what runs Live better PC or MAC?

[FaX-01]

what runs Live better PC or MAC?

Until Apple releases a G5 Powerbook (or something that performs like a G5) then you will get more processor value for your $ with an Intel or AMD laptop if you plan to use Live. Live is about as CPU efficient as Garageband (which ain't much!). But GB is free and just a teaser to buy Logic, so I wouldn't expect it to be optimized.

Live's performance on Mac (especially a Powerbook) is not represenative of how well a Mac can perform with other applications. Logic on a Powerbook will run circles around Live. The Abletons are in denial that Altivec won't provide benefits to the G4 and G5 CPU. All plugins (VST or AU) that are Altivec optimized use less CPU than non-Altivec plugins, yet Ableton claims if they Altivec optimize Live there will be little benefit. Logic's own plugins are SUPER optimized because they are built in to the Logic software, so why can't Ableton do this with their included plugins? As of right now even Live's included plugins are mediocre with CPU usage. Maybe the Altivec debate is true with the Warp Engine, but that's only a piece of the puzzle. BTW, all of what I say applies to PC. Just replace the word "Altivec" with "Hyperthreading".

*END RANT*

That also depends on how Altivec works .
Live is a fully REALTIME application Logic isn't.
That said the effects could and should be altivec optimised.
I feel than in itself would make a huge difference.
I think Mac need to get off the idea that a G5 will work in laptop.
Create a new G5M processor that is the equivalent of a 2ghz Dothan on XP for OSX and be done with it myself.
I mean IBM make/manufacture the G5 processor why not port some the T42P technology into a Powerbook.
I've seen one of these up against my 3.2ghz HT P4 Desknote and quite frankly the performance is pretty insane .
The fact that Live performs as well on one of these as it does a G5 dual Tower says enough in itself.
That said though even Logic on a new i-Mac would be pretty off the hook I'd hasten too guess.

[peterkirn]

I have to raise a red flag here again -- there is no practical way to compare Logic to Live. Absolute apples to oranges; the DSP processes are entirely different. WAY too many variables. It'd be like benchmarking Unreal Tournament versus Adobe Photoshop. Might mean SOMETHING, but how would you tell?

That said, I have talked to some developers with extensive audio programming experience who believe that something could be done to optimize Live for the Mac. It isn't necessarily Velocity Engine enhancements, etc.; it could be something else. Apple Logic isn't even necessarily optimized to take advantage of the Velocity Engine in every instance -- there are a lot of things you can do to optimize code, some specific to a processor, some not.

This isn't just Live, either. There is certainly a sense that cross-platform apps with code base shared across Mac and PC appear to favor the PC, though this is a thorny issue unless you're looking at the code.

I will say that I notice this a lot less in Live 4 because I'm tending to do more careful signal routing, so I'm hitting CPU limits a lot less on both platforms. It just isn't a deal-breaker, and there are far too many things that are.

I know lots of heavy-duty Ableton lovers who have switched from PC to Mac. Love it or not, you have to admit the Mac has a real appeal BEYOND its looks, from OS ease and flexibility to the power of Core Audio/MIDI (especially when you figure in stuff like JACK). I think these issues can easily outweigh performance differences in Live.

But yes, please, I would like a PowerBook G5. My delivery address is . . .

[peterkirn]

Until Apple releases a G5 Powerbook (or something that performs like a G5) then you will get more processor value for your $ with an Intel or AMD laptop if you plan to use Live. Live is about as CPU efficient as Garageband (which ain't much!). But GB is free and just a teaser to buy Logic, so I wouldn't expect it to be optimized.

Ah, yes, GarageBand -- while we're setting the recording straight . . .

You're not the first to notice GarageBand doesn't run as well as Logic. But it's not the reason you think. We brought this up with Emagic founder Dr. Lengeling when he was at O'Reilly OS X Conference last month, and he confirmed what we all suspected:

There is no difference between Logic and GarageBand.

They're running exactly the same engine. Exactly the same code. The instruments you're using in GarageBand are identical to the ones in Logic. (Not a LITTLE like them -- they ARE presets from the Logic instruments!)

There are two things that make GarageBand slower: one is the user interface, which you can watch just by minimizing the window with a CPU meter open. Theoretically, that shouldn't impact overall performance, though, because audio threads have priority, but it's clearly those extra alpha channel layers (read: the eye candy) that are bogging things down. (Have to credit GarageBand Power Tools author and fellow Keyboard writer Francis Preve for showing me that, and he's a programmer; I'm not!)

Second: GB doesn't really bus effects. I don't think they intentionally slowed down the app this way; I think they just treated it like an entry-level app. And since there are ridiculous numbers of high-CPU effects (again from the Logic engine, so no less optimized!), that will bog down the CPU.

So is this off-topic? I don't think so. The point is that CPU performance is relative to CPU, yes, but it's also relative to what you're doing in terms of DSP operations, etc., which is highly variable.

That said, you can take the same project between a PC and a Mac and see performance differences you wouldn't normally suspect. So I hope Ableton does take a look at this, and while philosophically it's a cross-platform app, I hope they consider what might make Live on the Mac a bit more like Live on the PC.

We have seen cross-platform processor optimizations in each major release of Live. It really does help us out, and I think the trend will continue.

Peter Kirn
http://www.createdigitalmusic.com

[AdamJay]

I know lots of heavy-duty Ableton lovers who have switched from PC to Mac. Love it or not, you have to admit the Mac has a real appeal BEYOND its looks, from OS ease and flexibility to the power of Core Audio/MIDI (especially when you figure in stuff like JACK). I think these issues can easily outweigh performance differences in Live.

allow me to introduce myself.
i am a heavy-duty Ableton lover who has switced the other way. from Mac to PC. I loved OSX and still do, yea Core Audio has awesomely low latency but i've found that with ASIO4ALL generic windows sound driver, i get the same latency with my onboard SoundMAX card as i did with onboard Core Audio.

I never imagined going back to a PC, but when Ableton released version 4 of Live, i soon found myself not just using Live for stage production but also for studio production. i stopped using ableton reverb and other fx, started using some more cpu effecient Apple AU FX and some third party FX that cost me more money in the end... all to ensure i could run more than 10 channels of audio simultaneously. I had resampled or "bounced down" any VSTi's, but in the end my G4 12" 867mhz Powerbook was knocking at 90% CPU and in order to keep from getting glitches i had to set my buffer to 2048 samples and beyond (so that throws the glory of Core Audio right out the window). Sure i could have just rendered to Disk, forgive me for enjoying the act of realtime composition, performance, and recording but the software is called "Live" not "Render".

It was a tough decision but i said screw this. I want to run more than 10 stereo channels of audio, i want to be able to tweak a VSTi in realtime, i want to be able to use REAKTOR !!!!! i want to work with latency below 512 samples. Sold my G4 867mhz 12" PB with 640MB, 40GB, Combo Drive, and Airport card for $1,000.

for $998 i got a pc laptop, this time with a 15.4" Widescreen 1280x800, Athlon 64 3000, 40GB, 512MB, ComboDrive, Wifi, and XP Home.

those same Ableton projects that were knocking 85% and 90% CPU were respectively running at 28% and 30%.

When i am writing music, i spend 100% of that time in the Application - not the OS, if you know what i mean. Will i take a 3x performance increase for my money in exchange for no Finder, Dock, Terminal, iLife?
you bet your ass i will. When i can't even do what i want with the applicaion on the MacOS platform... it soon becomes a no brainer.

Unix is extremely stable, but not when the cpu is maxing out. i'll take 30% on x86 over 90% on PowerPC hardware any day. Headroom is the ulimate form of stability.

If mac performance and/or optimization gets better in the future, i'll switch back. Till then, i'll be running simpler through reaktor FX in realtime. =D

[peterkirn]

These are all good points -- to me they don't spell the end of the Mac platform or something along those lines. They spell the end of total platform loyalty. It's easier to switch than every before, so we can choose on a variety of variables. We're increasingly looking for a system capable of running our apps -- not choosing an app and going with that system. That's a big change. Audio is a cross-platform world. Live makes it more so.

I hope we do get Live running better on Mac laptops. I will say this, though: I know a lot of PC users who switched to the Mac who are really happy. When I try to tell them I'm getting better performance on XP, they laugh. (THEY'RE the hardened PC users, I'm the Mac guy, remember)

For me, I've found a cross-platform, two-laptop setup to be ideal. Maybe that's what I'm advocating. That works for me not because of some deficiency of the Mac or the PC, but because I love having both! Given trade-in values (virtually nil!), maybe Ihe best thing to do is alternate platform purchases! Or a setup with two laptops? (okay, yes, I AM insane)

[john gordon]

ihave 2 laptops 1 powerbook 1ghz 768 megs/ram and a pc 2.8ghz 512 megs.im so fed up with live not running many tracks.blah,blah,blah on my mac so im saying fuck it.im selling my powerbook along with that shitty logic 7 and stickin with pc.

[peterkirn]

I'd be curious to hear your complaints about Logic 7 off-list; email me if you like.

How much you want for your PowerBook? :-)

[Machinate]

I'd be curious to hear your complaints about Logic 7 off-list; email me if you like.

How much you want for your PowerBook?

hehe, you see, mac users can't really take a hint. one guy's selling cuz he thinks it's a piece of crap, the next guy's all over it

heheh. jk. more power to ya.

a

[AdamJay]

buying a used mac is a good investment though.
not for live, but for your money.

i bought one of my powerbooks for $1,000 and sold it 7 months later for $1,000. spent that money on a PC that was much better than the PC my money would have fetched 7 months prior. So i didn't lose money by getting the powerbook.. i look at it like i got to use a PB for 7 months for free while i was waiting for the price of Athlon 64 Mobiles to come down.

[Machinesworking]

I have to raise a red flag here again -- there is no practical way to compare Logic to Live. Absolute apples to oranges; the DSP processes are entirely different. WAY too many variables. It'd be like benchmarking Unreal Tournament versus Adobe Photoshop. Might mean SOMETHING, but how would you tell?

This makes no sense to me? Let's see? Live is a sequencer and VST/AU host, so is Logic. One is set up more for studio work and one is set up for live work. That's the major difference I see. Not near at the Unreal VS Photoshop level.

Logic is just super efficient on any system it ran on. Live is not, great program, but a bit of a pig. Simpler is a HOG compared to other VSTi on my powerbook, there is no reason for this IMO.
Personally I use a lot of mac only software besides Live, so switching for a CPU boost means losing more than a shiny laptop.
I don't compose in Live that often though, I tend to compose in Logic, import tracks into Live, remix, and play the odd AU/VST over that.
Honestly even a three times CPU increase wouldn't put Live near what Logic offers, I would hazard to guess that either Sonar or SX would do the same to Live on the PC?
So for what I do, mac IS a good choice for Live, if I was to only use Live and nothing else I would agree with the CPU thing, but....

[toneroll]

firstly whys everyone ranting on about logic 7? this is not what the guy asked , nor did he say , "here im thinkin of doing some posters in my spare time on photo shop and i just dont trust my tft even tho i would need to send it to the printers for proofing i just would feel better if the screen represented fully my lovely poster" eh? come on man.. besides which if you really wanted that you could just go and get a really nice one.. (you can even get those big glass ones) .. also unreal will always be better on a pc pond for pound and the same money spent on a pc than a g5 would munch through 3d rendering and photoshop tasks...

hang on, i do know why people ar all going on about logic 7.. coz you cant compare it to a pc hhhmmmmmmmmmmmm do you think all you plugs and shit in logic would not run better in a carrilon dual xeon or dual opteron? both at a nice lovey price of £1899? with transport controls on the front and midi controllers, rackmountable too?

hahaha i just love enterin these mac/pc wars while i eat my dinner

"nah nah nah nah mines better than yours" (oops just spilt beans on my lap)

[toneroll]

http://www.carillonusa.com/clnweb/perfo ... country=US


check this out then

[bencodec]

***

[toneroll]

****

[Machinesworking]

"nah nah nah nah mines better than yours" (oops just spilt beans on my lap)