighting other uses didn't exactly explain or imply that.

Seriously, thank you for your responses. I'll read up on things and won't argue further, you've convinced me on some points but certainly not all, but you did encourage me to read up on those.

Thanks for the chat. despite heated it was interesting and on occasions even insightful

 

[wikiverse]

Simple answer. You'd kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

As in, Microsoft would be ticked off. Apple would be ticked off.

HP & Dell need Microsoft BAD!
That would be seriously risking the relationship between those companies.
Remember, the Justice Dept. let Microsoft off very easy meaning they still have a substantial amount of influence on those 2 companies.
It would be like shooting themselves in the foot or biting the hand that feeds it or both.

If either company even gave out info on how to get Apple machine EFI, etc, that would be like soliciting piracy and result in a lawsuit from Apple. Apple already successfully shut down one company for attempting to just sell a legal copy of OSX to buyers of a hackintosh.

As Steve Jobs used to say, it would be a bag o' hurt. LOL

The only way I can see this happening is if several PC companies did it at the same time and were willing to risk the legal fees. There was a rumor that one of the shut down hackintosh companies was being funded by a major PC manufacturer, but there was never enough proof for Apple to go after them, and they ran with their tale between their legs. Apple won't go after individuals, but they will go after for profit companies that promote or try to sell a hackintosh.

That would be like creating an Android phone that could run IOS7 too.
While somewhat technically feasible given a lot of similar technologies, Apple would sue them out of business almost immediately with all the patents they hold.

What would they sue for? Building a machine using third party hardware and standard industry specs that ships with windows?

A mac is just a PC built with specific internal components (nvidia graphics cards, samsung ssds, Texas Instruments Bluetooth chips, etc). There is nothing stopping any company from building a PC from the same components (like hackintosh builders do now).

Thy wouldn't advertise it as a hack, but release and sell the computer, and then have a 'user' quietly say that they managed to install OSX on 'HP laptop' out of the box. News would spread and HP/Dell etc could just say 'we ship with windows'.

There is no way they could be sued and if they are they could just claim it as a coincidence.

 

[mrxak]

Weren't you guys going to take this audio stuff to PM?

 

[blackhand1001]

I think the issue is that apple made far too many compromises and increased the cost of the machine instead of going for a more standard form factor. The old pro was too big. That I will agree on. But there was so much more room for a better compromise between that and what they gave us. Any of these form factors between would have been better than the can form they released instead.

 

[D.T.]

You do know its possible to build a hackintosh with ecc ram, xeons and everything used in a mac pro. Also for most people ecc ram is useless.

Yep, sure do ... but focusing on ECC RAM is missing the point (re-read the post I quoted but don’t focus on the hardware specifics...)



[edit]

Just to clarify, I don’t disagree that at least some hardware is easily replicated in a non-Apple product (and for cheaper), and some of that might be what could agree is “pro grade”, my post was about more _business_ related concerns. My point - since we both have cars in our avatars - it’s like comparing a kit car to a factory performance vehicle.