Mac Pro - Quad-Core or 8-Core for Live and VSTs?

[Kilroy]

How does Live take advantage of multiple cores? Is it worth getting the 8-core 2.26GHz over the quad-core 2.93GHz? What about AUs and VSTs? Does Live effect how they utilize multi-core processors?

Thanks in advance for any advice...

K.

[mihai]

i'd get the octo since it's more future-proof. at the same time i remember people saying live doesn't take advantage of 8 cores or that there are issues with that... don't remember exactly what the issue was but research it. either way i'd still get the octo.

[tw1nstates]

Live is a bit rubbish in certain respects.
if you are sending stuff from track to track it treats that as one whole track and will not split the work load between cores.

Therefore you can overload one core and still have tonnes of processing cycles available on others. however you still would want the octocore rather than the quad as if you are careful with how you set up your work then you wil have loads more processing power.

Get a reconditioned one from the mac store. They the same, just cheaper . . .

[Dr Dub]

8 Core!

[Parametex]

Live is a bit rubbish in certain respects.
if you are sending stuff from track to track it treats that as one whole track and will not split the work load between cores.

Therefore you can overload one core and still have tonnes of processing cycles available on others. however you still would want the octocore rather than the quad as if you are careful with how you set up your work then you wil have loads more processing power.

What I gather is that by splitting up the workload (multiple instances of plugins) to many tracks by routing the audio from tracks to the next I actually have managed to share the cpu load to multiple cores better.

P.

[ekwipt]

I think it would depend on your workflow, do you have huge track counts or tend to use lots of samples and effects.

Track count - 8 core slower speed
huge effects and samples - 4 core fastest speed

Of course if you can afford a 8 core 2.93 ghz i'd go with that but i've read about some benchmarks coming out which hold the faster 4 core above the lower 8 core on some things (bench marks for photoshop mind you)

More cores = more tracks basically

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-co ... ktest.html

[Kilroy]

Thanks for all the info folks. I think the overall consensus seems to be that while Live 8 doesn't necessarily use 8 cores effectively, it doesn't mean that an 8-core machine will be slower than a quad-core. Is that safe to say?

ekwipt- Good question on workflow. Right now I am doing some basic some construction using perhaps 10-12 tracks with a combination of Ableton effects and other plugins (Ozone, Waves, etc) on each track. I am also doing more complicated work building click tracks with prerecorded parts that bands use in their live shows.

The things that are really killing my current setup are these huge sample libraries I am using e.g., the East West Quantum Leap Play-based libraries and also the Prominy Kontact-based libraries. I realize that RAM may be the solution to these particular problems; however, since I am effectively limited to 3 gig in my current XP setup, I need to get a new box before I can get more RAM. And since I am getting new box, I am also trying to figure out the processor questions. Hope that helps!

Please keep the info coming! And let me know if there are any definitive threads on this topic that I may have missed using the search engine. If not, perhaps this can be it.

Thanks again.

[djsynchro]

Quad core and a UAD-2 card

[CerebralNektar]

I have done some small testes on my Octocore nehalem (with 16 virtual core)
Basically when each track have no relations between them performance is GREAT.
I can make 16 tracks with 8 operators racks + dozen of huge high quality reverb per track and status monitor shows me 16 full bar of CPU processing.

But....

When you try to sidechain (i use that a looot for gate, compressor, vocoder, auto filter) multiple cpu become useless :'(
As well Drum rack are considered as one whole track, so one core is use even if you havea dozen of synthetized drums in it :'(

I have some pop and crackle at 128 sample in these cases but nothing in the first case (16 huge tracks truely separated and heavy processed...)

Waiting for snow leopard, could bring some help for Ableton dev in order to make a true multi CPU app !

[CerebralNektar]

Oh, and don't forget your GPU,
Snow leo is about bringing some pure DSP power to many appz (GPGPU)

[andydes]

I have done some small testes

Sorry. Carry on.

[Parametex]

I have done some small testes on my Octocore nehalem (with 16 virtual core)
Basically when each track have no relations between them performance is GREAT.
I can make 16 tracks with 8 operators racks + dozen of huge high quality reverb per track and status monitor shows me 16 full bar of CPU processing.

But....

When you try to sidechain (i use that a looot for gate, compressor, vocoder, auto filter) multiple cpu become useless :'(

Yeah you are probably pretty much spot on with that!

I use a lot of side-chain function also and it's frikking killing me!

[Martin44]

I think it would depend on your workflow, do you have huge track counts or tend to use lots of samples and effects.

Track count - 8 core slower speed
huge effects and samples - 4 core fastest speed

Of course if you can afford a 8 core 2.93 ghz i'd go with that but i've read about some benchmarks coming out which hold the faster 4 core above the lower 8 core on some things (bench marks for photoshop mind you)

More cores = more tracks basically

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-co ... ktest.html

Hi,

I find the graph intriguing because the Mac Pro Dual and Single come out better than the Mac Pro Quad. You can get a Mac Pro Dual for $225. Is that a wise investment for someone who wants to use demanding software like East West Quantum Leap?
I have spent an arm and a leg on Quantum Leap, so the $225 sounds cheap, but it seems to me that regularly buying new, but not cutting-edge, equipment is more economical than sponsoring the development of new systems. How do you see that?