PDA

View Full Version : Mac 8 Core or 2 PC..?


edmond
05-29-2008, 01:14 PM
Hi,
I'm a new member, who's got SO, RA SChoirs and Bösendorfer Piano (Bundle).
I have another virtual instrument, Broadway Big Band that sounds great too.
All running in Cubase 4.
I have to buy or build a new machine, I don't know what to do: buy a 8 Core Mac Pro in which i'll add 16 gig ram, or build one or two PCs say, with Q6600 in each, and so on...

Is it possible to have a speedy network with that 2 PCs, with few latency, so fast as the Mac is (supposed to be)?

I already built PC but I should prefer make music instead of making pc ;)

What solution gives best results, FX Teleport..?

Any advice will be much appreciated:)

Thanks in advance,

Edmond

A.Leung
05-29-2008, 01:55 PM
stay in one computer. Get the fastest mac you can. You'll be making music sooner and quicker than strugging with a computer 'network'

If you DO decide on a 'farm' two PC's will work with FXT but a Mac and PC wont. FXT has still not been ported over to Mac. If you go Mac and PC then MOL (Midi Overlan) will work for midi going back and forth and LitePipe is a good way to get audio across your platforms.

edmond
05-29-2008, 02:17 PM
Thanks for the quick answer Allan!
I'll place an order tomorrow ;-)
Cheers,
Edmond

MellotronGhost
05-29-2008, 04:28 PM
i would not mess around with multiple computers unless you find out that the fastest available system is still not enough for your needs. start with one strong machine. it will be way easier to set up and get going than anything else. simplicity is worth a lot. it saves time and money.
later you always van add on, but start with one, the best you can afford for now.
a mac pro with 8 cores already has a lot to offer.

kdm
05-29-2008, 08:17 PM
Edmond - I would investigate some Cubase 4/Mac user reports, and Mac vs. XP low latency performance reports in general (Mac/Logic users feel free to chime in).

What I'm hearing so far from knowledgeable techs and users doing some extensive testing OSX vs. XP are finding OSX not running well as at low latency as XP on the same hardware (e.g. XP via bootcamp), at least with Cubase/Nuendo. (I don't know if that extends to Logic and DP, but it's worth looking into, esp. since you listed Cubase 4 as your DAW). Any gains of running one system might be offset if you have to drop from 1.5ms to 6ms just to run everything locally. I don't know this would be the case for certain - just suggesting some research.

I had considered moving to a Mac to take advantage of more memory, at least down the road when all apps can, but I don't think it will buy you anything with Cubase 4 at the moment. However, I can build two single quad machines for pretty much the cost of a dual quad Mac (that effectively are more than twice the capabilities of a single dual quad PC or Mac, since drives/bussing are separate and there isn't a scaling limitation that dual quads seem to exhibit in some cases). The caveat in my config is the cost of extra interfaces (FXT seems to run well for some, but the less cpu loading on the host, the more flexibility there is - my preference at least).

For me, the best solution (and most cost/performance effective) is still multiple PCs and will be for a while (a farm of single quads with SATA drives and 4G, or 8G if you are running WinXP 64 is a nice solution if you find drivers for everything under XP64). The advantage imho is stability of not loading the host system to the max, esp. for orchestral work, and having the large libraries loaded once a day, rather than for each project. Just my impression and experience here, but investigate and go with what will work best for you - there are pros and cons each way that vary from person to person.

Regards,
Dedric

edmond
05-30-2008, 09:03 AM
.................................................. .........
For me, the best solution (and most cost/performance effective) is still multiple PCs and will be for a while (a farm of single quads with SATA drives and 4G, or 8G if you are running WinXP 64 is a nice solution if you find drivers for everything under XP64). The advantage imho is stability of not loading the host system to the max, esp. for orchestral work, and having the large libraries loaded once a day, rather than for each project. Just my impression and experience here, but investigate and go with what will work best for you - there are pros and cons each way that vary from person to person.

Regards,
Dedric

Hi,
Everybody's experience is priceless and I thank you all.
The most important argument will be around Play: I read in the FAQ for Mac, that it was possible to open many instances of Play in order to use a lot of ram, even if under Cubase 32 bits.
So, will it be possible to open several instances of Play, with S. Orchestra Platinum, even on a windows platform, though using cubase 32?
...many people say Cubase preview 64 is unstable...

Best,,
Edmond

edmond
05-31-2008, 03:45 AM
Hi,
Thanks all for these different considerations, that don't go the same way...it's very interesting though difficult for me making a choice..!

I think the most important thing is ram managing.
I read Play in a Mac can be opened many times to use the largest amount of ram, even if it is in a 32 bits host. I was told by friends Cubase 64 bits wasn't that stable, so the choice: Mac or a couple of PC depends on if i'll be able to use Cubase 32 bits or not with a lot of ram.
For example, when Play is available for SO, if I'm obliged to use Cubase 64 bits with Windows Vista 64 in order to use a lot of ram, I'll buy a Mac instantly...:D

If the Play edition for Symphonic Orchestra allow me to use stable Cubase 32bits+ a lot of ram+Vista 64 as it will do with a Mac...then...I don't know..! :confused:

One thing's for sure: I should like to play all my virtual instruments, whatever host (Cubase, Pro Tools...) I use.

Cheers,
Ed

edmond
05-31-2008, 03:13 PM
Thanks a lot for your answers. Different directions, but all interesting.
I'll tell you what I'll do.
Cheers,
Edmond