which mac pro to buy? 6 core, 8 core or 12 core?

[73grad]

Hi!
I found this thread:
https://help.ableton.com/hc/en-us/artic ... ndling-FAQ

My question: Would an 8 core Mac Pro with 3,5 ghz be better than a 12 core with 2,7 ghz?
I am confused - here you can see that the benchmark of the 8 core is better than the 12 core.
https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks

what would you suggest to buy?

thanks in advance!!!!!!!

[mikb]

Hi!
I found this thread:
https://help.ableton.com/hc/en-us/artic ... ndling-FAQ

My question: Would an 8 core Mac Pro with 3,5 ghz be better than a 12 core with 2,7 ghz?
I am confused - here you can see that the benchmark of the 8 core is better than the 12 core.
https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks

All of this is pretty much assumptions, but in the spirit of starting to think about these tings: If the processors are the same otherwise, memory registers, cache size and such, then each core could, with an emphasis on could, be assumed to be about 23% faster.

Likely an 8-core with hyper-threading can serve about 16 tracks or less without having to add another track to one of the cores. Yes, hyper-threading, or virtual cores, means it is adding another track on the same physical core, but these threads are not running at the exact same time. They just seem to.

In contrast a 12-core, also with hyper-threading can serve 24 or less tracks before adding another track to the same core. That's 33% more work negating some of the speed differences.

Of course there is also some overhead in both cases, but my assumption is switching in other tracks that run in their own threads will be more costly with less cores compared to more hyper-threading virtual cores. And with more cores this happens later.

My suggestion is that for DAW work more cores (with hyper-threading) beats a 23% faster per core CPU with less cores, unless it's likely that one single track, likely with an instrument and heavy processing will break a single core. I think with the Intel W CPUs in the iMac Pros this is not very likely. With older Mac Pros this may not be so. The only way to know for sure is of course to some do some reliable multi-track tests and single track tests with Ableton Live.

The only thing that matters is how effective your DAW and plug-ins can utilise your processor. Multicore tests shows something of course, but you need to study overloading a CPU with even more concurrent tasks to gain deeper knowledge how a specific CPU will shine or not shine under heavy loads.

Another deeper test could be more geared towars what happens with more heavy load tracks that are within a single core capability, but when running out of cores another such track is added to a core already under heavy load. What if one needs more than 24 tracks and many plug-ins on each? How well will this specific CPU hold up?

We need some more technical know-how here. Hopefully I started your thoughts on something at least?

[Stromkraft]

I'm researching some 10 or 12-cores for a Hackintosh build I'm planning. Some CPUs are the same as in the 2013 Mac Pro Trash can, though not all. I've yet to find a useful metric to predict how Ableton Live can use more cores effectively. I have good hope more cores will be the answer to my occasional problems, but I guess this differs with what instruments one uses, what plug-ins, project sample rate, audio buffer settings and audio interface drivers to just name a few.

[73grad]

Yes! Great! Thank you for your detailed answer! That is very kind of you to take your time.

I want to use many tracks with a lot of plugins. Problem with my macbook pro 2015 is that the CPU is already over 30% when I just load a plugin like e.g. izotope Ozone. So my goal is to not think anymore about which plugin I use. Of course I can freeze tracks - but concering the mac pro I think the 12 Core is the better choice - right?