|
|
Post by MorEQsThanAnswers on Aug 1, 2019 15:27:21 GMT -6
Can anybody speak to if the RAM or the number of cores has a greater impact on the computer's ability to run big sessions without crashing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Aug 1, 2019 18:01:12 GMT -6
Sonnet makes a 1u chassis that is TB3 for the new mini btw. Cool, but HDX firmware does not yet work with TB3
Are you refering to the xMac Mini Server rack? Looks pretty cool. Seems it operates on TB2, which could have worked with HDX. I will look into this for the next rig I build around the Mini
How does TB3 not work with HDX? or are you using the thunderbolt hdx interface? Either way could use an adapter Can anybody speak to if the RAM or the number of cores has a greater impact on the computer's ability to run big sessions without crashing? Sort of both. Most days load audio into ram to use now. But if you are native and running a lot of plugins and VIs then you need ram and cpu. More RAM and single core speed will be more important |
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Aug 2, 2019 1:29:55 GMT -6
Can anybody speak to if the RAM or the number of cores has a greater impact on the computer's ability to run big sessions without crashing? I'd look to RAM myself. Note that for years pro studios were running with dual core CPU chipsets. |
|
|
|
Post by NoTomorrow on Aug 2, 2019 1:58:33 GMT -6
Can anybody speak to if the RAM or the number of cores has a greater impact on the computer's ability to run big sessions without crashing? Cores will have a much bigger impact when running large sessions if you're talking about tracks/plugins. 16 or 32gb RAM is fine for running even large sessions of audio tracks with 'some' virtual instruments. You may need more RAM if you're loading really large sample based Orchestral libraries along with many, many other virtual instruments tracks. Also, using a Memory manager app that runs in the background (Mem Cleaner X or Memory Diag) to clear out zombie memory when closing large applications etc. is a good idea. If you're mixing large sessions make sure to close all other apps, use one of the memory apps to free up all zombie RAM and you'll be good. SSD drives are also a must. |
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Aug 2, 2019 8:21:31 GMT -6
Cool, but HDX firmware does not yet work with TB3
Are you refering to the xMac Mini Server rack? Looks pretty cool. Seems it operates on TB2, which could have worked with HDX. I will look into this for the next rig I build around the Mini
How does TB3 not work with HDX? or are you using the thunderbolt hdx interface? Either way could use an adapter
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 2, 2019 8:47:24 GMT -6
I still don’t really understand the i5, i7, i9 thing...with 6 cores, would an i5 be ok?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 2, 2019 8:53:33 GMT -6
Surely, a 3 gHz 6 core i5 with 32gb ram would be better than my 2012.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Aug 2, 2019 9:03:56 GMT -6
How does TB3 not work with HDX? or are you using the thunderbolt hdx interface? Either way could use an adapter
Did not know that. Interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 2, 2019 9:18:41 GMT -6
Can anybody speak to if the RAM or the number of cores has a greater impact on the computer's ability to run big sessions without crashing? Layman's explanation: Cores are just parallel hardware processing paths. The software you're using needs to define whether or not it can utilize multiple cores at a single time by breaking up things it needs done into "threads". Some processors are able to further break the processing down into multiple paths in each core, called "Hyperthreading". Some things can't be turned into multiple threads, some things can't be done across multiple cores. Sometimes it's faster to actually use a single thread on a single core at a higher CPU clock speed than to try to break it down into parallel threads. Sometimes the softwares aren't designed to use more than a single core or multiple cores. If something was designed to be able to run on 4 cores with 8 threads, then having a 16 core processor won't add a single thing, but higher clock speed would certainly help. So it's best to determine if you can use all the cores with your chosen software. Chances are, no. Also, in windows you can assign cores to certain tasks, so sometimes you can assign parked(unused) cores to certain programs to free up more cpu time, etc. Don't know if you can do anything like that in a mac. Sometimes programs will claim to do hyperthreading, but they'll only do certain tasks with it and the majority of their CPU time will be spent on fewer cores than are available, called "core affinity". it's usually a case of the software system was built around single cores but certain processing is added later that can use multiple cores. In this case, you're still bottlenecked by the legacy code that runs singlethreaded. However, everything in the machine uses system ram. Ram is much, much faster than reading from a SSD/HDD, so you save a lot of time by having lots of ram available, up to a point, and then it's just overkill. Time and time again tests in the A/V world have shown that CPU clock speed and the proper amount of available cores are much better than a system with slower speed and more cores, but more ram does not make a slower system with more cores contend with the faster system with fewer cores. To that end, I'd rather go with something like a faster I5/I7 (4 cores, 8 threads) with more ram than an I9 or anything with 8 cores or more. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 2, 2019 11:40:53 GMT -6
BTW - does any place online do no tax?
|
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Aug 2, 2019 13:14:53 GMT -6
FYI... My iMac that I run sessions on it a four core i5 with 40GB ram. I rarely have an issue. I don't run V.I.s that much but I'm solely using plugins and I tend to have a ton of Aux tracks with plugs loaded ready to go.
My 2011 MPB has the top line i7 from that year. The thing gets so hot it sounds like an airplane and I've stopped using it for audio production. Had to replace the logic board twice and it still gives me issues. I'd imagine the newer chips to handle heat better, but part of my decision to go with an i5 was because of that experience.
Video is different, but I'd say for audio single core speed can have a bigger impact. This is just based on my own experiments and discussions with the owner of audio workstation builder ADK, who I previously used for a PC build before switching to Mac. That PC still runs fine and it's a Duo Core pentium. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by NoTomorrow on Aug 2, 2019 13:28:32 GMT -6
For running large track counts like MorEQsThanAnswers question above, CPU/cores and processor power is what will give your computer the muscle to handle these sessions.
In my first post above I didn’t mean just ‘cores’, but the CPU/cores.
I was assuming by big sessions that you meant like 60-120 tracks. So when you’re putting plugins on all of the single channels, plugins on the busses/auxes, plugins on the Master Bus… you’re talking about real-time processing. This is directly handled by your CPU.
Most modern DAWs on Mac can take advantage of all the cores available to them. I can’t say ALL, but Logic, Pro Tools, Reaper and Ableton do. I have heard some people bitch about the way Cubase parses it’s operations on Mac multicore, but I don’t have Cubase so I don’t know.
Have you guys ever had Pro Tools or Logic sieze up during a session with the message ‘you’ve run out of RAM’? I haven’t and don’t know anyone who has. Even on my last Imac with 16gb RAM running pretty large sessions (40-50 tracks) I’ve never encountered such an error. Sessions typically sieze up when they run out of CPU cycles/processing cores… not from running out of RAM.
RAM can be reclaimed by you, the user, at any time by closing other applications and clearing the memory cache. Then all of your RAM is available to your DAW. Many VIs, such as Superior Drummer 3, even allow you to use the in-plugin caching feature if you need to reclaim live RAM. So what I’m saying is that RAM is manageable to a degree whereas your CPU you are stuck with.
Often in each respective DAW’s documentation you will find verbiage about the extra efficiency you get from more cores/more powerful CPU- especially for higher track counts. There are also many forum posts on the various DAW forums about just this question.
I’m not saying you don’t need RAM, you do… but maxing out your RAM is more of a luxury in terms of an audio machine,… allowing you to keep multiple apps open, keep a browser with 35 tabs open, load huge numbers of sample-based VIs with abandon etc.
But when you’re on a tight budget and are specifically concerned about large track count sessions, get 16gb RAM and put the rest of your money toward the best processor you can afford.
I do agree with Svart that there is a sweet spot with RAM and CPU/cores that is dependent on what kind of sessions you run.
If you are doing tons of Virtual Instruments with massive track counts then RAM will indeed make a big difference in that case because of it’s access speed.
But even in that situation, with today’s Thunderbolt 3 ports and their incredible throughput in conjunction with a quality external SSD (Samsung or Crucial)- you would be hard pressed to ever over saturate that drive or T3 port. Streaming large numbers of samples direct from disk is easily possible over T3 with SSDs.
My 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoTomorrow on Aug 2, 2019 13:40:09 GMT -6
Surely, a 3 gHz 6 core i5 with 32gb ram would be better than my 2012. If you're spending the money on a new machine I would get at least the i7 processor. It will make a noticeable difference.... somewhere between 20-50% more plugins in a given session. |
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Aug 2, 2019 14:01:23 GMT -6
BTW - does any place online do no tax? B&H. (Unless Tennessee mandates it.) |
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Aug 4, 2019 17:42:19 GMT -6
Surely, a 3 gHz 6 core i5 with 32gb ram would be better than my 2012. 100%. I'm running the base i5 with 8GB ram and have not had an issue. Boots about 10x faster than my 2012 as well. A few VI instances and some native plugins. Haven't had to think about it yet though. That's been since April-ish this year. Edit: should add you definitely want an SSD with this config. |
|
