Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The right MacPro for Music Production?
- Thread starter mingus51
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2006 Mac Pro 2.66, 5 gigs of ram with 4 drives, an acer 24" screen.
Playing a 16 stereo audio tracks , 2 instances of Omnisphere, 2 instances of Superior Drummer 2, Synthogy, all littered with plugs.
CPU floating around 11% to 21%. Total ram being used shows 3,590 MB, 1521 unused, with my Tascam FW 1884 buffer setting @ 64 (low latency)... This is the original Mac Pro, I've been so happy to finally have a machine cover all my base's.
Wondering what SL and any Logic update would do to make this run any more efficient?
Guess if I had $4000 eating away at my wallet, I'd get the new machine...
Not yet though.
Later
Brian
WOW
I'll be running Stylus RMX, Omnisphere, Reason, Kontakt 3 and Massive so your specs are close to what I'm trying to realize.
You saying you are loving life with a 2.66 is really making me ping-pong back to the Nehalem.
I "could" probably kick in more cash for the 2.66 if I had too but was afraid that 2.66 is slow for using only one core and one thread (the fate of a Cubase user) but this makes me feel otherwise.
Still really trying to find a reason to use my Apple store only corp discount plus 2 Gift Certs that are for Apple Only and find something that I won't hate in a month or so...
Anyone else here that can calm my fears that 2.66 Nehalem is adequate processing power for ROMplers and Cubase?
I can't find 2008 models anywhere...except Ebay and no thank you...sneakier version of craigs list.
Yeah, it'll be nice when other plugins can address their own RAM, especially ones with massive sample libraries.
I've heard reports of people running out of memory without maxing their CPU on Logic, and having to resort to IAC or Rax to make use of some of their plugins, I'd guess that's why alot of the big film composers and producers use GigaStudio to compliment their DAW of choice, I'd love to know if current plugins running out of RAM is because they're badly written, or if it's too difficult (or not presently possible) to do what EXS does with RAM.
That's a pretty common problem for people running big orchestral/sample compositions. You can easily hit the wall with RAM long before taxing the processors, especially since many of the serious libraries do not work as EXS.
i think he was talking about the quadcore 2.66 '06 woodcrest not nehalem. soo... if the 2006 could handle the CPU power, i guess 2009 could as well LoL. and if '08 8x2.8 (mine) can handle it, i think '09 8x2.66 could to.
thats because inside a DAW all plugs together are limited to 4gigs. thats not really much if you consider a library as VSL + Ivory or QL Pianos for example.
the same thing i was able to get working with some compromises on my 2.8octo worked without hitch on uMBP 2.53... because it has the same amount of RAM.
cpu is really not a bummer for sample libraries.
i dont think apple will give out how EXS is able to address ram out of Logic, but its really a great option. EXS is a great sampler actually... i see one instance of EXS like one preset loaded in Kontakt.
you can do key switches, CC's, etc.. everything.. and everything you cant do you have outside (convolution etc.).
but it still lacks some things to be "As Powerful"
Did anyone read the DigiLloyd review of the 2009?
Does anyone know if there is a "lloyd" out there that does this same kind of review for musical and/or video purposes?
I'm still way confused as to whether audio apps will benefit from the better RAM handling of the Nehalem or the better processing power of getting a 3.2 2008 Oct (vs. a 2.26 2009 Nehalem)
My own personal tests lead me to believe CPU is more important but I'm also working on a P4 right now sooooo.
Does anyone know if there is a "lloyd" out there that does this same kind of review for musical and/or video purposes?
I'm still way confused as to whether audio apps will benefit from the better RAM handling of the Nehalem or the better processing power of getting a 3.2 2008 Oct (vs. a 2.26 2009 Nehalem)
My own personal tests lead me to believe CPU is more important but I'm also working on a P4 right now sooooo.
its a tough one. but ram speed is not such an issue with audio.
hdd speed, yes... cpu yes.
3.2 smokes 2.26 on many of benchmarks, and the raw clock speed would benefit audio i believe...
and if '08 8x2.8 (mine) can handle it, i think '09 8x2.66 could to.
Ya I have the first Generation Mac Pro and for me running a bunch of AU instruments in Logic Pro 8 is a breeze. In my recordings I've yet to reach the CPU limit, it's always the ram that runs out. I grabbed an extra 4 gigs (9 gigs) now for my birthday. I don't think I really can use anymore then 2-3 gigs in Logic anyhow right now, but am ready for Snow Leo to break that barrier!
I think any generation of Mac Pro will do what you need.
But ya I'd like to run my session with the CPU's at 2% across would be fun, but then again I'd rather get myself a Roland TD series drum kit and bang away.
Well I'm guessing some of you on this thread have heard the news that Pro Tools doesn't play nicely with hyper threading, so to answer the OP, the right mac for music production is one of last years models, that's if you use Pro Tools of course, not sure how any other DAWs perform yet
I was just going to ask YOU the same thing...
RE Pro Tools, it's like that for almost all software when new hardware comes out, it's impossible for a software company to write updates for something that's not out yet
RE Pro Tools, it's like that for almost all software when new hardware comes out, it's impossible for a software company to write updates for something that's not out yet
That's a reason why it would be nice if it could be easier to get a hold of the older models, so people don't find them selves in limbo, needing to upgrade but being unable with the new hardware breaking their software.
That's a boat I find myself in, the dual G5 doesn't cut it any more, the new mac pros won't be stable with Pro Tools, and the 08 models are next to impossible to find in the UK.
So I'm left waiting, well I'm now left planning a Hackintosh build which could have been avoided (but has me somewhat excited too
).I can understand why Apple nix all the old stock, but in some cases it would be nice if they allowed for a little more wiggle room for people upgrading from more than last years models.
What to you guys think? An octo 2.8, or a quad 2.6 for 200 euro's more?
I use Ableton, Logic and Komplete!
I use Ableton, Logic and Komplete!
Well all that software will work on the octo 2.8. There are some rumblings that logic doesn't run as well on the new macs yet, and if these rumblings are true we've no idea when it'll be updated to improve performance on the new mac pros.
As for Abelton, I've no idea if it has the same problems Pro tools has, an Logic allegedly has. Komplete I also don't know if there are any problems on the new mac pros.
I'd check around the NI and Abelton forums to make sure everything works well, if not, or if you need the mac now I'd go for the octo 2.8, it seems better value IMHO and all your software works on it.
Plus in some benchmarks I think the octo 2.8 outperforms the quad 2.6, and it can hold more memory.
All in all having the quad 2.6 at it's current price point seems daft, not going octo throughout the whole line seems even sillier, and Apple really should learn their three times table with the new machines running triple channel RAM.
+1
If you need it all to work right now, i'd say buy a 8 core 2.8, but if you don't mind waiting for a couple of weeks to a few months I think the the new Quads will be better for audio with the new DDR3 ram, Snow leopard will probably bring new instruction sets for the cpu SS4 (i think that's right) and be able to utilize the i7 based xeon a little more to it's liking.
If you need it all to work right now, i'd say buy a 8 core 2.8, but if you don't mind waiting for a couple of weeks to a few months I think the the new Quads will be better for audio with the new DDR3 ram, Snow leopard will probably bring new instruction sets for the cpu SS4 (i think that's right) and be able to utilize the i7 based xeon a little more to it's liking.
RE Pro Tools, it's like that for almost all software when new hardware comes out, it's impossible for a software company to write updates for something that's not out yet
heheheh. yeah, Digidesign and Apple should do some collab, but that would make logic look bad. i bet when SL comes out the new updated of logic studio will work just great and protools will again have bunch of issues.
but but but 8gigs of ram, but but but 1 cpu less
The max amount of ram you should buy for the 2009 quad is 6GB, the most for 2008 8 core macpro is 16GB, don't think about vailable ram but more the bandwidth it can generate
2008=best if all dimms are filled
2009=best if: quad 3 dimms are filled octo 6dimms are filled
research is your friend my friend
2008=best if all dimms are filled
2009=best if: quad 3 dimms are filled octo 6dimms are filled
research is your friend my friend
i did my research, but i didnt want to point out the whole thing with triple channel becauuse i got flamed for it once.
so yeah, 6gb optimum, 8gb limit for the quad. that is like MBP 17" :S
can't say its the optimum for audio
i did my research, but i didnt want to point out the whole thing with triple channel becauuse i got flamed for it once.
so yeah, 6gb optimum, 8gb limit for the quad. that is like MBP 17" :S
can't say its the optimum for audio
No, the new 2,66 GHz has a limit of 16 GB... 8x2 GB modules.
quad core has 8 ram slots? :S if so, ive been terribly terribly wrong.
if not, than you made a terrible typo.
very interesting thread...I've been looking into this too.
First I thought; I'll go for the 2008 base ocoto 2.8, but it's harder to find now and it's older. And always, when the new models come out I jump on last year's tech because it's EOL or cheaper anyway. This time not...
I wanna see what this Nehalem thing is all about.
Finally decided to go for the octo 2.66. Fitted with 12 GB RAM that should be enough for my jobs now. I run Logic, with instruments like RMX, VSL and so on. I think I made the right choice.
Anyway, currently I'm doing everything on my MB Pro, since I sold my G4 2 years ago, so coming back to a desktop is gonna suprise me.
First I thought; I'll go for the 2008 base ocoto 2.8, but it's harder to find now and it's older. And always, when the new models come out I jump on last year's tech because it's EOL or cheaper anyway. This time not...
I wanna see what this Nehalem thing is all about.
Finally decided to go for the octo 2.66. Fitted with 12 GB RAM that should be enough for my jobs now. I run Logic, with instruments like RMX, VSL and so on. I think I made the right choice.
Anyway, currently I'm doing everything on my MB Pro, since I sold my G4 2 years ago, so coming back to a desktop is gonna suprise me.
i did my research, but i didnt want to point out the whole thing with triple channel becauuse i got flamed for it once.
so yeah, 6gb optimum, 8gb limit for the quad. that is like MBP 17" :S
can't say its the optimum for audio
If people flame you they are wrong the 2009 Quad runs it's optimal spped when 3 dimms are filled ie 3GB or 6GB since protools, logic or cubase can use up to 4GB in osx i'd say the best bet would be 6GB.
After Snow Leopard we might see 64bit version of the audio software where you may see the benefit with the extra slot filled (for samples for instance), but what i'd do would be fill 6GB now and upgrade later if you need.
Barefeats is a good place to go for benchmarks...
http://www.barefeats.com/nehal02.html