Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Anybody like a nice slow quad?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anybody like a nice slow quad? [message #82598 is a reply to message #82595] |
Wed, 04 April 2007 07:58   |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chris can correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the issues I've heard about
with dual quads was
with Nuendo not scaling to take full advantage of all cores - this was with
some intense benchmark testing,
not just normal use, and I haven't actually heard if there are any scaling
issues with DP, Logic, etc.
That maybe somewhat architecture related (or so Chris seems to be implying).
Quads are still fast, just perhaps not as fast
as they could be.
Gene - when Logic 8 is out (any word?), and you get a chance to test with a
dual quad, I would be interested in
hearing the results with running orchestral libraries. I'm adding another
PC at the moment for just that purpose,
and while running it all on one system is somewhat appealing, I am guessing
we may still have reason to keep and extra
one or two systems around to share the load - the libraries aren't getting
smaller. The ability to run everything at low
latency for me surpasses any inconvenience of multiple systems (mainly the
extra licenses), esp. since Nuendo can
run them as external instruments with multiple live inputs.
Also, what is your opinion of DP vs. Nuendo and Logic? Just curious.
Regards,
Dedric
"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4613b682$1@linux...
>
> We certainly have different perspectives. My Quad core MacPro has been
> problem
> free and lighting fast both in OSX and under Bootcamp. Last month when I
> was away, I got to play with a Pro that had the CPUs upgraded to the Quads
> X 2 (essentially exactly the same machine as the new 8-Core) Digital
> Performer
> (my primary app) used all 8 cores and ran like a gazelle. When switched to
> Bootcamp, Nuendo (demo) also seemed to run exceptionally fast, although we
> did not check for processor leveling.
>
> I never met a perfect computer. I'm just happy to find a box that is fast
> and reliable and hopefully capable of reducing the total number of
> computers
> I run when working on extremely large projects. My Quad Pro is fast, but
> when doing orchestral work, I still need at least one or two additional
> computers.
> The 8-core and Logic 8 may finally allow me to do very large track count
> projects and still have multi-instrument orchestral samples playing
> un-rendered
> in real time. That is a specific goal I have been trying to achieve for
> several
> years, as I typically like to add orchestral sweetening at the last stages
> of a production / arrangement.
>
>
> Gene
>
>
> Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>HI Gene,
>>Awesome!
>>Now we all get to wait for Intel to fix all the memory and buss
>>bottlenecks in next years chip set version. They are doing a AMD type
>>Hyper Transport buss/memory system. Then you should see the 8 core
>>really shine. When the new chip set design comes out will just need to
>>swap the motherboard and be good to go. Oh wait ....:)
>>Of course maybe by that time all these tiny little audio and video
>>software and hardware companies will have rewritten their applications
>>to be fully 64 bit too....not.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>Gene Lennon wrote:
>>> http://www.apple.com/macpro/
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Chris Ludwig
>>ADK
>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>(859) 635-5762
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anybody like a nice slow quad? [message #82600 is a reply to message #82598] |
Wed, 04 April 2007 08:14 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
probably not till june when 10.5 is slated for release. they have
also put the cross grades back up for sale, again due to the delayed
10.5 intro.
i'll defer to gene on the merits of your last question but logic does
use less cpu recourses that dp in my experience.
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 08:58:11 -0600, "Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com>
wrote:
>Chris can correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the issues I've heard about
>with dual quads was
>with Nuendo not scaling to take full advantage of all cores - this was with
>some intense benchmark testing,
>not just normal use, and I haven't actually heard if there are any scaling
>issues with DP, Logic, etc.
>
>That maybe somewhat architecture related (or so Chris seems to be implying).
>Quads are still fast, just perhaps not as fast
>as they could be.
>
>Gene - when Logic 8 is out (any word?), and you get a chance to test with a
>dual quad, I would be interested in
>hearing the results with running orchestral libraries. I'm adding another
>PC at the moment for just that purpose,
>and while running it all on one system is somewhat appealing, I am guessing
>we may still have reason to keep and extra
>one or two systems around to share the load - the libraries aren't getting
>smaller. The ability to run everything at low
>latency for me surpasses any inconvenience of multiple systems (mainly the
>extra licenses), esp. since Nuendo can
>run them as external instruments with multiple live inputs.
>
>Also, what is your opinion of DP vs. Nuendo and Logic? Just curious.
>
>Regards,
>Dedric
>
>"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:4613b682$1@linux...
>>
>> We certainly have different perspectives. My Quad core MacPro has been
>> problem
>> free and lighting fast both in OSX and under Bootcamp. Last month when I
>> was away, I got to play with a Pro that had the CPUs upgraded to the Quads
>> X 2 (essentially exactly the same machine as the new 8-Core) Digital
>> Performer
>> (my primary app) used all 8 cores and ran like a gazelle. When switched to
>> Bootcamp, Nuendo (demo) also seemed to run exceptionally fast, although we
>> did not check for processor leveling.
>>
>> I never met a perfect computer. I'm just happy to find a box that is fast
>> and reliable and hopefully capable of reducing the total number of
>> computers
>> I run when working on extremely large projects. My Quad Pro is fast, but
>> when doing orchestral work, I still need at least one or two additional
>> computers.
>> The 8-core and Logic 8 may finally allow me to do very large track count
>> projects and still have multi-instrument orchestral samples playing
>> un-rendered
>> in real time. That is a specific goal I have been trying to achieve for
>> several
>> years, as I typically like to add orchestral sweetening at the last stages
>> of a production / arrangement.
>>
>>
>> Gene
>>
>>
>> Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>>>HI Gene,
>>>Awesome!
>>>Now we all get to wait for Intel to fix all the memory and buss
>>>bottlenecks in next years chip set version. They are doing a AMD type
>>>Hyper Transport buss/memory system. Then you should see the 8 core
>>>really shine. When the new chip set design comes out will just need to
>>>swap the motherboard and be good to go. Oh wait ....:)
>>>Of course maybe by that time all these tiny little audio and video
>>>software and hardware companies will have rewritten their applications
>>>to be fully 64 bit too....not.
>>>
>>>Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>Gene Lennon wrote:
>>>> http://www.apple.com/macpro/
>>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Chris Ludwig
>>>ADK
>>>chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>>www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>>(859) 635-5762
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anybody like a nice slow quad? [message #82615 is a reply to message #82611] |
Wed, 04 April 2007 12:32 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>Hi Gene,
>
>Gene Lennon wrote:
>> We certainly have different perspectives.
>Apples and Oranges? or Apples and Lemons HA
>
>My Quad core MacPro has been problem
>> free and lighting fast both in OSX and under Bootcamp. Last month when
I
>> was away, I got to play with a Pro that had the CPUs upgraded to the Quads
>> X 2 (essentially exactly the same machine as the new 8-Core) Digital Performer
>> (my primary app) used all 8 cores and ran like a gazelle. When switched
to
>> Bootcamp, Nuendo (demo) also seemed to run exceptionally fast, although
we
>> did not check for processor leveling.
>>
>The problems have nothing directly o do with Apple or Microsoft. It's
>Intels shortcut for the the architecture used with the 5000x chip sets.
>Although not a show stopper by any means it is not letting the CPU reach
>their full potential in speed especially when a system is fully loaded
>with hardware. The big issues on the PC OS side is that XP was never
>coded to take good advantage of 8 cores whether it be 64bit versions or
not.
>Vista works better with the 8 cores but comes with its own set of issues
>that I'm sure we are both aware of. :)
>
>The CPUs themselves are fast as hell the bottleneck is happening with
>the north bridge/south bridge controller parts. OSX is handling it
>better for sure.
>
>With Nuendo on the PC most people don't notice the performance loss
>unless they are running very low latencies i.e. 256 or less. Nuendo is
>much faster on the 8 cores of course but it should be considerably
>faster. It seem to be a very Cubase/Nuendo based. No other applications
>I've have tested acted this way. I got better low latency and cpu load
>performance out of Samplitude, Sonar and Reaper with similar sized
>projects.
>
>
>> I never met a perfect computer. I’m just happy to find a box that is fast
>> and reliable and hopefully capable of reducing the total number of computers
>> I run when working on extremely large projects. My Quad Pro is fast, but
>> when doing orchestral work, I still need at least one or two additional
computers.
>> The 8-core and Logic 8 may finally allow me to do very large track count
>> projects and still have multi-instrument orchestral samples playing un-rendered
>> in real time. That is a specific goal I have been trying to achieve for
several
>> years, as I typically like to add orchestral sweetening at the last stages
>> of a production / arrangement.
>>
>I hear that. I've been happy sense using XP64 and being able to use more
>ram. Of course still not more than 4 gigs because of lazy software
>coders but I've got no control of that. Being able to address more ram
>has always been a big factor for Apple with the big boost in speed from
>the Intel hardware and the amount of ram that be used on that hardware
>is awesome. I've always hated the ram limitations in windows sense i
>started dealing with soft samplers. Gigastudio was always a lame program
>to have to deal with. It's even worse sense Asscam took it over. With
>the new faster hardware using a MAC for large Orchestral stuff will be
>the best way to go for sure.
>
>
>>
>> Gene
>
>
>PS - We are actually going to be Apple resellers soon so we have all the
>bases covered :)
>Shud Up McCloskey!!
>>
>>
>
>--
>Chris Ludwig
>
>ADK Pro Audio
>(859) 635-5762
>www.adkproaudio.com
>chrisl@adkproaudio.com
That would be, shut up Mr. McCloskey, to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Anybody like a nice slow quad? [message #82619 is a reply to message #82615] |
Wed, 04 April 2007 14:53 |
Chris Ludwig
Messages: 868
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yes Sir!!
:)
James McCloskey wrote:
> Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>> Hi Gene,
>>
>> Gene Lennon wrote:
>>> We certainly have different perspectives.
>> Apples and Oranges? or Apples and Lemons HA
>>
>> My Quad core MacPro has been problem
>>> free and lighting fast both in OSX and under Bootcamp. Last month when
> I
>>> was away, I got to play with a Pro that had the CPUs upgraded to the Quads
>>> X 2 (essentially exactly the same machine as the new 8-Core) Digital Performer
>>> (my primary app) used all 8 cores and ran like a gazelle. When switched
> to
>>> Bootcamp, Nuendo (demo) also seemed to run exceptionally fast, although
> we
>>> did not check for processor leveling.
>>>
>> The problems have nothing directly o do with Apple or Microsoft. It's
>> Intels shortcut for the the architecture used with the 5000x chip sets.
>
>> Although not a show stopper by any means it is not letting the CPU reach
>
>> their full potential in speed especially when a system is fully loaded
>> with hardware. The big issues on the PC OS side is that XP was never
>> coded to take good advantage of 8 cores whether it be 64bit versions or
> not.
>> Vista works better with the 8 cores but comes with its own set of issues
>
>> that I'm sure we are both aware of. :)
>>
>> The CPUs themselves are fast as hell the bottleneck is happening with
>> the north bridge/south bridge controller parts. OSX is handling it
>> better for sure.
>>
>> With Nuendo on the PC most people don't notice the performance loss
>> unless they are running very low latencies i.e. 256 or less. Nuendo is
>> much faster on the 8 cores of course but it should be considerably
>> faster. It seem to be a very Cubase/Nuendo based. No other applications
>
>> I've have tested acted this way. I got better low latency and cpu load
>
>> performance out of Samplitude, Sonar and Reaper with similar sized
>> projects.
>>
>>
>>> I never met a perfect computer. I’m just happy to find a box that is fast
>>> and reliable and hopefully capable of reducing the total number of computers
>>> I run when working on extremely large projects. My Quad Pro is fast, but
>>> when doing orchestral work, I still need at least one or two additional
> computers.
>>> The 8-core and Logic 8 may finally allow me to do very large track count
>>> projects and still have multi-instrument orchestral samples playing un-rendered
>>> in real time. That is a specific goal I have been trying to achieve for
> several
>>> years, as I typically like to add orchestral sweetening at the last stages
>>> of a production / arrangement.
>>>
>> I hear that. I've been happy sense using XP64 and being able to use more
>
>> ram. Of course still not more than 4 gigs because of lazy software
>> coders but I've got no control of that. Being able to address more ram
>> has always been a big factor for Apple with the big boost in speed from
>
>> the Intel hardware and the amount of ram that be used on that hardware
>> is awesome. I've always hated the ram limitations in windows sense i
>> started dealing with soft samplers. Gigastudio was always a lame program
>
>> to have to deal with. It's even worse sense Asscam took it over. With
>> the new faster hardware using a MAC for large Orchestral stuff will be
>> the best way to go for sure.
>>
>>
>>> Gene
>>
>> PS - We are actually going to be Apple resellers soon so we have all the
>
>> bases covered :)
>> Shud Up McCloskey!!
>>>
>> --
>> Chris Ludwig
>>
>> ADK Pro Audio
>> (859) 635-5762
>> www.adkproaudio.com
>> chrisl@adkproaudio.com
>
> That would be, shut up Mr. McCloskey, to you.
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK Pro Audio
(859) 635-5762
www.adkproaudio.com
chrisl@adkproaudio.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Dec 01 18:20:35 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02278 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
