What Mac Pro?

gloriousbastard

macrumors newbie
Original poster
May 30, 2013
1
0
Hi

I'm a producer and i'm currently using FL Studio for my productions. Because i really like Logic Pro and OSX in general i'm thinking about getting a MacPro.

Right now i'm running an i7-3770K with 8 GB of RAM and an OCZ Vertex 4 128GB.
i know it's a great system, and i really don't want to give up a lot of speed and cpu power, because i use about 20 vst's per project like Sylenth1 and Massive, and also a lot of effects. I'm currently thinking about an 8-core 2,8ghz 2008 model, with 8 gb of RAM and a SSD. Will this system be a lot worse, when running Logic Pro 9? My current CPU-load is about 60% when i'm using FL Studio.
 

Wardenski

macrumors 6502
Jan 22, 2012
464
4
I'm no expert in this field but the Octos of Old don't cut the mustard compared to a i7 like what you have already got.

Personally I don't see the point, seems a lot of money just for OSX.
 

wallysb01

macrumors 68000
Jun 30, 2011
1,538
753
I'm currently thinking about an 8-core 2,8ghz 2008 model, with 8 gb of RAM and a SSD. Will this system be a lot worse, when running Logic Pro 9? My current CPU-load is about 60% when i'm using FL Studio.
This means you're already using all of your physical cores (4) and spilling over into a few of virtual ones (which don't really help much). But the 2008 8-core 2.8Ghz isn't going to faster than what you got. The only things that will really help you is jumping to 12-core offerings in Mac Pro. But per dollar, that's not likely worth it. You're in a great spot to wait and see what Apple does with the pro in the next few days at WWDC. If you really need more CPU power, stepping back from Ivy Bridge to Westmere in the Mac Pro is going to take away a lot. But if Apple actually starts selling Sandy Bridge, or in a few months, Ivy Brdige Mac Pros, then the move will make more sense.
 

derbothaus

macrumors 601
Jul 17, 2010
4,060
4
2009 and up should be your target for similar performance. Way cheaper RAM as well. Quad Xeon 2.93GHz or higher should get somewhat similar performance. Also bump up memory to 16GB. OS X eats it constantly.
2009's:
Quad 2.93GHz, 3.33. Dual Quad 2.93GHz
2010-2012's:
Quad 3.2GHz, Hex 3.33, Dual hex 2.66, 2.93, 3.06GHz
 

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
4
Japan
2009 and up should be your target for similar performance. Way cheaper ram as well. Quad xeon 2.93ghz or higher should get somewhat similar performance. Also bump up memory to 16gb. Os x eats it constantly.
2009's:
Quad 2.93ghz, 3.33. Dual quad 2.93ghz
2010-2012's:
Quad 3.2ghz, hex 3.33, dual hex 2.66, 2.93, 3.06ghz
+1
 

wallysb01

macrumors 68000
Jun 30, 2011
1,538
753
2009 and up should be your target for similar performance. Way cheaper RAM as well. Quad Xeon 2.93GHz or higher should get somewhat similar performance. Also bump up memory to 16GB. OS X eats it constantly.
2009's:
Quad 2.93GHz, 3.33. Dual Quad 2.93GHz
2010-2012's:
Quad 3.2GHz, Hex 3.33, Dual hex 2.66, 2.93, 3.06GHz
Those SP quad core chips are going to be a pretty significant step down from a 3770K. Only the Hex 3.33 is really similar in preformance. The 2012 Quad 3.2 geekbenchs 9713 compared to the iMac with the i7-3770 at 12847. That's a 25% preformance drop. The 2009 2.93 isn't far off at 9011, and 30% off the 3770. But despite the worse preformance, I'd actually suggest buying this machine due to the cheaper price and the upgrade path to the W3580.

So, if the OP really wants to roughly maintain preformance levels, its a little dishonest to point him to the quad westmere and nehalem Mac Pros.
 

TheEasterBunny

macrumors 6502
Jan 22, 2013
251
0
Delaware
Those SP quad core chips are going to be a pretty significant step down from a 3770K. Only the Hex 3.33 is really similar in preformance. The 2012 Quad 3.2 geekbenchs 9713 compared to the iMac with the i7-3770 at 12847. That's a 25% preformance drop. The 2009 2.93 isn't far off at 9011, and 30% off the 3770. But despite the worse preformance, I'd actually suggest buying this machine due to the cheaper price and the upgrade path to the W3580.

So, if the OP really wants to roughly maintain preformance levels, its a little dishonest to point him to the quad westmere and nehalem Mac Pros.
Are you certain of those GB2 scores?
I have an upgraded 1,1 to 2,1 (X5365 8 cores) that gets 10657
 

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
4
Japan
If I reformat a little:

i'm currently using FL Studio [on] an i7-3770K with 8 GB of RAM and an OCZ Vertex 4 128GB.

i use about 20 vst's per project like Sylenth1 and Massive, and also a lot of effects.

My current CPU-load is about 60%

Because i really like Logic Pro and OSX in general i'm thinking about getting a MacPro - 2,8ghz 2008 model, with 8 gb of RAM and a SSD.

Will this system be a lot worse, when running Logic Pro 9?
No it won't be a lot worse, but with that many VST's plus effectors as an average (assuming that's an average), then it will struggle. The 2009 machine derbothaus outlined will do however. Most of the reason it "can do" over the 2008 you're thinking of is because of the RAM and buss/access latency differences. If you were using only 10 or so (or fewer) VSTs then the 2008 would be fine. I use LogicPro with 30 to 60 tracks of algorithmic and recorded instruments on a 2006 MP1,1 with no trouble. I can add about 5 heavy VSTs before I see problems with performance. With a 2008 2.8 machine I hear read and think about 10 such VSTs could be used before the same kinds of occasional troubles pop up. With an upgraded 2009 you could probably do 20 or 30 before there was anything to worry about. Maybe more I'm not sure but under this type stress profile the upgraded 2009 performs around 6 to 8 times better. Again it's not so much the CPU speed tho.

Geekbench total scores won't show this but you might be able to see the differences in some of the sub-categories it tests.
 

derbothaus

macrumors 601
Jul 17, 2010
4,060
4
Those SP quad core chips are going to be a pretty significant step down from a 3770K. Only the Hex 3.33 is really similar in preformance. The 2012 Quad 3.2 geekbenchs 9713 compared to the iMac with the i7-3770 at 12847. That's a 25% preformance drop. The 2009 2.93 isn't far off at 9011, and 30% off the 3770. But despite the worse preformance, I'd actually suggest buying this machine due to the cheaper price and the upgrade path to the W3580.

So, if the OP really wants to roughly maintain preformance levels, its a little dishonest to point him to the quad westmere and nehalem Mac Pros.
It is close enough for the highly single threaded needs his audio software plugs use in the Logic host. If geekbench was the goal then yes, a significant step down. Otherwise to keep a decent budget they will get the job done. The amount of plugs OP is using on each track will choke out any CPU in Logic Pro whether a 12-core or Quad so why spend so much for unused benchmark points?
The top 3 would be the 3.33 Quad, 3.33 hex, 3.06 12-core. Remember Logic distributes projects and tracks quite well. Channel strip plugs require GHz and memory.
 

wallysb01

macrumors 68000
Jun 30, 2011
1,538
753
The 3565 has a slower QPI speed which is probably it's anchor.
The scores I gave where also in 32-bit mode, not 64-bit.

Proc: 64-bit score
W3680 : 15513
3770 : 13994
2x X5365 : 11106
W3565 : 10849
W3540 : 10117

Also the W3565 is Nehalem, not Westmere, so its a closer in achitecture to the X5365.
 

GermanyChris

macrumors 601
Jul 3, 2011
4,185
2
Here
The scores I gave where also in 32-bit mode, not 64-bit.

Proc: 64-bit score
W3680 : 15513
3770 : 13994
2x X5365 : 11106
W3565 : 10849
W3540 : 10117

Also the W3565 is Nehalem, not Westmere, so its a closer in achitecture to the X5365.
and my 3570 is also Nehalem it's also 3.2 but has a higher QPI so it see's 1333 RAM..

Westmere is Nehalem's die shrink. Westmere and Nehalem are far closer than C2 and Nehalem
 

Attachments

wallysb01

macrumors 68000
Jun 30, 2011
1,538
753
and my 3570 is also Nehalem it's also 3.2 but has a higher QPI so it see's 1333 RAM..

Westmere is Nehalem's die shrink. Westmere and Nehalem are far closer than C2 and Nehalem
Sure, I meant in the whole Intel spectrum, up to and including Ivy bridge, not just C2 through Westmere.
 

GermanyChris

macrumors 601
Jul 3, 2011
4,185
2
Here
Sure, I meant in the whole Intel spectrum, up to and including Ivy bridge, not just C2 through Westmere.
It's still in the middle not "closer" to C2 even in the broad spectrum. In the broad spectrum it's closer to what is current being that it is a Core i processor.
 

wallysb01

macrumors 68000
Jun 30, 2011
1,538
753
It's still in the middle not "closer" to C2 even in the broad spectrum. In the broad spectrum it's closer to what is current being that it is a Core i processor.
You still misinterpret me. Its "closer" to C2 than westmere. I understand the tick-tock idea, so I get it, its not much. But still, its a generation closer. As obvious and maybe stupid as the point is, well, there it is. Is there really anything left to say?
 

TheEasterBunny

macrumors 6502
Jan 22, 2013
251
0
Delaware
The scores I gave where also in 32-bit mode, not 64-bit.

Proc: 64-bit score
W3680 : 15513
3770 : 13994
2x X5365 : 11106
W3565 : 10849
W3540 : 10117

Also the W3565 is Nehalem, not Westmere, so its a closer in achitecture to the X5365.
Yes, I realized my error on the Nehalem/Westmere thing, after I hit "reply" just didn't correct it, but it is worth noting for future readers.
Thanks

Edit: My GB2 score was in 32 bit as well.