How much Processing can I expect from the newer Mac Computer

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:56 am

I used to run a G4 Powerbook 1.5Ghz processor, 2GB ram, external FW HD, MOTU 896HD sound card, in Digital Performer 4.5
it was a great setup i admit, but i wasn't pleased with it's "POWER"

I'd be doing a mix of 16 tracks (24/44.1) with with EQ on all 16 tracks, WaveLabs compressors on 8 tracks, reverbs on 4, and NI GuitarRig on two...
and it would choke up.
I was pushing it with the pugins, i know
"Guitar Rig" was the ram killer/sucker
(it sure did a ton more then my older G3 Smile

so i'm not exactly complaining)

I've been considering getting a new mac.
How are they performing?????

with a macbook 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo & 4GB ram,
can I run 8in/8out 24/96 with an independent guitar rig plugin on each channel?

or do i need a MacPro with Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon and 16GB of ram

what kind of processing power are you getting out of your computer?

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:22 pm

They hold up quite well. but you can only get so much performance from 2 gigs. Lucky for you more ram is cheap.
Also you can always print the effects onto the the track.

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:29 pm

I've got a new Mac Tower Quad Core 2.6 with 2 gig of ram, and it smokes.
I've been using plug ins, up to 30 tracks so far, and it hasn't even bogged a little.

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:23 pm

Benchmarks show that the current Core2Duo machines (iMac, Macbooks, and Mac minis) are more powerfull than the last of the dual G5 powemacs.

I have one of the earlier Core Duo mini. No problems with sessions of 32-48 tracks, using vitual instrumens exclusively.

No need to freeze tracks, using Logic8, and recording to an external 7200rpm firewire drive.

Cool

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:15 pm

Quote:

Plugins do not run off RAM, they use CPU cycles. Ram is used for samples and the audio program.

^^ is this right?
i always thought plugins ran off ram
what are CPU cycles? is that the processor?

Quote:

Benchmarks show that the current Core2Duo machines (iMac, Macbooks, and Mac minis) are more powerful than the last of the dual G5 powemacs.

i keep hearing quite the contrary...
especially when it comes to music production..... :keep scratching my head:

tracking clean has never been a problem
it's plugin intensive mixing Confused

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:30 pm

redbort wrote:

i keep hearing quite the contrary...
especially when it comes to music production..... :keep scratching my head:

Are you hearing first hand from people that are actually having problems, or from people who have a cousin with a friend's sister's boyfriend having problems?

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:15 am

VonRocK wrote:

a cousin with a friend's sister's boyfriend having problems?

you could be my cousin's friend's sister's boyfriend... Exclamation

found this "shoot out"
http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html
doesn't have core 2 duo

& this deals with core duo vs core 2 duo
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/09/imac-core-duo-and-core-2-duo-comparison/

core2duo chips are looking pretty good...
but i don't think i'll get the plugin processing i'm expecting... Crying or Very sad

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:17 pm

Someday I would like to compare a mac against my present system so that I could see which one would be better for me. I don't know anything about them but like the post above I see mixed opinions. I here that they are good and don't crash and don't get viruses. I also here that they are limited to what is avalible for programs. I don't use Pro Tools, I use Sonar-6 and I don't think its compatible. I guess I could use both but God thats all I need is another thing to try and learn. LOL

This topic sponsored by: