Ableton What Do The New Macs Mean In Terms Of Live???

Discuss music production with Ableton Live.
::mic-minimal::
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 8:32 am
Location: behind you

Ableton What Do The New Macs Mean In Terms Of Live???

Post by ::mic-minimal:: » Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:39 pm

I'm just reading the specs of the new macs, and I would like to know what
the entry level $1999.00 model will do for Live, What type of performance
could be expected theoreticly speaking. I've also just read about a great demonstration that was given on the new macs using logic that showed alot of tracks, eqs, and efx but I don't use logic and from what I know it is optimized for the mac so my question is specificly not logic based, but what can I expect with live and other typical mac plugs and stuff?

mic

Mbazzy
Posts: 1726
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 1:35 pm
Location: Gent-Belgium
Contact:

Post by Mbazzy » Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:46 pm

Yeah, as a PC user I also wonder what these new specs mean OBJECTIVALY [please no PC vs. Mac discussion] ... I'm a bit cautious as benchmarks always can be tricked, and as far as I know there are no 64 bit programs written yet ...
http://www.mbazzy.tk -
Mbazzy's "The dysfunctional playground, a scrapbook a bout the shape of useless things" now OUT on Retinascan - http://www.retinascan.de

noisetonepause
Posts: 4938
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
Location: Sticks and stones

Post by noisetonepause » Mon Jun 23, 2003 8:10 pm

64 bit optimisation/AltiVec support (?) would be amazing - but still, the processors will happily run old 32 bit apps like Live, but optimisation or no, these babies will still have high clock frequencies, faster busses, faster and more RAM, etc. etc...

/Niklas
Suit #1: I mean, have you got any insight as to why a bright boy like this would jeopardize the lives of millions?
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.

:mic-minimal:

Post by :mic-minimal: » Mon Jun 23, 2003 8:27 pm

I wish these things were laptops I'd jump on one, maybe they'll drop powerbook prices some more, I'm still waiting for one to get in my range.
whether it's about computers, women, or affirmative action it's all about diversity in my book. :wink:

Mbazzy
Posts: 1726
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 1:35 pm
Location: Gent-Belgium
Contact:

Post by Mbazzy » Mon Jun 23, 2003 8:38 pm

The dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 with Logic Platnum 6.1 can play 115 tracks, compared with a maximum of 35 tracks on the Dell Dimension 8300 and 81 tracks on the Dell Precision 650 each with Cubase SX 1.051. More impressively, the 1.6GHz single-processor Power Mac G5 played 50 percent more tracks than the 3GHz Pentium 4-based system.


A bit comparing apples & oranges no ...
http://www.mbazzy.tk -
Mbazzy's "The dysfunctional playground, a scrapbook a bout the shape of useless things" now OUT on Retinascan - http://www.retinascan.de

equinoxworld
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 6:01 pm
Location: Southern New Hampshire US

FYI

Post by equinoxworld » Mon Jun 23, 2003 8:43 pm

Just talked to my neighborhood Mac dealer... G5's shipping in August
List Prices: 1.6G $1999 1.8G $2399 2.0G Dual $2999
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
Albert Einstein

noisetonepause
Posts: 4938
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
Location: Sticks and stones

Post by noisetonepause » Mon Jun 23, 2003 8:54 pm

Mbazzy wrote:The dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 with Logic Platnum 6.1 can play 115 tracks, compared with a maximum of 35 tracks on the Dell Dimension 8300 and 81 tracks on the Dell Precision 650 each with Cubase SX 1.051. More impressively, the 1.6GHz single-processor Power Mac G5 played 50 percent more tracks than the 3GHz Pentium 4-based system.


A bit comparing apples & oranges no ...
They shoulda compared PT :):):):)

Alex Reynolds
Posts: 989
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 5:48 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Contact:

Post by Alex Reynolds » Mon Jun 23, 2003 9:12 pm

Wow...

The integer and fp statistics for the dual 2 GHz versus the dual 3.06 GHz Xeons were pretty damning:

-- http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports ... ?visitor=X

Both were running with the same compiler. The G5 beat the Xeon PC on both, and handily on the floating point where DSP work is done.

Didn't appear to be any Altivec optimization for the G5 (no mention of veclib in their script), but the Xeon's script had its SSE optimization turned on. Not good news for the Xeon crowd.

Hard to say what this means for Live users until August, exactly, but it seems, all else equal, things should be much improved.

Apparently the dualie G5 is $1050 cheaper than the same dual Xeon from Dell. The Toslink optical connectors and Serial ATA drives are great additions, too.

I know I'm biased, but out of the box this looks like a sweet studio machine at a really decent price, for everything that it has.

-Alex

jory
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 9:24 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by jory » Tue Jun 24, 2003 12:00 am

damn! I just shorted out my keyboard with drool. 8O

the real question is when are we going to see a g5 book. These chips run super hot it seems so it may take some clever engineering. The PB g4's took a while after the towers....

I've been waiting to get a new PB until job's did his thing today, hoping that we'd get some powerbook news...

I guess I'll have to wait a bit longer...

Of course it reamins to be seen if ableton will get on the 64bit recompile bandwagon, without g5 pb's I don't know if they will have much cause to rush to it.

:mic-minimal:

Post by :mic-minimal: » Tue Jun 24, 2003 1:44 am

I wish they did do protools comparison also, or even reason lol, anything but logic, I'm glad they did cubase though, but isn't it funny they chose dell
computers for the comparison, :? , outside of laptops I've never met anybody in my life who uses a dell desktop for music production, I'm sure
the music guys at apple no this. from the most upscale music studios to the raggediest bedroom studios nobody uses a dell desktop, they roll there
own, no brand names so that was kind of cheesy to compare their highest quality parts to what they know are just the opposite.

that's not good news about the G5s taking long to come out or engineer properly, we could all be dead by then, it looks like i'm going to have to go
ahead and spring for the 12" g4 or the 1ghz 15" cause I can't wait forever.
jory how long are you gonna wait?

harb
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2002 5:46 pm

Post by harb » Tue Jun 24, 2003 9:48 am

We will just have to wait and see how it is with Live.

Many of the speed improvements may not be as relevent until apps are written to take advantage of the architecture..... (ie. 64bit)

"Real-World" will have to wait until August as far as Live is concerned...



harb

Mbazzy
Posts: 1726
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 1:35 pm
Location: Gent-Belgium
Contact:

Post by Mbazzy » Tue Jun 24, 2003 10:27 am

... and by than we might have Intel/amd 64 bit :twisted: :evil:
http://www.mbazzy.tk -
Mbazzy's "The dysfunctional playground, a scrapbook a bout the shape of useless things" now OUT on Retinascan - http://www.retinascan.de

Agnishvatta
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:50 pm
Location: Mie, Japan

Post by Agnishvatta » Tue Jun 24, 2003 12:39 pm

Just to add a little perspective:

http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm? ... 296&page=2
Didn't appear to be any Altivec optimization for the G5 (no mention of veclib in their script), but the Xeon's script had its SSE optimization turned on. Not good news for the Xeon crowd.
What you said doesn't make any sense. If people's computers, PC or MAC, are currently performing the job well, then the availability of the G5 won't change that. I guess it's not goodnews when you are only using a platform to flex off. I see the G5 as something that will make all MAC users happier and more productive when using programs like Live (hopefully), which has suffered from performance issues on the current G4s for some people. It really doesn't matter to a PC user and if it does then it's only because there using computers as a hobby in itself, which is not at all the same as for those of us making music.
... and by than we might have Intel/amd 64 bit
Opteron is 64bit and out now.

Alex Reynolds
Posts: 989
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 5:48 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Contact:

Post by Alex Reynolds » Tue Jun 24, 2003 1:32 pm

Some questions to see if you know what you are talking about:

Do you know how difficult it is to find the web page for Windows' 64 bit clean OS? Why is Microsoft so reluctant to make this product visible?

Who uses Opteron as a desktop processor?

Opterons cost more per processor than Xeons. If a dual-processor Mac is cheaper than a dual-processor Xeon where does that leave Opteron users? [1]

Do you want to discuss per-chip cost of Itaniums, etc.?

Where is the upgrade path for people who want to use 64 bit desktop applications on an Opteron? Apparently Microsoft Windows 2003 won't even provide support for this chip. [2]

So:

Apple users can tell Windows users with a straight face that they are behind -- and probably will be until Microsoft provides a realistic upgrade plan and vendors can provide better, cheaper hardware. For now, Apple is ahead of the game.

I'm not flexing off on Opterons etc. -- go right ahead and use them if you want, though I have no idea *why* you would -- but I am simply happy to see that my platform of choice is something I no longer have to apologize for. :D

References:

[1] http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-997348.html
[2] http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/2960

Guest

Post by Guest » Tue Jun 24, 2003 1:49 pm

Some results from the official SPEC database. Not quite as clear cut as Apple have presented hem really is it, seeing as we're into SPEC figures here :lol:

http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm? ... 296&page=2

Oh, Apples new baby isn't the first 'desktop' to have a 64-bit CPU in alongside Serial-ATA etc. The Opteron is, dual versions of which started shipping at the beginning of June.

Post Reply