Ableton Forum

Hi all

I need some advice about my hardware setup.

At the moment I am running on a late 2012 Mac Mini, 2,3 Ghz with 8 gig of RAM
I have swapped out the hard drive for a 1 Tb SSD drive.

I still find that some synths (u-He's Bazille, Madrona Labs's Aalto & Kaivo; even Wavetable!) cause things to glitch and stutter terribly

I've looked at my local computer store; their middle of the range Mac Mini runs at 2,6 GhZ, which does not look much faster.

What can I do to avoid processing power limitations when running resource heavy synths? Is freezing the only possibility, or is there some way of using my existing processing power more efficiently?

Is 2,3 GHz underpowered?

I'm not an expert on Mac's, but I think you better have a faster Mac mini, and if there ain't no faster one - go for an iMac which are surely faster. This if you want to stay on the Mac side. Otherwhise you can flip to the winpc side, which offers a broad choice of configurations. I for example have chosen a PC from these guys: https://www.soundsupplies.nl/PRODAW/PRODAW-max-19-inch. A fast music configured PC, with lots of value for money..... But then you have to switch from Mac to PC. Not much of a problem I think, did it too long ago LOL.

I can't afford an iMac.

And I am reluctant to switch to PC. I come from a PC background, so I am familiar with Windows. I just don't want to go back there...

Am I just behind the times? I thought 2,3GHz would be adequate.

Are there other ways in which I can improve my system's performance?

I'm running an SSD, I don't think I can increase my RAM, and I am fully 64 bit at this moment.

There's not much else you can really do except freeze or choose less CPU intensive synths I'm afraid. All of those you list can be rather heavy on the CPU usage it looks like.

There's also no need to run it at 32 or even 64 samples.
If you're not playing live on top of it (and are unfamiliar with direct monitoring) or you aren't doing recording sessions, there isn't a reason to set your recording latency lower than a blink of the eye.
Trying to mix heavy synths? Crank up those samples.
Not going to change anything to whatever is playing? Freeze or resample it.

Just buy a used 2010 Mac Pro 5.1 and future proof yourself for the next 5 years.

those are useful points, thanks

re:dream wrote:Hi all

I need some advice about my hardware setup.

At the moment I am running on a late 2012 Mac Mini, 2,3 Ghz with 8 gig of RAM
I have swapped out the hard drive for a 1 Tb SSD drive.

I still find that some synths (u-He's Bazille, Madrona Labs's Aalto & Kaivo; even Wavetable!) cause things to glitch and stutter terribly

I've looked at my local computer store; their middle of the range Mac Mini runs at 2,6 GhZ, which does not look much faster.

What can I do to avoid processing power limitations when running resource heavy synths? Is freezing the only possibility, or is there some way of using my existing processing power more efficiently?

Is 2,3 GHz underpowered?

Unless you have one of the few 4-core Mac Minis I'd suggest moving to that if you can find one. If you're keen to open it up you could get such a mother board and replace it too.

However, I can recommend the Hackintosh way. Just build one of the verified models found in places like tonymacx86. You could get a quadcore for $5-600 typically, depending on your local circumstances. Bigger than a mini, but not like a full desktop.

re:dream wrote:I can't afford an iMac.

And I am reluctant to switch to PC. I come from a PC background, so I am familiar with Windows. I just don't want to go back there...

Am I just behind the times? I thought 2,3GHz would be adequate.

Are there other ways in which I can improve my system's performance?

I'm running an SSD, I don't think I can increase my RAM, and I am fully 64 bit at this moment.

If you plan on using modern VSTis, then yes 2.3 Ghz is underpowered. Although the number of cores also makes a difference than just raw speed. A 2.3 Ghz quad core is probably fine wheras a 2.3 dual core is probably not enough.

I have a 2014 MacBook Air (dual core i7, probably a similar CPU to yours) and yes it is underpowered. I wouldn't even consider putting DIVA on it and some NI Reaktor apps like Polyplex barely even load.

Whereas on my Quad Core Imac, I don't have CPU issues (nothing to write home about).



I owned a 2012 Mac Mini, (Quad Core processor about 2.8 GHz, I think) and it was a pretty decent machine and performed well, and for an Apple product it had a decent bang for buck (a nice processor with SSD drive minus hardware and the ability to run OSX). It actually wasn't a low end Mac for that price as you did have to buy a Monitor, DVD burner separately. Unfortunately these are Apple's less promoted boxes which has about a two year upgrade cycle. I was planning on getting a 2014 Mac Mini but when Apple showcased it, they actually took away cores from the Processor and took away the ability to field upgrade the Ram. I went with a Imac instead for much more money as I know from just purchasing an MacBook Air a Dual Core wouldn't cut it for a modern VSTi workstation.


It is a shame really.


That said if you don't plan on like spending like $2000 or more for an Apple machine (or buying used or using a student discount), IMO you are better off going PC. Their low end models are really that low end. Once you pay about $1000 for a PC box you are usually stepping in the nicer end of PC hardware where on the Macs you are still in the low end stuff.


For music (using modern VSTis) you will want either a iMac or MacBook Pro at minimum. If you are just recording a live band, then a lower end Mac would probably work fine as CPU use is less important but more Hard Drive Speed, Space, and Audio Interface drivers which a lower end Mac probably should suit you.

If you are just using older VSTis like Sylenth or VSTis whose aim is efficient CPU use like Hive, then you would be fine with a lower end Mac.



That said for the price of a low end Mac, you would probably get a decent enough PC to handle your needs as PCs don't tend to skimp on Processing power unless you are truly going for a very cheap machine. The main thing is just doing your homework with a PC and not trying to cut too many corners on price.

the new iMacs are sick.

just sayin.

ok wait... just gonna say more...

i just had a look at the googles and this site to get some prices. if you don't go for the full 27" iMac and opt for the 21.5 instead. you can get a quad core around the $1000 dollar range.


https://www.bestbuy.com/site/apple-21-5 ... Id=4881100

*if you do use that site; note there is a button for processor speed. 3.0 at quad core should be pretty viable IMO.

re:dream wrote:Hi all

I've looked at my local computer store; their middle of the range Mac Mini runs at 2,6 GhZ, which does not look much faster.

Is 2,3 GHz underpowered?

you cannot make comparisons based upon clock speed alone...

is your Mac Mini a dual-core or quad-core? all the current range of Mac Mini's are dual-core, which are less powerful than older quad-core Minis.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/se ... core_score

Thanks for all this information!

It appears that mine is one of the 2012 quad-core machines

It says on Apple's website that it is configurable to a 2.6GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 with a "Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz".

The hackintosh options also look interesting. I will check what one can get here in South Africa

Hold off for 3 more months. New line of macs expected sometime this year.
I'm running the 2012 Mini too. Apple made crap computers for the last 6 years but might be back on track if the latest iMac is something to go by.
A modular Mac Pro is expected to be announced, hopefully at WWDC.

hoffman2k wrote:Hold off for 3 more months. New line of macs expected sometime this year.
I'm running the 2012 Mini too. Apple made crap computers for the last 6 years but might be back on track if the latest iMac is something to go by.
A modular Mac Pro is expected to be announced, hopefully at WWDC.

Certainly not even near Mac Mini prices. We're talking realistically $10,000 a piece (>>Please understand I've corrected this estimate in this post<<). You want him to wait for that?