Apple claims 3x more plug-ins...

[Jordo]

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

The new G5 apple computers can play approx 3x more plug-ins than the Pentium 4....

thoughts?

[meroveus]

LOL! The plugins are all reverbs! :D
Probably specially coded to take advantage of the G5s.
If you want to run 200 reverb plugins then I guess a dual 2.7Ghz G5 is your machine. :p
If this wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

[Aaron Dirk]

if it can run 200 reverb plug-ins, then YES this will be my machine :)

[spectrum]

With all due respect to my many good friends at Apple/Emagic, I was really disappointed that they posted this totally bogus test today. It's embarassing for them to do this and I think they should pull it immediately.

To do an accurate test between real-world use of Macs and PCs, you obviously have to use the same software on both systems!!!

They don't even list the reverb plug-in they used to compare on the PC side. The Mac side is most likely Platinumverb on Logic 7, since this has become a kind of "de-facto" measuring standard for Mac processor performance....but of course, they couldn't have tested Platinumverb on the PC Cubase system....since Platinumverb is not a cross-platform VST plug-in!

But every reverb plug-in has wildly different CPU demands. To do an accurate test of processor performance, you'd need to do a fair A/B with the same plug-ins, same patches and same source....identical files.

They could have easily done this too. There are plenty of cross-platform reverb plugs and cross-platform hosts (Cubase SX, Ableton Live, Pro Tools, etc). Using cross platform software playing identical files is the only way to do a fair test.

I'm amazed that they would post that. They did a similar bogus test in a Macworld keynote with one of BTs songs and it crashed Cubase SX (just some silly theater that any pros rolled their eyes at)....but it's another thing entirely to post charts up like this in a kind of "scientific benchmarking" way. Lame beyond belief!

Can you imagine how many people would freak out if they didn't use photoshop on both systems for the graphic rendering tests?

The G5s are wonderful machines, and they don't need to resort to that unfair silliness to make them look great.

Disappointing.

spectrum

[Ned Bouhalassa]

True, Spectrum. Anyhow, we all know that it's not the number of plug-ins that counts... it's what you do with them! :p

[spectrum]

Looks like they removed the info that Cubase SX was used on the PC side....it was up there earlier today.

So now it looks even more ridiculous. Doesn't even say what was used for the PC side....except that they tested Logic 7.

Maybe that means they have Logic 7 for the PC side now?

Come on guys!

spectrum

[spectrum]

True, Spectrum. Anyhow, we all know that it's not the number of plug-ins that counts... it's what you do with them! :p

Absolutely!

spectrum

[Nick Batzdorf]

Actually, my reaction was that there's not much difference between a dual 2.3 and dual 2.7. :) So I just ordered a dual 2.5 refurb.

And I personally am not the least bit interested in running even a single Platinumverb! Trot out some real men's stuff if you're going to do a comparison. How many Waves IR1s can you run? Put up Kontakt 2 and see how many voices you get off the same disk subsystem.

[aplanchard]

[QUOTE=Nick Batzdorf]Actually, my reaction was that there's not much difference between a dual 2.3 and dual 2.7. :) So I just ordered a dual 2.5 refurb.

Where did you get it? I was thinking of doing the same thing.

[scottnorma]

They have refurb models at dealmac.com, among other places as well I suppose.

[Nick Batzdorf]

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71206/wo/wr2PoyJ1WONP2AUjexG1DDOvNsF/0.0.13.1.0.6.63.0.0.0.0.0.0.3.1.1.0?111,49

That's where I got it, aplanchard. It's at the top.

The only problem is that it comes with 10.3.4 - you have to send off for Tiger. I don't want to have to set up the new computer twice, but what can you do.

[SteveHanlon]

more refurbs here too

http://www.smalldog.com/category/x/x/Power+Macintosh/g5+minitower/wag100/wag10000/

[Samplecraze]

I think the very fact that they even did a comparable test reeks of bad taste and is tacky at the very least.

A bit like the sad election campaigns we are having here in the UK.......

[js33]

Power Mac G5 DUAL 2.5GHz/ 512MB/ 160GB/ 8x SuperDrive/ PCI-X/ Rad9600XT - Apple Certified

• Save 24% off the original price
Original price: $2,999.00
Your price: $2,299.00

That's not bad. 24% off but it is refurbished. :rolleyes:

Isn't the new 2.7Ghz machine just an overclocked version of the 2.5? Except with a Dual Layer DVD.

I thought Apple was gonna come out with a dual dual-core machine at 3Ghz as well as a Blue Ray DVD. Now that would have got me excited. But they didn't so I am not really excited now. :o

Cheers,
JS

[meroveus]

I think the very fact that they even did a comparable test reeks of bad taste and is tacky at the very least.

The Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field casts a pall over us all. ;)

[Scott Cairns]

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

The new G5 apple computers can play approx 3x more plug-ins than the Pentium 4....

thoughts?


Why on earth would they benchmark a G5 (which is dual cpu isnt it?) against a PIV?

Thats like benching a G4 mac against a Xeon..... :rolleyes:

[Daryl]

I think the very fact that they even did a comparable test reeks of bad taste and is tacky at the very least.

A bit like the sad election campaigns we are having here in the UK.......

I have no problem with comparison tests as long as they compare like with like. At least the Carillon tests used the same software...!

I think that apart from the people who are almost wedded to their computer, there are many people who don't care whether they use a PC or a Mac, just so long as it gets the job done.

Daryl

[Digital AudionetworX]

what a joke!

i just compared a AMD64 4000+ @ 2700mHz and it ouperformed a dual 2ghz by something like 32%. So i guess it would be as fast as a dual 2500 mhz G5.
i ussed only nuendo plug-ins for this.

do this with kontakt 1.5 and the G5 is even much slower, i would say even 45%

so it will be very interesting what comes out when in 2 month the dualcore amd64 are coming out.

espacially with nuendo and cubase which is mp optimized.


good morrning apple!

[MarkEdmonds]

There is something very screwy about some of those benchmarks. They actually have one dual Xeon result being slower than a single P4 at the same clock speed :confused:

They also used pre-production models for testing versus shipping units for the PCs. I wonder if pre-production means pre-prepared :)

For the video tests, they compared a pre-release Final Cut pro against Adobe Premiere, just like the music tests being on different hosts.

I'm not knocking the hardware here. Those G5s are probably excellent machines but when Apple resort to publishing bogus test results like this, you have to wonder how manipulated they are.

However, for some reason, they chose not to compare Cubase or Nuendo on both platforms which given they exist and are functional is a very strange oversight! This doesn't do Apple any favours.

Mark

[Bruce A. Richardson]

What can you say? Marketing devils rank right up there with realtors. Well-paid manipulators of truth.

[Michiel Post]

G5 apple computers can play approx 3x more plug-ins speaking of parallel universes...

may I propose a new company logo now?

http://www.ufo-hyway.com/resource/images/AlienYinYang.gif

[scottnorma]

...it will be very interesting what comes out when in 2 month the dualcore amd64 are coming out.

espacially with nuendo and cubase which is mp optimized.


good morrning apple!

The G5's are all going dual-core as well and Logic will be optimized for that right off the bat. I wouldn't count on crowing about bragging rights for too long.

[PaulR]

what a joke!
so it will be very interesting what comes out when in 2 month the dualcore amd64 are coming out.
espacially with nuendo and cubase which is mp optimized.
good morrning apple!

At the moment, a Mac is not really true duel core. Apparently Apple were hoping to get the 3.0 out which will be true duel core, but there have been holdups with the development. Maybe later in the year.

None of this comparison is of any matter though, because whether any of these platforms become 64bit or not, it is totally dependent on the whether the apps are 64 bit. i.e Logic and EXS24 or GS3.

Maybe Logic will go true 64 bit this year and then Ram will be less of an issue. Regarding GS3 being able to see more than 1 gig even with true 64 bit PC's - I wouldn't hold my breath.

[midphase]

Everyone is ganging up on Apple but other manufacturers have used the same exact tricks in the past.

This whole reaction reminds me a whole lot of the way Republicans react to some of the Democratic issues.

How come you guys don't do some complaints where it really counts? For example, there are pharmaceutical companies and energy reform lobbyists who use these types of bogus comparisons and studies all the time, surprisingly we all seem to be just fine with this type of behavior when it comes to our health or the environment!

[clonewar]

Everyone is ganging up on Apple but other manufacturers have used the same exact tricks in the past.

This whole reaction reminds me a whole lot of the way Republicans react to some of the Democratic issues.

How come you guys don't do some complaints where it really counts? For example, there are pharmaceutical companies and energy reform lobbyists who use these types of bogus comparisons and studies all the time, surprisingly we all seem to be just fine with this type of behavior when it comes to our health or the environment!

But you'd agree that Democrats also use these same tactics..

I've become accustomed to basically ignoring whatever marketing bs that manufacturers put on their sites.. ESPECIALLY head to head tests! I use the same rule for 'official' campaign sites..

[clonewar]

How about they find a plugin the uses SSE3 instructions and test that on a P4 Prescott or newer for the PC side. Wouldn't be pretty.. and it wouldn't be a fair apples to apples test either.. which is why Apple's test is such garbage. They did the same thing when the G4 was launched, comparing 6 Photoshop plugins on the Mac and PC side and finding that the Mac was xx percent faster. Of course this was released at a Mac convention to a screaming crowd. It caused a stir until it was revealed that the plugins on the Mac side had been rewritten for the G4 for that test and really weren't the same as the plugins on the PC side.

[scottnorma]

Everyone is ganging up on Apple but other manufacturers have used the same exact tricks in the past.
Right. It's selective outrage. When Gates and co. brag about some "innovation" that is old hat on the Mac, it doesn't seem to register on some people's radar. And just this week, an MS executive actually had the chutzpah to assert that Apple had gotten some of the features in Tiger from Longhorn! Sheesh, those MS guys may be rich, but they're still pretty insecure and intellectually dishonest, which is why they launched that annoying "Start something..." ad campaign on TV last week. If Bill Gates loses one percent of market share, the poor guy just won't be able to get a good night's sleep.

[midphase]

As I said, those tricks are used by most manufacturers. You guys keep mentioning Apple tricks, but to a casual reader this comes across as if they are the only culprits. This is how this discussion reminds me of the Republican attacks on other parties, they make it sound as if they have never done the same thing.

I'm not saying that this is right, I am just pointing out that most people on this thread seem to be singleing Apple out on the issue of hyped and tricked comparisons.

I think when it comes to price or CPU horsepower, Apple shouldn't try to compare itself to the PC crowd. For me using a Mac has never been about price or performance, it's always been about productivity. On a Mac I'm productive, on a PC I waste entire days and punch holes through the wall.

[scottnorma]

I remember about a year ago, maybe more, Dell came out with some phonied up "head to head" comparisons that conveniently served only to obfuscate. I don't know why these companies do this. The only people that *might* care about such a pissing match are also largely the same ones that know a bogus test when they see one.

[Digital AudionetworX]

The G5's are all going dual-core as well and Logic will be optimized for that right off the bat. I wouldn't count on crowing about bragging rights for too long.

yeah but when :)
apple just released thir "updated" G5´s with no big performance burst, less then 10% is actually nothing.

[scottnorma]

yeah but when :)
apple just released thir "updated" G5´s with no big performance burst, less then 10% is actually nothing.
Right. And these are probably just overclocked versions as well. They wanted a bit of a speed bump to be concurrent with the release of Tiger, that's all, just to tide people over for a few months until the dual core processors are ready. The developers already have dual core processing protocols in their development kits from Apple. I'd look for an announcement at the next conference/expo/convention, which if I'm not mistaken is held sometime in June.

[Digital AudionetworX]

I think when it comes to price or CPU horsepower, Apple shouldn't try to compare itself to the PC crowd. For me using a Mac has never been about price or performance, it's always been about productivity. On a Mac I'm productive, on a PC I waste entire days and punch holes through the wall.

in the first part i agree

for the second part: maybe you did not realised that win xp came out like 4 years ago???

xp is in my opinion much more stable then panther or tiger, and even if it fails you can get it back on running very fast because of a few features that are still missing in osx.

i get much more kernel panics because of bad implemented drivers then blue screens, even with gigastudio installed! :)

[Digital AudionetworX]

June.

june: annoucements
august: first machines are comming out
dezember: a few of the bad powersuplys etc. etc. have beeing replaced
april 2006: a new revision with better powersupplys is coming out soon
june 2006: the 5th revision is actually cool and works
juli: people are realising that the hardware its actually outdated

its allways the same :)

[scottnorma]

june: annoucements
august: first machines are comming out
dezember: a few of the bad powersuplys etc. etc. have beeing replaced
april 2006: a new revision with better powersupplys is coming out soon
june 2006: the 5th revision is actually cool and works
juli: people are realising that the hardware its actually outdated

its allways the same :)
If you say so.

[Nick Batzdorf]

xp is in my opinion much more stable then panther or tiger, and even if it fails you can get it back on running very fast because of a few features that are still missing in osx.


First I'm curious how you tested Tiger, which isn't even officially out yet.

I've run Panther all day long for almost a year and a half, and it's been extremely stable. My XP machines don't crash either, but they're only streaming slaves, so I can't really make a valid comparison.

But I'm curious what you mean.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Religious fervor is one of the most truly ugly things humanity has produced to date.

[Ouch that hurts]

Everyone is ganging up on Apple but other manufacturers have used the same exact tricks in the past.

This whole reaction reminds me a whole lot of the way Republicans react to some of the Democratic issues.

How come you guys don't do some complaints where it really counts? For example, there are pharmaceutical companies and energy reform lobbyists who use these types of bogus comparisons and studies all the time, surprisingly we all seem to be just fine with this type of behavior when it comes to our health or the environment!

Oh now that's really silly. This is a music technology forum, so people post things about music technology here! Does that seem so strange to you? And what makes you so confident you known exactly how we each react to bogus claims by pharmaceutical companies, and are "just fine with this behaviour"?

Someone posted (apparently innocently) something about a benchmark claim by Apple, that has turned out to be ludicrously meaningless and manipulated, and other have pointed out that fact. Why don't you just swallow it, instead of having recourse to spurious arguments about pharmaceutical companies! Why does Apple have to be above criticism, and all criticism taken as some kind of conspiracy?

FWIW, if somebody posted the same thing about Microsoft or Dell or whoever, I'd agree absolutely about how stupid it is. I don't care which company it is.

Actually I think all obsession with benchmarks is pretty silly and irrelevant, but that's another story.


As I said, those tricks are used by most manufacturers. You guys keep mentioning Apple tricks,

"Keep" mentioning? I check these boards pretty regularly, and I haven't seen any great tidal wave of posts about Apple "tricks" here! In fact this is probably the second one I've ever seen.

It's really not such a big deal - just people pointing out various things about how computer companies work, to help each other make buying decisions about computers. That's one reason why the forum exists, and there's nothing in the rules saying that such exchange of information can only be made about "all companies except Apple"!


but to a casual reader this comes across as if they are the only culprits.

I'm sorry but I see ABSOLUTELY nothing in the above posts suggesting that. Not ONCE has anybody claimed that this practise is restricted to Apple, or even that it's particularly more common with Apple. It just so happens that the instance of it that was brought up here, was one committed by Apple.

I really think your paranoia is running away with you. I don't read a "get Apple" campaign into any of this - just an honest and accurate reaction to one particular event. And all mixed up with posts praising the G5 as a great machine.


I think when it comes to price or CPU horsepower, Apple shouldn't try to compare itself to the PC crowd.

Agreed, absolutely. One of the points that was made above is that the G5 doesn't NEED this kind of false advertising, so Apple are doing themselves no favours with it. As one who obviously has a high regard for them, I'm sure you can see that they'd be better off just selling the G5 on its merits.

[clonewar]

Religious fervor is one of the most truly ugly things humanity has produced to date.

...Amen!..

[Looper]

For example, there are pharmaceutical companies and energy reform lobbyists who use these types of bogus comparisons and studies all the time, surprisingly we all seem to be just fine with this type of behavior when it comes to our health or the environment!

I agree but now we're talking about really important stuff. :D

[scottnorma]

Religious fervor is one of the most truly ugly things humanity has produced to date.
That, and rectal exams by a doctor with a smile on his face the whole time.

[MarkEdmonds]

Actually, I have to disagree - strongly - with the suggestion that Apple shouldn't publish directly comparable benchmarks. Why on earth not? There are at least two cross-platform hosts available, Nuendo and Cubase which could be used for this.

I am extremely interested in what this would show. This isn't because I sit on one side and like poking fun at other peoples' "way of life", it is because I am really curious from a computer design point of view as to how they compare.

Additionally, if Apple could show in an open and honest way to the more tech-savvy DAW people that their hardware really is a significant jump ahead than the PC, then that would have an interesting effect on peoples' choices when it comes to that inevitable periodic DAW upgrade. Unfortunately, at the moment, with the obviously bogus benchmarks published, it has the opposite effect.

Perhaps I am dreaming but I would applaud loudly if the next set of Apple benchmarks were directly comparable and up to bearing scrutiny. If those tests still showed a big boost in Apple's favour, I honestly would really take notice and consider it.

Mark

[Daryl]

Actually, I have to disagree - strongly - with the suggestion that Apple shouldn't publish directly comparable benchmarks. Why on earth not? There are at least two cross-platform hosts available, Nuendo and Cubase which could be used for this.

Mark

The big snag here is that Cubendo seems to work much better on a PC, so that still wouldn't give the best results.

Daryl

[robin123]

Everyone is ganging up on Apple but other manufacturers have used the same exact tricks in the past.

This whole reaction reminds me a whole lot of the way Republicans react to some of the Democratic issues.

How come you guys don't do some complaints where it really counts? For example, there are pharmaceutical companies and energy reform lobbyists who use these types of bogus comparisons and studies all the time, surprisingly we all seem to be just fine with this type of behavior when it comes to our health or the environment!

yeah, that's a good idea, we should stop discussion the things related to music and gang against the pharmaceutical companies. it will be lot more fun...

[MarkEdmonds]

The big snag here is that Cubendo seems to work much better on a PC, so that still wouldn't give the best results.

Daryl

What do you mean by "work much better" please? Stability or performance? Or some other category? Additionally, if the two haven't been compared side by side, how is this known?

Assuming we are talking about stability here, surely they are stable enough to run a series of saturation tests using standard host plugins? Wouldn't that be valid?

Mark

[Daryl]

What do you mean by "work much better" please? Stability or performance? Or some other category? Additionally, if the two haven't been compared side by side, how is this known?

Assuming we are talking about stability here, surely they are stable enough to run a series of saturation tests using standard host plugins? Wouldn't that be valid?

Mark

Have a look at this. I think that it seems fairly honest.

http://www.carillondirect.com/clnweb/performance.jsp?country=UK

Daryl

[MarkEdmonds]

Thanks for the link Daryl. Interesting tests and results. That's the sort of thing I am talking about :)

Disk performance across the dual CPU systems is about the same which to me, makes some sense but the G5 really does seem to suffer in the plugin department, especially VSTi. Even ramping up the CPU to 2.7GHz isn't going to make any difference worth shouting about and those tests use a 3GHz Xeon which is not the top speed at present. On the basis of those Carillon tests, the dual Opteron seems to offer nearly a 90-100% gain over the dual G5 when looking at plugin performance. Looks like AMD are the current CPU kings for overall performance in this field.

Mark

[scottnorma]

yeah, that's a good idea, we should stop discussion the things related to music and gang against the pharmaceutical companies. it will be lot more fun...
Yes, I too hate life-saving drugs.

[FV]

Hi,


xp is in my opinion much more stable then panther or tiger, and even if it fails you can get it back on running very fast because of a few features that are still missing in osx.

My toaster has *never* crashed in the 17 years that I have owned it.... although it has burned a few slices of bread before :D

It's getting hard to compare to the newer versions though as it only toasts 2 slices at a time when the new models will toast 4 or 6. I've heard that the next release for it will have a feature that will pre-butter them too.

FV

[SteveHanlon]

You could always go old school and use a flame thrower on the whole loaf.

[FV]

Thanks for the tip! I'll search for some sticks to rub together and then wait for the sun to come out. ;)

FV

[c.k]

... the dual Opteron seems to offer nearly a 90-100% gain over the dual G5 when looking at plugin performance. Looks like AMD are the current CPU kings for overall performance in this field.






Howdy Mark,

Opterons, especially newest dual-core ones, will reign at least until IBM's Cell chip (9 cores!!! co-developed with Sony) becomes available for Mac.

The problem is, 32-bit Windows is unable to utilize that huge amount power. How long will it take for MS to deliver (relatively) stable 64-bit platform? At least a year from now - just for those 64-bit extensions, and that's not true 64-bit OS. And only somewhere in the second half of 2007 (Longhorn SP1) we would be able to stop thinking of adding yet another PC to the chain of computers to run more and more resource-hungry VSTis and sound libraries.


Cheers from Canada,

ck

[MarkEdmonds]

9 cores! Holy smoke! :) :)

Mind you, the way the net is being bloated down with flash anims and stuff, we'll all be having to use them just to get some decent surf time! :rolleyes:

Seriously though, isn't this new 64bit windows due out soon true 64bit?

Actually, I don't think the bottleneck for going 64bit and reaping the rewards is going to be microsoft - it is going to be the hardware, host and plugin developers. Right now, a 64bit OS doesn't make too much sense to me because all my music apps are still 32bit and only Cakewalk is making noise in the 64bit direction (to the best of my knowledge).

As I am firmly wedded to the Steinberg camp, there is a lot to happen before 64bit:

Define and publish the new VST protocol,
Recode Cubendo in 64bit with all the plugins,
Recode all their VSTi in 64bit

I am also dependent on my hardware people coming up with 64bit drivers.

So basically, I don't see the point of a 64bit DAW right now and I wouldn't expect to be running it for at least two years (and that feels slightly optimistic given what has to be done).

Mark

[Houston Haynes]

The problem is, 32-bit Windows is unable to utilize that huge amount power. How long will it take for MS to deliver (relatively) stable 64-bit platform?

Uh - they've had a 64-bit version of Windows for Xeon processors for nearly two years. :eek:

Add to that the fact that they just released Windows XP Professional in 64-bit format (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx), and I'd say that it's a matter of application and plug-in developers to take full advantage of what that has to offer - it's not simply on MS at this point.

By virtue of the fact that WinXP64 has been in public beta for more than a year, and at least one major audio card developer has had 64-bit beta drivers out there for half that long, I'd imagine that there are lots of companies working on their applications and abstraction layers that must be in place behind the scenes.

Upgrade to Windows XP Professional x64 Edition from Windows XP Professional (32-bit) (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/upgrade/default.mspx)

Before you make the decision to move to 64-bit, we recommend taking the following steps:

• Read the information on this Web site about Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. Unless you are pushing the boundaries of the 32-bit architecture, you will probably find that a 32-bit operating system is still the best option.
• Investigate whether or not 64-bit device drivers are available for the components in your PC and the peripherals that you use (scanners, cameras, and so on). Since your 32-bit drivers will not work on this version of Windows, it is important that you make sure your devices are supported. You can find many of these supported devices on Windows Marketplace.
• Back up your data and settings. Windows XP Professional x64 Edition requires a "clean installation," meaning the contents of your hard drive will be erased during the installation.

It's still a prudent move to wait on things to develop and settle out, but I think that it will be a matter of months - say - by the AES convention when everyone wants to show of their techno-goodies? ;)

[fizbin]

I think dual booting between 32 bit and a 64 bit Windows on PC will be the way to go for some time. This will allow experimentation and usage of the more limited application availability 64 bit environment as well as the use of the more stable/tested 32 bit environment, obliviating the need for 2 machines to facilitate this.

Since the hardware looks the same to the applications generally, you'll be able to run all your challenge-response apps on both partitions without the re-authorizing headache. That's been my experience with GS and NI stuff requiring challenge-response. It will run on both partitions of a dual boot with the same authorization. I don't believe this breaks the EULA because they are installed on one machine, just on seperate partitions, containing OSes which that of course cannot run simultaneously. Also, both OSes will naturally be able to run apps running licenses from the same dongle, too

fizbin

[giles117]

Have a look at this. I think that it seems fairly honest.

http://www.carillondirect.com/clnweb/performance.jsp?country=UK

Daryl

With regards to their test. I dont see how the G5 truly suffers with plugin counts. the variances are pretty close in all the single Hard drive systems.

What I'd like to see is one of these honest tests with a dual drive G5 system.

That alone should free up about 25-30% of what the processor is doing with one drive.

I noted a 2 fold track count increase with my G4 Dual 867 and multiple drives.

When I set up a soft raid (100MBps/trhoughput) I noticed a marginal (25%) increase in track count.

At this time I can run Logic 7 with 32 EXS-24's and 4 Kontakt 2 Players on a Dual 867 G4 before she hiccups. Of course that is running about 8 string parts ala VSL Pro.

Mixing I can get about 58 Tracks via DP 4.5 (which is badly coded for speed IMO) 2 Altiverbs and a host of trackplugs (my preferred channel strip plugin) in a multiple drive (non raid) situation. Note: All song data on 1 drive, not spread across many drives.

The only true test is the one YOU run. Based on how YOU work.

Everyone will slant a test their way. Why not, it sells computers.

I am happy with my Powermacs. As people are happy with their PC's. If you are working, keep on working. If not, find a machine that better fits your personality.

As for the guy spouting that XP is more stable than OS X, I beg to differ.

I am a Music pro. How is it I can make a few extra 100 bucks here and there fixin' PC's. Mac issues are a simple phone call from the user. PC is drop it off and fix this dang thing.

Just my experience. Might not be yours.

As For me and My House we will Buy Macintosh.

6 Systems throughout the house and the kids are banging out the music (with Reason and Logic, not Garageband. LOL)

P.S. One more thing, for the guy who will point out the add'l comps, etc. in the Dual PC systems, I dont use CuBase SX for MAc as it is a dog IMO (One of my many wasted purchases). Many users have noted that CuBase is more efficient on a PC than a MAC. I Use Logc and DP4.5. And as one other user stated, do it with Pro-Tools LE and an M-Box (I added that last part) and let's see what it does. :)

Ok, another edit. LOL:
I Note the Pro-Tools Digi 002 Test at the very bottom of their page... Nuff Said. LOL.

[Nick Batzdorf]

The point is that you can never believe the salesman. Nobody is going to post a test that shows their machines losing, and it's easy to set up tests to show that anything is better.

[MarkEdmonds]

With regards to their test. I dont see how the G5 truly suffers with plugin counts. the variances are pretty close in all the single Hard drive systems.


:confused:

Maths:

Intel comp: 23 AMD comp: 22 G5 comp: 10. Improvement ~120%
Intel reverb: 22 AMD reverb: 21 G5 reverb: 10. Improvement ~110%
Intel poly: 70 AMD poly: 84 G5 poly: 48. Improvement ~60%

Whether you think the test is valid or not, there is a big difference there. My hunch is that the Mac version of Cubase is not especially dual processor friendly. Although I have no in depth knowledge of the Mac side, I woudln't be surprised if those figures can be improved radically by Steinberg.



What I'd like to see is one of these honest tests with a dual drive G5 system.

That alone should free up about 25-30% of what the processor is doing with one drive.


Plugins of the type used in those tests are CPU only and shouldn't have anything to do with drive performance. Concerning your 30% CPU figure, how would this improve with a dual drive setup? It would still need to pull that audio off the drives. Whatever, the track count across the systems is as near as makes no difference, completely identical.



As for the guy spouting that XP is more stable than OS X, I beg to differ.


I consider all modern OS's to be pretty stable. The old and bad days of W95/W98 are long gone. I am sure XP and OS X are probably equally stable. As for W2K, my DAW has been running untouched for over two years and averages probably 1 crash a year - no exageration. OS stability is not an issue these days IMO.



And as one other user stated, do it with Pro-Tools LE and an M-Box (I added that last part) and let's see what it does. :)


Yes, if anyone has that hardware, please post some results!




Ok, another edit. LOL:
I Note the Pro-Tools Digi 002 Test at the very bottom of their page... Nuff Said. LOL.

Yes, the G5 plays very well there no doubt. Hopefully Carillon will finish their Opteron build and post results from the retests they say they are going to do.

Incidentally, I am trying to get my head round the clicking at 60% and 100% they mention for the FiveTowers test. Does this mean that the Mac has a massive load of headroom unused or that it isn't able to use its full power. Confused on this.

Mark

[giles117]

Hey Mark, you missed my P.S. (about the math thing. LOL) Yes I believe CuBase is not DP friendly as well. Cuz I can get better performance out of that Cubase test file in DP4 on my Dual G4 867 with comparable verb settings.

Also Track count and Plugin count are affected by a single or a dual drive scenario. Remember the computer has to read the plug in data from the drive sometimes.

I have mixed over 30 ALBUMS (not songs) in the Box since 2001 and there is a direct correlation to how the processor load improves when you use a secondary drive to host all of your audio files.

I've done many experiements. U160, U320, SATA, RAID to see where I can get better performance at a minimal cost.

And I have watched the proc meter drop 25 to 30% on the same project when the audio was dumped on a second drive. It means the CPU doenst have to access the SAME drive for plugin info and Audio Data meaning it can manage memory much better.

So far as the 60% 100% thing. I'd like to see how they optimized the OS for PT. Like all OS's you have to make some changes. Labeit minor in my experience with OS X.3... You still have to make some changes.

In DP, Logic and PT I can hit about 90% Before I have issues.

As I satetd I cant speak on CuBase too much. All I ever use it for is to transfer files (OMF Style) so I can mix them in DP

I'd also like a clearer understanding of what the number under idle and play mean. Are those CPU use percentages????

SO basically we are pn similar pages, Just give us truth. And for me show it with PT not CuBase which I so Despise as a program.