| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Walra48
Member
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 185
Location: Montreal, Canada
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:15 am Post subject: New Mac Pro 6 & 12 core-anyone using Cubase 5.5 on these |
 |
|
Wondering how the performance is compared to the last gen. quad & 8 core Nahelems?
Lotsa talk about Logic having problems properly using all the cores as well as hyperthreading issues.
How's Cubase doing? - I'm about ready to go shopping.
http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17795&sid=3b0d13ce24d470809889e85ef0918462
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2541408&start=15&tstart=15
_________________
Cubase 4.5.2 / Apple G5 2.5 Quad PPC / 8 GB RAM / OSX Tiger 10.4.11 / 8 TB SATA disk space /loads of VSTis & DSP plugins / racks of hardware synth modules / MOTU 828 Mk 2 interface / Dynaudio BM15A monitors / 2 "Gigastudio 3 Orchestra" PC workstations / Studiologic SL-880 Pro midi controller / assorted audio-video convertors and appliances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
electricdreams
Junior Member
Joined: 06 Mar 2008
Posts: 98
Location: NYC
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
last gen 8 cores are still strong by some of those tests, but looks like higher cpu speed is more important than 24 cores
_________________
FIREFACE 800
IMAC 27 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walra48
Member
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 185
Location: Montreal, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | looks like higher cpu speed is more important than 24 cores |
This appears to be increasingly true - really interested in the 6 core 3.33 ghz model.
Could be the performance/cost sweet spot for Cubase 5.5.
_________________
Cubase 4.5.2 / Apple G5 2.5 Quad PPC / 8 GB RAM / OSX Tiger 10.4.11 / 8 TB SATA disk space /loads of VSTis & DSP plugins / racks of hardware synth modules / MOTU 828 Mk 2 interface / Dynaudio BM15A monitors / 2 "Gigastudio 3 Orchestra" PC workstations / Studiologic SL-880 Pro midi controller / assorted audio-video convertors and appliances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maxhowarth
Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 638
Location: edinburgh, uk
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
i've just ordered two of this model for precisely that reason.
_________________
best wishes
max
www.redfacilities.com
2 x 3.3 6core mac pro | 12gb ram | mac os 10.6.4 | n5.0 | rme multiset/audiolink96 | 3 x 19" flat panels | decklink xt | waves7 | altiverb6 | mc mix |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walra48
Member
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 185
Location: Montreal, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | i've just ordered two of this model for precisely that reason. |
I'll be interested to hear how Cubase performs. Keep us posted.
_________________
Cubase 4.5.2 / Apple G5 2.5 Quad PPC / 8 GB RAM / OSX Tiger 10.4.11 / 8 TB SATA disk space /loads of VSTis & DSP plugins / racks of hardware synth modules / MOTU 828 Mk 2 interface / Dynaudio BM15A monitors / 2 "Gigastudio 3 Orchestra" PC workstations / Studiologic SL-880 Pro midi controller / assorted audio-video convertors and appliances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weasel
Grand Senior Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 5038
Location: Bothell, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apple just updated Logic to 9.1.2. Good news for Logic users, I'm sure. But what's interesting is this "feature" of the update:
| Quote: | | • Improves compatibility with 6- and 12-core Mac Pro systems. |
....which, of course, makes me wonder....if Apple is updating their DAW to behave better with the new Westmere processors....what's Steinberg's take on this?
_________________
Posted from The Cornfield™
QuadCore 2.66 Nehalem w/8gbRAM • OSX 10.6.5 • C5.5.2.637 • C4.5.2 • MOTU 424e/2804MkIII • PODxt • 2-MIDI Express 128's ••• DualCore 2.8 iMac w/4.0gbRAM • OSX 10.6.5 • C5.5.2.637 • C4.5.2 • MOTU/ULmk3 ••• D8B/V5.1 • GenX192. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jp007
Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 539
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Reports are that the update messes with several configs. Especially Quads Nehalems which actually lose hyperthreading.
Someone (probably from Apple) leaked a terminal command which brings it back, and another figured out shortly after how to enable it on 8-cores (for a total of 16 virtual cores!) And no, and from what I've read the update does not appear to be Westmere-specific in terms of performance.
Currently evaluating Logic 8 on my PPC G5 so I'm keeping a close eye on this situation. (Pulling the trig on a Mac Pro/Logic 9 soon. If Steinberg announces network authorization for Cubase 6, ie: no dongle, & improves the low latency performance on mac I may return... As of now I am transferring new projects to Logic) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weasel
Grand Senior Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 5038
Location: Bothell, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | And no, and from what I've read the update does not appear to be Westmere-specific in terms of performance. |
The quote I posted is from Apple. Take it up with them.
_________________
Posted from The Cornfield™
QuadCore 2.66 Nehalem w/8gbRAM • OSX 10.6.5 • C5.5.2.637 • C4.5.2 • MOTU 424e/2804MkIII • PODxt • 2-MIDI Express 128's ••• DualCore 2.8 iMac w/4.0gbRAM • OSX 10.6.5 • C5.5.2.637 • C4.5.2 • MOTU/ULmk3 ••• D8B/V5.1 • GenX192. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fitz
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 1442
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Both Logic and Cubase essentially work in the same manner - all inserts you put on a channel are a single processing thread.
This means your system performance is up to YOU and how you distribute your effects.
For example, putting 8x effects on one channel will cause them all to run on a single CPU core. If for example the same eight effects were spread over 4 channels with two effects on each channel and each channel directed into the next, the processing load would be spread over four cores and performance would be much better as a result.
As it stands many people do not understand this, throw all their heavy effects into single channels then complain about multi-core performance.
_________________
--
MP2.8OSX10.5.8/8G/828MkII/PoCo/Duende/CC121/C5.5/Other stuff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jp007
Member
Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 539
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Carlo
Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 239
Location: Vienna
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fitz wrote: | Both Logic and Cubase essentially work in the same manner - all inserts you put on a channel are a single processing thread.
This means your system performance is up to YOU and how you distribute your effects.
For example, putting 8x effects on one channel will cause them all to run on a single CPU core. If for example the same eight effects were spread over 4 channels with two effects on each channel and each channel directed into the next, the processing load would be spread over four cores and performance would be much better as a result.
As it stands many people do not understand this, throw all their heavy effects into single channels then complain about multi-core performance. |
Thanks a lot for that info ! But how is workload distribution handled regarding virtual instruments and is there a difference between VSTis in instrument channels vs. the VST instrument rack?
_________________
C4.0.3 - C4.5.2, SX 3.1.1, OSX 10.4.11, Dual 2.7 GHz G5, 4.5 GB RAM, RME DigiPST96, Focusrite Saffire pro 40, UnitorMKII; |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fitz
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 1442
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Carlo wrote: | | Thanks a lot for that info ! But how is workload distribution handled regarding virtual instruments and is there a difference between VSTis in instrument channels vs. the VST instrument rack? |
Each instance will run in it's own thread with regard to the audio stream regardless of where it is.
_________________
--
MP2.8OSX10.5.8/8G/828MkII/PoCo/Duende/CC121/C5.5/Other stuff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fitz
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 1442
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with this is also related to my post above. For example, if you throw 8x inserts on a channel and run the project on different systems, it will run 'better' on a quad-core over an octo-core. The same project with eight inserts spread over eight channels will run better on the octo-core.
_________________
--
MP2.8OSX10.5.8/8G/828MkII/PoCo/Duende/CC121/C5.5/Other stuff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Carlo
Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 239
Location: Vienna
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fitz wrote: | | Carlo wrote: | | Thanks a lot for that info ! But how is workload distribution handled regarding virtual instruments and is there a difference between VSTis in instrument channels vs. the VST instrument rack? |
Each instance will run in it's own thread with regard to the audio stream regardless of where it is. |
So that would mean: Big projects with lots of VSTis and clever distributed FX should run better on a 12 core than on 6 core ?
_________________
C4.0.3 - C4.5.2, SX 3.1.1, OSX 10.4.11, Dual 2.7 GHz G5, 4.5 GB RAM, RME DigiPST96, Focusrite Saffire pro 40, UnitorMKII; |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fitz
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 1442
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Carlo wrote: | | Fitz wrote: | | Carlo wrote: | | Thanks a lot for that info ! But how is workload distribution handled regarding virtual instruments and is there a difference between VSTis in instrument channels vs. the VST instrument rack? |
Each instance will run in it's own thread with regard to the audio stream regardless of where it is. |
So that would mean: Big projects with lots of VSTis and clever distributed FX should run better on a 12 core than on 6 core ? |
Precisely, however processor speed is also a factor. i.e. a faster 6 core could possibly out-perform a slower 12 core etc. but I think you get the idea.
_________________
--
MP2.8OSX10.5.8/8G/828MkII/PoCo/Duende/CC121/C5.5/Other stuff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maxhowarth
Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 638
Location: edinburgh, uk
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
currently fast clock speed is the definitive factor. we just bought 2 3.3 6 core mac pros and they are incredibly good. outperforming a 12 core mac on most nuendo/cubase related stuff.
_________________
best wishes
max
www.redfacilities.com
2 x 3.3 6core mac pro | 12gb ram | mac os 10.6.4 | n5.0 | rme multiset/audiolink96 | 3 x 19" flat panels | decklink xt | waves7 | altiverb6 | mc mix |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Beuermann
Administrative Moderator
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 6949
Location: Steinberg HQ, Hamburg, Germany
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walra48
Member
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 185
Location: Montreal, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | currently fast clock speed is the definitive factor. we just bought 2 3.3 6 core mac pros and they are incredibly good. outperforming a 12 core mac on most nuendo/cubase related stuff |
Thanks for the feedback maxhowarth. This is what I've been suspecting - looks like those 6 cores are the killers.
Must proceed to Apple Store now.
_________________
Cubase 4.5.2 / Apple G5 2.5 Quad PPC / 8 GB RAM / OSX Tiger 10.4.11 / 8 TB SATA disk space /loads of VSTis & DSP plugins / racks of hardware synth modules / MOTU 828 Mk 2 interface / Dynaudio BM15A monitors / 2 "Gigastudio 3 Orchestra" PC workstations / Studiologic SL-880 Pro midi controller / assorted audio-video convertors and appliances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fitz
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 1442
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| maxhowarth wrote: | | currently fast clock speed is the definitive factor. we just bought 2 3.3 6 core mac pros and they are incredibly good. outperforming a 12 core mac on most nuendo/cubase related stuff. |
What testing have you done to compare the 6 core to the 12 core?
_________________
--
MP2.8OSX10.5.8/8G/828MkII/PoCo/Duende/CC121/C5.5/Other stuff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maxhowarth
Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 638
Location: edinburgh, uk
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
simple; large post projects (with lots of altiverb/speakerphone/etc) and music projects with vstis will produce a lower cpu load on the 6 core than the same project run on a 12 core.
the only thing so far that's faster on the 12 core has been large renders of video via compressor.
_________________
best wishes
max
www.redfacilities.com
2 x 3.3 6core mac pro | 12gb ram | mac os 10.6.4 | n5.0 | rme multiset/audiolink96 | 3 x 19" flat panels | decklink xt | waves7 | altiverb6 | mc mix |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walra48
Member
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 185
Location: Montreal, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm curious Max - is Cubase using all 12 cores or is it maxing out on the first 4-6? ? How's the distribution?
12 core machines have more potential future-proofing - however - I'm concerned that by the time all the
software is fully optimized for the current 12 core models - newer technologies will have rendered those machines
somewhat dated (light peak, etc.). I tend to keep my machines for 4 years or so - I need the full performance now - not
in a year or two.
_________________
Cubase 4.5.2 / Apple G5 2.5 Quad PPC / 8 GB RAM / OSX Tiger 10.4.11 / 8 TB SATA disk space /loads of VSTis & DSP plugins / racks of hardware synth modules / MOTU 828 Mk 2 interface / Dynaudio BM15A monitors / 2 "Gigastudio 3 Orchestra" PC workstations / Studiologic SL-880 Pro midi controller / assorted audio-video convertors and appliances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maxhowarth
Member
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 638
Location: edinburgh, uk
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
annoyingly i don't have access to the 12 core (it was on loan) now and i never thought to check that. like you i want to have a machine that'll last a few years but bear in mind that even the 8 core macs are not being used to their capacity a lot of the time. i'm confident that i've made the right choice (especially when i consider what the similar spec 12 core would have cost).
_________________
best wishes
max
www.redfacilities.com
2 x 3.3 6core mac pro | 12gb ram | mac os 10.6.4 | n5.0 | rme multiset/audiolink96 | 3 x 19" flat panels | decklink xt | waves7 | altiverb6 | mc mix |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walra48
Member
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 185
Location: Montreal, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | bear in mind that even the 8 core macs are not being used to their capacity a lot of the time. i'm confident that i've made the right choice (especially when i consider what the similar spec 12 core would have cost). |
I'm starting to believe that is this is often true - unfortunately some people are being drawn into the "power for power's sake" scenario (I have 12 cores - wow) and not considering real world benefits and limitations vs. cost. If, for most of us, an upgrade cycle is around 4 years or s,o then we need full implementation of hardware capability pretty much right away - I do not want to pay now for an expensive machine that won't be able to deliver on its
advertised capability for another year or more. Time is money and money is time. If the 12 core can't do its 12 core thing with Cubase and plugs now, why would I pay now to maybe get access to its uber power next year?. (maybe) Especially when the price difference between the 6 & 12 (in Canada) is approx. $1500.00.
_________________
Cubase 4.5.2 / Apple G5 2.5 Quad PPC / 8 GB RAM / OSX Tiger 10.4.11 / 8 TB SATA disk space /loads of VSTis & DSP plugins / racks of hardware synth modules / MOTU 828 Mk 2 interface / Dynaudio BM15A monitors / 2 "Gigastudio 3 Orchestra" PC workstations / Studiologic SL-880 Pro midi controller / assorted audio-video convertors and appliances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fitz
Senior Member
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 1442
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| maxhowarth wrote: | simple; large post projects (with lots of altiverb/speakerphone/etc) and music projects with vstis will produce a lower cpu load on the 6 core than the same project run on a 12 core.
the only thing so far that's faster on the 12 core has been large renders of video via compressor. |
Did you simply use the same projects or did you experiment with re-distributing the plugins to cause processing to happen over more cores?
Because if you didn't, then of course the 6-core will win.
_________________
--
MP2.8OSX10.5.8/8G/828MkII/PoCo/Duende/CC121/C5.5/Other stuff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Walra48
Member
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 185
Location: Montreal, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Hello,
as Fitz already wrote: Processor speed is a very important factor for each plugin/thread. It is nice that we get more and more cores, but the CPU speed stays the same/is getting down on the machines.
Gr,
Chris
_________________
Steinberg Tech Support |
This is true - nice to have more cores - but in reality cpu speed is the crucial factor.
_________________
Cubase 4.5.2 / Apple G5 2.5 Quad PPC / 8 GB RAM / OSX Tiger 10.4.11 / 8 TB SATA disk space /loads of VSTis & DSP plugins / racks of hardware synth modules / MOTU 828 Mk 2 interface / Dynaudio BM15A monitors / 2 "Gigastudio 3 Orchestra" PC workstations / Studiologic SL-880 Pro midi controller / assorted audio-video convertors and appliances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
