Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

Thanks for all the input, everyone.

On the monitors issue, because there seemed to be some debate, you can 
actually run up to three monitors (the built-in one plus two others) on 
the 2011 iMac.  Each of the Thunderbolt connectors can support an 
additional monitor.  To be honest, though, until we move to a new house, 
I don't have room for that many monitors in my studio anyway.  But in 
case anybody else is following the discussion with the thought of 
monitors, that's the scoop with it.

In terms of benchmarks, which was suggested, the only benchmark that 
covers both that I've found thus far was the geekbench scores at 
everymac.com.  Unfortunately, you do have to sift them by hand, because 
when you click through you discover that a lot of the scores going in to 
the average are actually from the wrong machine or different 
configurations.  But after sifting through them, I found that the iMac 
27" quad-core 3.4GHz i7 configuration gets about 12,000 on the geekbench 
test in Mac OS X 64-bit mode, whereas the Mac Pro eight-core 2.8GHz 
Nehalem Xeon gets about 8,000 on that same geekbench test.  So on that 
test, the iMac is about 50% faster.  Unfortunately, there's not a lot of 
information about exactly what the geekbench benchmark tests and how 
well it maps onto real-world performance for a given application.  :/

I have to admit that I'm still waffling.  It does seem like the iMac 
will be the faster machine.  I think what's mostly under my skin about 
it still is that it's $3500 (after taxes) vs. $2000 (after monitor and 
taxes), and that's enough of a difference that I could take that money 
and put it toward getting everything up to the current version (I'm 
still on Logic 8, Peak 5, Komplete 6, etc.).  But there seems to be a 
strong feeling here that the iMac is more likely to not become 
disappointing in a very short time down the line, which is certainly 
something to consider.

On 11-05-29 9:07 PM, GAmoore@... wrote:
> Some of the imacs did not allow a 2nd monitor at all except in mirror
> mode. They really hobble the performance of the imacs in various subtle
> ways. With a mac pro you can use multiple monitors. You can install
> four internal disks which are high speed and in a RAID configuration
> and get a lot more track count. You can install more ram. My 2006 Imac
> is limited to 2gb max ram, and only mirrors monitors, and only allows
> one hard disk.
>
> If I were you, I would get a refurbished mac pro.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian<brianmc7@...>
> To: Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 5:42 pm
> Subject: [Logic_Cafe] Re: Mac Pro 2008 vs. iMac 2011
>
>
>
>
>
> Since you've gotten into the habit of using a lot of plugins per track,
> I wouldn't go with a Mac Pro that old, because you're already behind
> the mark as far as processing speed goes. After all, you really don't
> know what impact that might have with future software.
>
> I'll run compression and EQ on individual tracks, but when it comes to
> delay or reverb, I'll run those effects on a dedicated buss.
>
> Although you can avoid taxing your CPU speed by freezing tracks, if you
> call up a song file with a lot of frozen tracks, since the CPU can get
> overloaded, because it freezes all of the data at once, you can
> sometimes wind up with a lot of problem loading a song file. One way
> around that is to call up a song file and freeze each track on an
> individual basis by hitting play before freezing another track.
>
> --- In Logic_Cafe@yahoogroups.com, Shawn Thorpe<shawnogordo@...>  wrote:
>> I have no experience running Logic on either of those types of
> machines.
>> Though, I'd imagine they'd both handle it just fine. Regardless, I'd
> be
>> hesitant to invest that kinda money in 3-year old hardware. If it
> were me,
>> I'd go with the iMac.
>>
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Irfon-Kim Ahmad<irfon@...>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm currently running Logic Pro (8, but will be upgrading to 9 with
> the
>>> new system) on a 2006 MacBook Pro with 2GB of RAM and a 350GB hybrid
>>> disk. I run into the dreaded system overload with some regularity. I
>>> don't run very high track counts and do very little recording, but I
>>> tend to use a lot of softsynths (mostly from the NI Komplete suite)
> and
>>> use a very large array of effect plugins per track.
>>>
>>> I've been saving up to replace this machine, and was targeting the
>>> newly-released 2011 iMac 27" with the 3.4GHz quad-core i7 Sandy
> Bridge
>>> processor, 4GB of RAM (that I was going to upgrade to 12GB after the
>>> fact -- the system maxes out at 16GB), the 256GB SSD + 1TB HD disk
>>> configuration and the 2GB GDDR5 Radeon HD 6970M. With the AppleCare,
>>> this clocks in at $3098 + tax.
>>>
>>> However, it's recently come to my attention that a local shop is
> selling
>>> a gently used 2008 Mac Pro. It has two 2.8GHz quad-core Nehalem Xeon
>>> processors (8 cores total), 4GB of RAM (maxes at 32GB), a 320GB hard
>>> disk, and an NVidia 8800GT with 512GB RAM. They'll warranty it for
> 90
>>> days and you can pay extra to extend the warranty if you like,
> although
>>> it'll be their warranty rather than AppleCare. They want $1699 +
> tax.
>>> Among my geekier-than-me friends, there's been a big debate about
> the
>>> CPUs in these two machines. The iMac's Sandy Bridge architecture
>>> supports SVX instead of SSE, which apparently will, once apps are
>>> updated to support it, allow it to process eight instructions per
> cycle
>>> rather than four, according to them. Given that it's already clocked
>>> faster than the Xeons in the Mac Pro, that would make it noticeably
>>> faster CPU-wise. The rest of the Mac Pro's architecture is slower as
>>> well -- the memory bus isn't as fast, the 8800GT is about half the
>>> performance of the 6970M, etc. However, the Mac Pro offers more
>>> expandability -- I could add a RAID card, I could have several
> internal
>>> disks, I can upgrade the video card, etc. And if Logic Pro doesn't
>>> support SVX, then I expect that having twice as many cores at a
> slightly
>>> slower speed might be a CPU win.
>>>
>>> But the difference in price is also a big factor -- with that much
> less
>>> money I could perform a lot of ugprades (note that I'd have to eat
> away
>>> some of that buying a monitor, but you can get a 27" LCD of good
> enough
>>> quality for me for $300, and getting a disk system comparable to
> the one
>>> I was speccing for the iMac would take away more of that, but I
> could do
>>> this flexibly over time). I mean, at $1699, I wouldn't be
> particularly
>>> upset if I had to upgrade it after only say three years, whereas at
>>> $3100, I'd want the iMac to last me a good five years, much as my
>>> MacBook Pro did.
>>>
>>> My only real bottleneck is Logic Pro, though. This is going to be my
>>> studio machine. I mostly game on the Playstation 3, and I have an
> iPad
>>> that is fine for my needs for travel and surfing. So I'm wondering
> if
>>> any of you have any thoughts or real-world experience between these
> two
>>> machines as they specifically pertain to Logic Pro, and if anyone
> knows
>>> what the status of this SVX issue is with Logic Pro -- if it's
> something
>>> that I should expect to see coming down or that's even already
> there, or
>>> if it's even relevant to Logic Pro's architecture, or if having
> twice as
>>> many cores will still be better when running a ton of plugins.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Shawn Thorpe
>> http://shawn.mx/
>> http://geminidragon.tv/
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>