macbook pro 16 for music production purchasing advise ?

[Silenus3]

I'm looking to buy a macbook pro 16 , for audio production and I will be switching from pc so I have an audio interface(RME).

common advise will say buy the best cpu but for music production it was often the case that a stable i5 was preferred over a jerky i7\i9 for maximum stability when recording since cpu spikes could cause some clicks and pops, so a stable consumption of wattage is preferred over short term spikes , even if they are beneficial for multi-core tasks.

along with that I'm also into game development with unity and sound for games ,and I also would like to game on the machine occasionally.
(that could mean having both unity and a DAW and IDE used at the same time)

right now I am thinking of ordering the i7 with 32 gigs of memory , 1T ssd and the beefed up 5500m 8 gb graphics card.

my concern with the graphics card is that it will draw too much wattage even in idle state thus hamper the CPU performance so I would like some advise on that also.

with this specs the cpu upgrade to the i9 is really negligible , so I'm wondering ..

 

[maplingstorie]

buy. test it out. not enough power? return it and re order. you have up to 14 days to test

 

[Silenus3]

I did plenty of tinkering with my pc overclocking settings to get it right , disable hyper-threading entirely , undervolting and what's not.

do mac's offer this kind of control over these settings ?
or should I expect it to work on the get go ?

also I would like to know what is the difference in wattage draw between the basic 5300 and upgraded 5500m 4 and 8 gb , since the cpu and gpu will be sharing both power and heat sink and I do live in a hot weather mostly and its currently winter so I would only be able to really test in summer , way after the return period..

I'm not asking just to knitpick at Apple I genuinely want to make the best possible choice at the get go.

 

[impulse462]

I’d get an i9 if you’re doing audio production. They run quite cool

 

[Silenus3]

I’d get an i9 if you’re doing audio production. They run quite cool

cooler then in i7 ?
I would have assumed since it has 2 cores more it would get hotter.
those extra cores would finish up any task faster but for music related stuff its better just to have a steady stream , i could disable multi-threading on the i9 though , but haven't seen anyone do it and test it out on YouTube land yet, could be interesting ..

are you recommending the binned i9 for audio production ?

 

[impulse462]

cooler then in i7 ?
I would have assumed since it has 2 cores more it would get hotter.
those extra cores would finish up any task faster but for music related stuff its better just to have a steady stream , i could disable multi-threading on the i9 though , but haven't seen anyone do it and test it out on YouTube land yet, could be interesting ..

are you recommending the binned i9 for audio production ?

the 2 chips both have the same TDP. i understand apple unlocks them meaning they can go above the rated 45W. I am not an audio production person, i'm more of a signal/image processing person, but from my understanding audio production software is CPU intensive and utilizes multiple cores well. in that case id get the i9 because its multi-core benchmarks are much faster than the i7. Additionally, now with the more robust cooling, there is no reason someone like yourself should gimp on out CPU power because of heat. both of these CPUs at max will run "hot". i guess if your stuff is limited to single core usage you could get away with the i7 but i would go with the 2.4 i9, especially if you're gonna keep the computer for several years.

to be honest, i'm not exactly sure why someone would opt for the i7. only i can think of someone who wont use CPU power and wants to pay less. but for your use case, i would definitely go with at least the i9 and 2.4ghz if you can spare it. my colleagues (again signal/image processing/machine learning people) usually opt for the fastest CPU in their computers and you should also.

 

[Ploki]

More cores = more processing power for audio.
No brainer here. You get less tracks with the 6-core.

 

[impulse462]

More cores = more processing power for audio.
No brainer here. You get less tracks with the 6-core.

yeah you put it more succinctly than i did lol. the real question is do you get the 2.3 vs 2.4ghz i9. i opted for the latter personally.

 

[DubCity]

You don’t need anything more than the base.

 

[g75d3]

Wouldn’t recommend any Mac with T2 chip especially for music production.

 

[Ploki]

yeah you put it more succinctly than i did lol. the real question is do you get the 2.3 vs 2.4ghz i9. i opted for the latter personally.

fractional difference usually (5-10%), better single thread performance, and the difference will be smaller under sustained multicore load - due to thermal limits in portable enclosures which is where most projects end up.
I'd guess around 2-5 more tracks? (on top of 90 baseline tracks)

I've often went for max cpu upgrades, but last december when i was ordering the MBP i went with the i5 instead, since it had hyperthreading - however I have Mac Mini i7 for heavy lifting.

 

[Glockworkorange]

I did plenty of tinkering with my pc overclocking settings to get it right , disable hyper-threading entirely , undervolting and what's not.

do mac's offer this kind of control over these settings ?
or should I expect it to work on the get go ?

also I would like to know what is the difference in wattage draw between the basic 5300 and upgraded 5500m 4 and 8 gb , since the cpu and gpu will be sharing both power and heat sink and I do live in a hot weather mostly and its currently winter so I would only be able to really test in summer , way after the return period..

I'm not asking just to knitpick at Apple I genuinely want to make the best possible choice at the get go.

"do mac's offer this kind of control over these settings ?"

No.

 

[impulse462]

fractional difference usually (5-10%), better single thread performance, and the difference will be smaller under sustained multicore load - due to thermal limits in portable enclosures which is where most projects end up.
I'd guess around 2-5 more tracks? (on top of 90 baseline tracks)

I've often went for max cpu upgrades, but last december when i was ordering the MBP i went with the i5 instead, since it had hyperthreading - however I have Mac Mini i7 for heavy lifting.

The CPU is better binned and should “theoretically” run cooler. Also you’re right about single core performance which is important to me.

 

[Silenus3]

Wouldn’t recommend any Mac with T2 chip especially for music production.

is the the T2 still an issue even after manufacturers updated their drivers ?

I read somewhere(maybe even on this forum) that the those problems are often associated with heavy loads and high temp implying its a hardware limitation of the chip that go nuts under this conditions.

my original plan was to get the imac 5k but I don't know , I've watched some tests and it seems to be hardly going over the base clock when under heavy load , which makes the macbook which is mobile and that can maintain about 3.2 ghz and having better graphics more appealing ..

maybe I should wait for an Imac update ?

 

[Ploki]

Wouldn’t recommend any Mac with T2 chip especially for music production.

that's literally EVERY mac except the iMac.
that's... asinine.
i've recorded more than a handful of projects on a mini 2018 and had more than a handful of live shows on a 13" 2018, all with firewire interface.
it works fine.

And the performance gap is so much in favor of T2 macs such advice is ludicrous, at least 1.5x to 2.5x more performance (depending on model) for all macs, Mini, Mac Pro, iMac (Pro), 13", 15/16"...

is the the T2 still an issue even after manufacturers updated their drivers ?

I read somewhere(maybe even on this forum) that the those problems are often associated with heavy loads and high temp implying its a hardware limitation of the chip that go nuts under this conditions.

my original plan was to get the imac 5k but I don't know , I've watched some tests and it seems to be hardly going over the base clock when under heavy load , which makes the macbook which is mobile and that can maintain about 3.2 ghz and having better graphics more appealing ..

maybe I should wait for an Imac update ?

iMac update with 99.9% have a T2 chip.
it's the only mac of the current line-up that doesn't have one.