Ableton Forum

Tarekith wrote:Stop it, you're making sense. Not allowed here.

I just edited it so it makes even more sense too now!!!

Re i5 versus i7:

CPU benchmark gives the various i7 processors values of between 10,177 and 2,763 (the higher the better).
i5 processors range from 4,204 to 2,367.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

I've been looking at new laptops and the most common and cheapest i7 laptop processor seems to be i7 720qm, which scores 3,233. The most common i5 seems to be the M 450 which scores 2,475.

The simple fact is that Apple are behind on laptops and should have had a quad core available by now. (should have one availabale for MONTHS).

They should have also had a quad core imac long before they did.

Buying a dual core i7 laptop is the opposite of 'future proofing' and will cause you restrictions in the almost immediate future.

I like Apple and am certainly not a hater, but they need to pull their socks up over this issue, and they need to fix their problems with Intel, which is probably a big reason in why they are behind.

I had a desktop processor in my previous laptop (Dell Inspiron 9100) and had very few issues with it, it is still running strong after 6 and a half years ... it's inbuilt Texas Instruments firewire chipset still outperforms my newer C2D laptop for streaming audio and lower latency...

leedsquietman wrote:The simple fact is that Apple are behind on laptops and should have had a quad core available by now. (should have one availabale for MONTHS).

They should have also had a quad core imac long before they did.

Buying a dual core i7 laptop is the opposite of 'future proofing' and will cause you restrictions in the almost immediate future.

I like Apple and am certainly not a hater, but they need to pull their socks up over this issue, and they need to fix their problems with Intel, which is probably a big reason in why they are behind.

I had a desktop processor in my previous laptop (Dell Inspiron 9100) and had very few issues with it, it is still running strong after 6 and a half years ... it's inbuilt Texas Instruments firewire chipset still outperforms my newer C2D laptop for streaming audio and lower latency...

Oh...I assumed the i7 Macbooks were the quad core processors (even though it says they're dual-core on their website, oops). Are they only the i7-6xx ones then ? Not that I was gonna go for a mac. So bloody expensive. Currently works out as being at least £400 more for (on paper) a worse system.

I LOVE my i7 17" MBP. 2 Cores/4 virtual cores runs all my apps beautifully; esp Logic in 64bit mode.

Lastly, there is no such thing as "future proofing" your computer. There will always something new and better to come along...especially when it comes to RAM limitations. Get something now and enjoy it rather than wasting time in the technological race of tomorrow.

leedsquietman wrote:The simple fact is that Apple are behind on laptops and should have had a quad core available by now. (should have one availabale for MONTHS).

They should have also had a quad core imac long before they did.

Apple have stricter standards than most PC manufacturers. Notice that it's almost always the cheapest and most budget concerned PC manufacturers that come out with new chips first. With no real reputation to uphold they don't care as much if they get a recall or other issues. With Apple if a new chipset kills the battery life or overheats it's all over the net, you don't hear that as much about Asus etc.
Not that fond of it either, but it makes for stable laptops.

You can 'semi' future proof yourself by not buying obsolete gear when you start - there are windows of opportunity, such as the time when Apple switched over from PPC to Intel Mac, unless you got a nice discount on buying a PPC mac shortly before the change over, you were limiting the useful lifespan of a computer.

Of course, I wouldn't expect some blinkered fanboy to acknowledge their machine is under powered and to advocate a little patience - the quad cores and six cores etc will be coming, but if you must scratch your itch, you can pay pretty much the same price now for a dual core as you will for a quad core in a few months time ... if you do a lot of streaming samples and heavy virtual instrument use it makes sense to wait a little while and take advantage of more processing power, higher track and plugin counts etc.

If you're just running a moderate workload or using Live for DJing, then the dual core i7 will suffice.

Now's a good time to buy, as they just started with the i7's and i5's, and it looks like everything will be going that way. So if you go with one of those, you know you'll get the most use out of it before they change things again.

I'm not sure about the quad core thing to be honest. I'd like to say it's coming soon, but it looks more and more like Apple is pushing battery life and thinner designs over raw power lately. Neither of which really bodes well for something like quad core. Most people I know (me included) would rather have a long battery life in a laptop, so that's fine with me. It'd be nice having more power, don't get me wrong. But I wonder at what point it's better to just look at a desktop then and really get your money's worth.

leedsquietman wrote:Buying a dual core i7 laptop is the opposite of 'future proofing' and will cause you restrictions in the almost immediate future.

This is ignorant nonsense. What "restrictions"? Is Apple going to suddenly stop supporting a chip they just started using?

Only "moderate" projects with an i7 on an MBP?

LMFAO

take the blinkers off boys - do you even know what you can do with a quad / six / eight core machine in comparison ?? They absolutely CREAM a dual core machine - I never said the dual core i7 wasn't a powerful machine or nice, but the stats and the processing power doesn't lie. Even though you can do a lot with a dual core i7, you can do a good bit extra with a quad i7 !

Obviously you haven't run a quad core i7, or you wouldn't be posting such stuff. It's just common sense - splurge a fortune now on a machine which is decidedly under powered compared to a quad core which will be roughly the same price, or wait a few months and massively increase your track count, plugin count, ability to run many instances of heavy softsynths like Omnisphere without freezing, etc.

It's not rocket science people, even for the most blinkered Mac fanboy ...

No, you just said a "moderate workload". Comical.

So why even buy a quad-core?
When you can get a six core?
An eight core?
A ten core?
A twelve core?
A fourteen core?
A sixteen core?
A thirty-two core?

My point was to quit chasing technology, get a machine, make music and enjoy. The current i7's are great. They are even better with Logic 64bit.

Have fun chasing the technology tail!

xoxoxo "a Mac fanboy"

leedsquietman wrote:twait a few months and massively increase your track count, plugin count, ability to run many instances of heavy softsynths like Omnisphere without freezing, etc.

For the OP, my current song in progress uses 12 instances of Omnisphere, 4 full versions of Stylus RMX, Zebra2, and a couple Synplants. CPU reading is only around 36%, so don't think that a lowly dual core is not going to be good enough for some real serious music making. Underpowered it is not.

Depends buddy - most electronic music isn't so track intensive, but it's not uncommon to run 100+ tracks for pop/rock productions with 15-20 vsts and plugins 4 or 5 deep on every channel and some sound track producer run 300-500 tracks, Hans Zimmer has several tracks up around the 500 track levels.

Example - Jai Ho - You're My Destiny
The Pro Tools file with which Ron Fair walked into Mokran’s studio one day last February was notable for a number of reasons. Consisting of 90-plus stereo and mono music tracks, the Edit window looked like a patchwork of small bits and pieces. Only the first seven of the 17 drum tracks, as well as a synth bass track, were playing for most of the song. In addition, there were 44 stereo and eight mono vocals tracks, in effect making 96 vocal tracks. Many of them also occurred only for brief moments. Despite this enormous number of often bitty tracks, Mokran maintains that it wasn’t an overly complex mix.



So Tarekith, you're happy with your dual core but think about what you could achieve with a quad core - 30 instances of Omnisphere, 10 versions of RMX, Zebra and half dozen synplants at a reasonable CPU load. And all the fella has to do is hang on a few months to get that power for around the same price ... it's just a no brainer, IMHO.

jasonjbundy wrote:No, you just said a "moderate workload". Comical.

My point was to quit chasing technology, get a machine, make music and enjoy. The current i7's are great.

+ 1
don't wait for better technology ... that would be a horrible mistake ! just make music !