| Nuendo on OSX vs. XP [message #93159] |
Wed, 28 November 2007 15:10  |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C831D9.2514E610
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A Nuendo 4 Mac user recently posted some test results on OSX vs. XP on =
the same MacPro (2.66Ghz, 3G Ram):
On the Mac he put Nuendo multiband comps (heavy cpu usage) and EQs on =
all channels for up to 32 channels and
the cpu was at 90% with stutters and slow GUI response at 1024 sample =
buffers. (N4 is now 64-bit for OSX).
On the WinXP partition, same project ran 85% at 1024 with no glitches =
and smooth response. He dropped latency to
512 samples and cpu went to 90% but still smooth response and playback.
Not trying to start a Mac vs. PC thing at all - purely a real world =
technical comparison. I've always been interested in a head to head of =
operating systems. Also take it for what its' worth until more tests =
come in.
At the moment, from all of the tests I've seen, it looks like XP can =
handle the highest load/cpu utilization of Vista, XP and OSX.
No way of knowing where Linux would compare.
Just an interesting fyi. It's not a huge difference, but even at 5-6% =
increase it's more than the difference between XP and Vista.
For some users it may be worth noting - esp. GUI responsiveness - for =
others, not a big deal.
I was actually hoping there would be no difference, but I figured OSX =
and Vista would be closer in performance due to the extra
graphics overhead and integrated tools/apps. =20
Regards,
Dedric
------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C831D9.2514E610
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16546" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>A Nuendo 4 Mac user recently =
posted some test=20
results on OSX vs. XP on the same MacPro (2.66Ghz, 3G Ram):<BR><BR>On =
the Mac he=20
put Nuendo multiband comps (heavy cpu usage) and EQs on all =
channels for up=20
to 32 channels and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>the cpu was at 90% with stutters and =
slow GUI=20
response at 1024 sample buffers. (N4 is now 64-bit for=20
OSX).</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV><BR>On the WinXP partition, same project ran 85% at 1024 with no =
glitches=20
and smooth response. He dropped latency to</DIV>
<DIV>512 samples and cpu went to 90% but still smooth response and=20
playback.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Not trying to start a Mac vs. PC thing at all - purely a =
real=20
world technical comparison. I've always been interested in a head =
to head=20
of operating systems. Also take it for what its' worth until more =
tests=20
come in.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At the moment, from all of the tests I've seen, it looks like=20
XP can handle the highest load/cpu utilization of Vista, XP =
and=20
OSX.</DIV>
<DIV>No way of knowing where Linux would compare.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just an interesting fyi. It's not a huge difference, but even =
at 5-6%=20
increase it's more than the difference between XP and Vista.</DIV>
<DIV>For some users it may be worth noting - esp. GUI=20
responsiveness - for others, not a big deal.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>I was actually hoping there would be no difference, but I =
figured OSX=20
and Vista would be closer in performance due to the extra</DIV>
<DIV>graphics overhead and integrated tools/apps. =
</FONT></DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV><BR>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV>Dedric<BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00B0_01C831D9.2514E610--
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
