13 or 15-inch Macbook Pro?

[cuthouseyou]

Hey guys,

I just got a new 13-inch Macbook Pro. I bought it because my old computer was running way too slow for Ableton. It would stutter and not play sometimes because my songs are too big. These are the specs for my new computer:

13-inch: 2.3 GHz
2.3GHz dual-core
Intel Core i5
4GB 1333MHz
320GB 5400-rpm1
Intel HD Graphics 3000
Built-in battery (7 hours)2

I upgraded it to 8 gigs of ram. However, my new computer is still having some problems with playback. There's still too much information in my song when I try to play it straight through. Keep in mind, my song has 48 tracks and there's a lot of automation, effects, etc. It's a complex song. The computer performance is way better now, but I want to be able to playback a song from start to finish without any hiccups. I plan on performing live with my original compositions.

Do you think upgrading to the 15-inch model would help out much? I can still return my 13-inch. The specs for the 15 inch are:

15-inch: 2.0 GHz
2.0GHz quad-core
Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz
500GB 5400-rpm1
Intel HD Graphics 3000
AMD Radeon HD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
Built-in battery (7 hours)2

I would still upgrade it to 8 gigs. I just don't want to spend $600 more for something that doesn't improve performance much. Thanks.

- Mike

[kanuck]

sigh, increasing your screen size does not = increased performance

What i would do is return the 13 inch and pay a bit more for the other 13 inch. the 2.7 Ghz one, with intel core i7.

If you're still having problems with playback freeze any midi tracks. If you're still having troubles, resample complicated automated tracks.

EDIT: i didn't notice that the 15 inch would have a quad-core compared to the dual core. I don't know computers all that much so not sure how much of a difference that makes.

EDIT: http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2011/02/ ... arly-2011/

[Dragonbreath]

return that shit! quad core baby!.... your gonna notice a big difference!!!

[beats me]

I seriously believe this is Live's fault and it doesn't matter what spec or OS you are using. Live is just buggy.

And I don't think any computer is going to be able to handle 48 tracks with a lot of automation and effects live.

[ARDJ]

return that shit! quad core baby!.... your gonna notice a big difference!!!

+1

[Khazul]

return that shit! quad core baby!.... your gonna notice a big difference!!!

+1

+1 - my MBP finally turned up today from apple

[bujol]

Ah yeah? Really? Quad Core is the key?

I plan to buy a new MBP soon and I'm asking myself a lot of questions. Some articles on the web pretends that most applications wouldn't be able to run multiple cores simultaneously because they are not designed for it. Multiple core would then make a difference only on Photoshop like apps and video apps. So it would be better to focus on higher power of individual cores instead of number of cores... I don't know a lot about computers neither so I'm just questioning myself (and yours). What's the truth?

Look at these articles :
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/quad-cor ... -core.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Truth-Abo ... id=3702038

What do you think of that?

[ARDJ]

quadcore for sure, you're in the high-end computer group you need as many horses as you can get!

[abl385]

15-inch. 13-inch is too small, it's going to be tiring.

[lapieuvre]

I am sorry to say this, but you are all in the field. The quad Core won't help you there. Ableton can't run 48 tracks on a 5400 rpm drive. A 7200 rpm drive Will barely run it. Ssd is your solution there. Make a test: get a 7200rpm FireWire 800 drive and test you live SET. It Will probably run better. Then you'll know it's not your dual Core i5

[Dragonbreath]

I am sorry to say this, but you are all in the field. The quad Core won't help you there. Ableton can't run 48 tracks on a 5400 rpm drive. A 7200 rpm drive Will barely run it. Ssd is your solution there. Make a test: get a 7200rpm FireWire 800 drive and test you live SET. It Will probably run better. Then you'll know it's not your dual Core i5

The number of virtual instruments and plug-in effects have nothing to do with the speed of your hard drive. A faster drive is great idea but so is more cpu power

[lapieuvre]

The number of virtual instruments and plug-in effects have nothing to do with the speed of your hard drive. A faster drive is great idea but so is more cpu power

Totally agree with you. I just say between the 2 I choose faster hard drive. I run a lot of things in Multi track, and experience a lot of glitches due to disk streaming.

[sporkles]

Actually, I wasn't too impressed with the performance improvement with the quad core I just returned to the shop (for other reasons) over an older dual core at the same clock speed. Live reported about the same CPU load on the same project on both setups, and Task Manager reported a rather uneven load across the cores. (I know that someone is itching to tell me that this is not a problem on a Mac.) I wasn't getting any clicks and pops in playback, though, so I guess my theory that a bit of overhead works wonders.

[EnjoyRC]

Things are rock solid here on my 2011 MacBook Pro 15" Quad-Core i7.

[Silence]

i suggest you bounce your tracks into stems if u intend to play live