New Mac Pro - 6 or 12 cores for Logic?

Hi
I'm about to place an order for a new Mac Pro, to replace our previous Mac Pro.
Does anyone know if the 12 or the 6 core model is likely to deliver the best performance with Logic? The 6 core is clocked higher than the 12 core - 3.33GHz v 2.93GHz - and it's hard to get a handle on whether the additional cores are likely to compensate for the lower speed.
Does anyone who knows more than me about this stuff have a view? Is Logic even able to fully utilize all 12 cores?
On our current 8-core system I tend to see activity across 4 or 5 cores only, and the times we hit performance issues are when 1 particular core is being maxed out, even though others are idle or running at low load. That said, we're still using OS 10.5 so maybe load balancing is improved with 10.6.
Any help or advice very much appreciated.
Jules
http://www.trailermen.com

Trailerman wrote:
Although there are things you can do to try and balance the load, in my personal experience, once you have a CPU overload issue affecting one core, it's very hard if not impossible to resolve it.
What plugin can max out a core by itself? Of course it's possible but I have yet to see anything even come close.
I'm inclining towards the 12core Mac Pro in the hope that load balancing becomes more developed, and because Apple confirmed to me yesterday that Logic WILL use all cores of a 12 core machine, and also told me they at it will run more efficiently on a 12 core than a 6 core machine.
I would never believe anything coming from apple tech support or other customer reps, there are tons of documented examples of people getting info that was wrong.
And even if it's true, if they didn't give you a time frame it could mean that Logic will use all 12 cores with a software update...and that update could be two years from now. Did they give a timeframe? Or did they mean that the current version of Logic will use all 12 cores?
Also, the 12 core machines actually have 24 cores including the hyperthreading cores, did they address whether those are/will be supported? They work fine on the current quad i7 and quad xeon machines, but not on the octos since there seems to be a limit of eight cores.
And I would hope it will run more efficiently on a 12 core than a 6 although I'm not ruling out the possibility of poor performance on either with the current version of Logic. We'll see when they ship and people get to run Logic on them.
I'd be curious to read that part of the chat log if you're willing to post it.

Similar Messages

  • Obsolete new "Mac Pro" vs Windows 6 Core 3930K PC - What should I expect?

    OK, I ordered a pretty fast PC from Amazon, kind of a no-name gaming PC but it had great specs, i7 3930 Six Core at 3.2 ghz.
    Installed a Nvidia GTX 670, did the supported cards text file hack, and Premiere Pro 5.5 on it, along with Quicktime Pro, and fonts I needed. I also installed a nifty program called X-Mouse which allowed me to customize my logitech scrolling mouse to use Premiere Pro as I also using USB Overdrive on my Mac - indispensable software.
    Got a KVM so I could use my 2 large displays currently hooked up to my Mac on the PC without totally disabling my Mac Pro 2008 8 core - it is my workhorse and I use it all the time.
    Finally got the PC somewhat functional on with Premiere Pro and even got it working with projects and media via a fast network connection. It seemed like butter vs my old Mac Pro.  My lack of being a Windows power user I'm sure was responsible for my ultimate failure at getting my Windows system, but there could be hardware issues with this particular PC as well. Ultimately it was a total pain to share projects and media that resided on my Mac. Using Premiere Pro on the PC was identical in many ways to the Mac, just faster.
    However the PC started going downhill pretty much as I got it working. It wouldn't properly reboot, always spinning in the 'Shutting Down' screen. I had to hard restart it all the time.
    Then things started to go south, probably due to system corruption from having to hard reset it. I installed a fresh OS on the other internal drive in hopes it would fix the problems, a whole new set of software to get Premiere Pro working well. Again, shutdown hangs, without any diagnostics other than windows coming up at the hard restart saying there was a problem with the previous shutdown, and wiping out a lot of stuff each time. Then in hopes of curing the ills, a reformat of the drives, reinstallation of Windows 7 Pro, and then the ability to actually install the OS. 2 reformatted drives that cannot b installed with OS. Epic failure. The replacement is on the way.
    But this being said, the amount of time in order to make this environment 'cross platform' as well as the indiocyncracies of Windows (to me, I'm not bashing Windows - it seems to be a fine OS!)  makes me rethinking the PC for Premiere Pro switch.
    I realize the current Mac Pros are basically obsolete, however, MY Mac Pro really is, it's from 2008 and not the fastest model from that era (2.8ghz 8 core, non threading Xeon.)
    Investigating "new" Mac Pros, I can get a 6 Core 3.3 ghz threading Mac Pro plus 32GB of RAM for about $3,500. I can get a 12 Core 3.09 ghz for $6,700 and a refurb 2.93ghz with 32GB for about $5,700. The Windows PC with everything I need is in the $4K range. I don't need any new peripherals to make it a direct replacement for my current Mac Pro, all PCI, peripherals will just work. I'm familiar with the OS, and all my apps and plugins will work, no KVM necessary, no cross platform issues. Just not as cost effective as the PC and perhaps slower.
    However...
    Disregarding the cost, my time is valuable and I probably spend a good 3 solid days getting something non functional to work. There will be continual inefficiencies because I'm not a Windows shop, and I don't foresee this.
    Will any 'new' Mac Pro, regardless of the cost, get me to the speed using Premiere Pro of this 6 core 3.2ghz i7 3930K? If I get the answer that the Mac 12 core will get me there, it may be a viable option. If the 6 core will get me 80% there, it might be the 'best buy' option.
    Thanks for any advice, really!
    -Keith

    Thanks Eric and Harm for the helpful answers. I was hoping that Windows 7 had evolved to the point where knowning and using some of the troubleshooting techniques that Harm mentioned would not have to be necessary. I do have the ability / skill, etc, but not necessarily the desire to troubleshoot, but was kind of hoping that I wouldn't need to get to this level on such a simple installation, really it was just CS 5.5 and Video drivers. It is very possible the KVM was blocking on the USB request. This occasionally will happen with a hung device on Mac OS X and firewire, but usually it times out after a while. However there have been those odd times where I needed to unplug everything and even do a NVRAM reset on the Mac to get it back. This is pretty rare though. I even have my Mac set to 'verbose mode' which leaves the unix console up on boot and shutdown so I can track offending things like this. Maybe there is a Windows equivalent to this, which would have been helpful. Knowing that there might be some request that wasn't returning, I left Windows in this state for hours, it never got back. I had no choice but to hard restart it. I didn't examine logs and such, though I could have. I just want it to work or to fail gracefully, and not fail in such a way that makes it unusable and unrecoverable without in depth troubleshooting. I also have to use the KVM, without it I can't possibly use the system. So if the KVM makes the PC hang, then I can't use the PC. It doesn't make my Mac hang.
    I am also quite positive that ADK's systems would have been a lot more robust and their emergency DVD's would have actually been able to help me as well as their expert tech support. I also appreciate that though Eric and ADK are a business, that the advice you have provided to me is just helpful and agnostic. This goes a long way to pushing my next PC purchase in the ADK direction!
    Getting back to my original question, which was not one of troubleshooting Windows PC's though that advice is helpful...
    Seems like a 12-Core Mac would allow me to edit well. I can edit right now with my 2008 Mac Pro 8 Core with 24GB RAM and 240GB SSD and Quadro 4000 and numerous internal and external RAIDs, but just scrubbing AVCHD I see all 8 processors go to nearly 100 % utilization and it's laggy. Not the best editing experience. If I have a few AVCHDs overlaid, which I do, it's almost unusable. As the Premiere Pro project gets bigger and more complex, it seems that everything gets slower. I have no scientific basis for this but I think it's true. It doesn't have to be just the sequence I'm working on, it seems to be even navigating simple sequences will be laggier if in a larger complex Premiere Pro project file.
    On the Windows PC i7, for the few hours it was functioning, I was able to scrub AVCHD 1080P footage over a gigabit ethernet like butter.  I was pleased with this. It was a very simple 1 track sequence, however. I didn't have a chance to try it with more complex projects before it was unusable.
    Would I get smooth performance from a Mac Pro 6 Core, which is $2,500 less than the 12 core? From the basic Mac benchmarking I see, I see a 'rating' of 14000 for the Mac Pro 6 Core, and around 9000 for my current Mac Pro 8 core. This is about 50% more. I don't think 50% is going to get me to 'butter.'
    Thanks again for all the helpful advice, Harm and Eric.
    -Keith

  • New Mac purchase Quad or Eight Core for CS4/CS5 Photoshop

    Its time to replace my vintage G5, but I am struggling with how to choose between a Quad-core or Eight-core Mac Pro. Most of my work is Photoshop for print, with files of various sizes (typically 300-300 layered PSD files, but occasionally upwards of 1.5 GB+ layered PSD files). I also use CS4 InDesign, Illustrator, DreamWeaver, and Acrobat.
    For the short term, a 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro would be fine, but the 4 RAM slots are restrictive. On the other hand, a 2.26 or 2.66 Eight-Core machine will theoretically give better PS performance, room for more RAM and more long term value. I can add RAM later, but I'll have to live with my processor choice. As best as I can tell, the Eight-core machines aren't a good value for Photoshop work until the software uses all cores. I assume that Leopard and CS5 will eventually well together. My gamble is wether a Quad-Core will serve me long term, or if the additional cores and RAM of the Eight-Core will be worth the extra investment now.
    I've read about problems with CS4 and the Nehalem processors, but I hope most of these have been resolved by now. Unfortunately, I can't afford to wait a few months before CS5 is sorted out, so I hope to make a safe choice for CS4 now, that will work with CS5 down the road.
    Adobe TechNote: Optimize performance in Photoshop CS4 on Mac OS
    ID: kb404440
    Last updated:2010-02-09
    http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404440.html#Operating%20system%20software
    Excerpts from Apple TechNote kb404440:
    Processor speed
    The CPU (Central Processing Unit) of the Macintosh limits the speed of Photoshop. Since Photoshop manipulates large quantities of data and performs many calculations, its speed is greatly dependent on processor speed.
    Photoshop requires a PowerPC G5 or an Intel-based processor. Photoshop can also take advantage of multiprocessor systems (that is, systems that have two or more PowerPC or Intel processors), which are much faster than a single-processor systems. All Photoshop features are faster on a multiprocessor system, and some features are much faster. Note that there is a law of diminishing returns with multiple processors: the more processors you use, the less you get from each addition processor. Therefore, you may not experience expected speed increases if you use more than four processors.
    Excerpt from the TechNote above states that all PS features are faster on a muti-processor machine. Per Lloyd Charles' tests, (http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProNehalem-MoreIsLess.html) the dual CPU is actually slower for many functions in PS. Lloyd's tests were done in OS X 10.5.6 (updated in June 1, 2009). Have the newer Mac Pro machines or Leopard changed any of the performance issues since Lloyds' tests? Sorry if these tests no longer apply, but I am trying to confirm how things stand at this point.

    Wow, I may not know all of them because after a certain point, I quit using it on the quad core.
    Illustrator - I didn't use it that much on the q4, but the color picker doesn't work.  When I click on the color box to change colors, the small color box with the slider is the only thing that opens.  on the Duo core, the color picker opens.
    Photoshop - On the i7 quad core - Constant crashes and other glitches that I can't remember because I haven't used it since April.  But the main problem that I encountered is that the layers palette quits working.  It may be ok when I first open PS, but then becomes greyed out - nothing in the palette (either from the dropdown menu or the layers palette box) works - including layer styles like drop shadow, merge, flatten, new layer or anything else in layers.  If I opened another file, it would be the same way.  Without being able to use layers, and with the constant crashes, I quit using that computer.
    The only problem I have on the duo core is in Photoshop in using tools.  Frequently, when trying to use a tool, I get a small menu open at my cursor.  It keeps popping up and I have to leave tools and do something else then go back to the tool.  The tools I've had this with specifically are the paint brush, select tools, burn and dodge tools.
    I'm also quite annoyed that twain is no longer included so that I can use my scanner within PS.  I just talked with a friend this afternoon who downloaded a trial version of CS5 this afternoon to be sure it works before she upgrades.  She is upset because her scanner doesn't work in PS and she is having problems with other plug-ins so she is not going to upgrade. 

  • How do you new Mac Pro owners like your machine with Logic?

    Don't mean to be a PITA but I need to get this right before I drop three to five grand on a new set of music tools. I'm trying to decide between Mac Pro and iMac for use with Logic. Seems there are a lot of posts regarding glitches with the new Mac Pro and Logic, whereas the posts from people with older G4s and G5s seem to indicate they are running rock solid. So you new Mac Pro folks or anyone else, please weigh in. Is the new Mac Pro "glitch heavy" or is it just a matter of tweaking the system to where it runs smooth? In general, how do you new Mac Pro folks like the way it works with Logic?

    I'm mostly pleased with my MacPro 2.66. Almost no crashes with Logic, although I experience a few more bugs here and there than with my G4. Occasional CoreAudio errors, I have to restart CoreAudio if my external word clock is set to the wrong sample rate when I open a session, there seems to be a bug between high fader levels (above +4dB) and panning... little things like that.
    Then again, compared to my G4, the FireWire bus is screaming fast--with most sessions, I can run a buffer of 128 samples at 96k with my MOTU 828mkII, while my G4 would sometimes glitch at 96k with 512 samples. At 96k, 256 samples, my MacPro/828mkII rig is rock-solid... I informally tested it by recording 12 test tracks simultaneously for 20 minutes, with the CPU nearly maxed out (which was difficult to do--took a bunch of Space Designers and Ultrabeats)--absolutely zero clicks or pops.
    And of course, WAY more processing power than my G4.
    I'm assuming that MacPro compatibility is a fairly high priority for Apple these days, so hopefully the bugs will get worked out soon. And as things are, Logic is definitely usable on a MacPro--the bugs I encounter rarely slow down my work.
    So, far from perfect, but as far as new technology goes, I'd say Logic on the MacPro is above average.
    Good luck!
    James
    [email protected]

  • New Mac Mini or iMac (late 2012) for Logic Pro?

    Between these two specifically, which would be better for Logic Pro, and why?
    The new Mac Mini (mid-tier) has a 2.3gHz i7, and the low-end iMac which has a 2.7GHz i5.  Both are quad-core.  The i5 is faster in clock-speed, but the Mini sports the i7, which has hyperthreading.
    Can anybody offer any insight on which of these two computers would be better for Logic?

    While this is not quite the answer you be looking for...
    The 2011 Mac Mini Server, is in many ways the better bet for use with Logic because...
    It has a 2.0Ghz i7... so slightly slower than the 2012 models..but it is the i7 version with 8 Cores.. so it still flies..
    It comes with 2 x 500GB 7200rpm Hard Drives built in (Compared to 5400rpm Drives in the 2012 model)
    Memory easily upgraded to 16GB for about $90 via Amazon..
    ..and yoi get a free copy of OS X Server, if should wish to use it at some point in the future... (The MMS comes with the Standard OS X installed and you have to run the add on server program to install OS X server so if you don't need the server stuff, don't run the Server installation software and you'll be running standard OS X  as normal)
    USB2 instead of USB3 is about the only other important difference that matters for AudioExt Drive use but using the FW800 and Thunderbolt ports, via Tbolt to FW adaptors on the 2011 MMS removes the need for USB3 I find..
    Othert than that the 2011 and 2012 models are pretty much the same...
    But.. the real kicker is that Apple are currently selling refurbished ones (with full warranty) at $759.....  down from $999 originally...so they are quite the bargain..
    http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC936LL/A/refurbished-mac-mini-with-lion-serve r-20ghz-quad-core-intel-core-i7
    I bought two of these originally and have never regretted it.. So much so that i just picked up another as a spare...
    Got to be worth consideration... and at that price.. You could buy two... and use Vienna Ensemble Pro 5 to sync them together..
    A Basic Guide to VEP5 and Logic info that i wrote, can be found here...
    http://www.logicprohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=78956http://www.logicprohe lp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=78956
    ...add a screen and still save money conpared to buying a mid level iMac.... and you would be getting one **** of a punchy system for your buck.
    Other than that suggestion..
    In regards to the original question... Always go for the i7 models as hyperthreading adds 4 more (virtual) cores and that can really make a difference in performance compared to the 4 cores of an i5...

  • ATI Radeon HD 4870 1GB for Mac Pro 2.66 Quad Core Xenon

    I have the option of picking up an ATI Radeon HD 4870 1 GB graphics card to go with my soon-to-be-new MAc Pro 2.66 Quad core. I see know that Apple can upgrade to ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB, but that card is not available to me at the moment. Will the 1GB do the job without overheating the system? Am new to the Mac Pros. Need it for the Windows gaming portion of the system. Am using the rest for graphics and photography.

    If the MAc Pro 2.66 comes with Snow Leopard, why would I have to upgrade my OS?
    OK. So, if got the MAc version, it would work A-OK without overheating?
    Thanks for your input!

  • Wait for new Mac Pro's or buy a 27" iMac?

    Hi, I currently own an early 2009 2.66 ghz Quad Core Mac Pro with 8 gigs of memory. My Mac Pro has 4 internal Hard drives filled up with data (over 4 tb of storage space).
    I plan to upgrade to either the new Mac Pro's  (ariving in late July or early august) or the new 27" iMac. I'm aware that if I went with the Mac Pro then I will need to buy a 27" LED Cinema display.
    How do the new 27" iMac's with SSD drives in terms of performance compare to my older Mac Pro? Storage space is important to me.
    If I customized a 27" imac then I would get it with 16 gb of memory, a 256gb SSD and a 2TB Drive. unfortunately it's still not much space for me. One option is to buy a Drobo FS NAS and add additional storage to my imac that way. The other is to wait for the new Mac Pro's.
    The other is the price. I don't want to spend more than $4000 for a new computer. If I customized a current Mac Pro with 512gb SSD and a 2tb drive, (I will add more drives in the future) a 27" LED Apple Cinema Display, 16 gb of memory then I will be paying over $6000.
    That's way higher than I'd like to spend. Will the new Mac Pro's have much improved for cheaper?
    What do you think that I should do?

    Why not see what Barefeats and Macperformanceguide have already done in terms of performance and buying advice?
    With iMac, you don't compete with say 6-core 3.33GHz or have upgrad options and may be limited in other ways. And of course you don't want to pay for Apple price and slow SSD. Besides which most Mac Pro owners use an SSD for system, and don't want 500GB SSD (which is what Apple's would be).
    just buy a good SSD now from OWC now.  Buy the minimal configuration from Apple, a WD Black 2TB is less than $149.
    As for outgrowning a two year old Mac Pro... see if you can upgrade the processor.
    Do you think you will be ready for having to use Lion and that your software will be too?
    The 2010 2.8GHz $2119 + 3 x 8GB OWC, SSD, W3670 3.2GHz 6-core $600 is not even $3995. As for 27" I leave that to others and whether 3rd party.  But, you're saying you can't use the monitor you have now?

  • New Mac Pro 6.1 slow for some tasks, any ideas?

    May new Mac Pro 6.1 (6 core, 64 GB RAM, D700's) is running very slow for 2 specific tasks.
    OS X 10.9.3  PS CC 14.2.1
    Open Canon 5D3 Camera Raw files takes 30 seconds.
    Smart Sharpen 5D3 file takes 75 seconds.
    That is WAY slower than my 6 year old Mac Pro 3.1!
    Everything else runs quickly and efficiently on the 6.1, but it almost freezes during these 2 tasks.  Not good!  As a photographer who processes hundreds of 5D3 RAW files at a time this is a big problem for me.
    I found this article explaing issues with the graphics;
    http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2014/20140308_1-Photoshop-sharpening-speed.html
    However my performance is way worse than reported here.
    I hope to find a solution...

    Thanks for your input Noel.
    I have unchecked Use Graphics Processor and the time for opening a RAW file remains around 30 seconds and to smart sharpen is now 100 seconds (up from 75).
    In the activity monitor, I get between 500 and 600% use of the processors when opening RAW and 800% during sharpening.
    A few seconds after clicking open in ACR, I get a dialogue box with the blue bar almost complete for a fraction of a second, then it disappears and another box appears (half the hight of the first one) and starts with only a small part completed, then takes it 30 seconds to finish.  It's like it tried to open in a normal way and failed, then another very slow backup process took over.
    In the top righ corner of the Smart Sharpen dialogue box, I tried selecting "Use Legacy", then it sharpens in about 3 seconds!
    Also of note, when opening a RAW file or smart sharpening, the computer becomes very slow and unresponsive, even to get mail or surf the internet.  Even streaming radio in iTunes cuts in and out or cuts out completely.  As if the entire system is overwhelmed.  Despite having 2 or 3 cores unused and at least 40 GB of unused RAM.
    Not what I was expecting from a very expensive upgrade in the hopes of cutting down the amount of computer time per image file!

  • New Mac Pro, Quad-Core or 8-Core?

    I need to decide whether to purchase a Quad-core or 8-core new Mac Pro. Using the computer for commercial and fine art work, in Photoshop CS4, Lightroom 2.0, and InDesign CS4. (No video.) Is there any advantage in the 8-core?

    Photoshop probably won't benefit much from twice the cores - but they will help when running multiple apps simultaneously. I have a first generation Mac Pro 2.66 and am (still) perfectly happy with the performance.
    About the only app in your list that would probably benefit is Lightroom (or ACR), when processing RAW files. My four cores are fairly pegged when processing files from a 1Ds MK II.

  • Help Configuring my New Mac Pro

    I just purchased a new Mac Pro (early 2009 Quad Core" 2.66 (2009/Nehalem), and a second (1 TB) internal hard drive. I would like to transfer my applications, files, and profile from my Macbook Pro (early 2008 Core 2 Duo" 2.5) to the Mac Pro. I also want to install with Boot Camp a copy of Windows XP Pro (SP3) on a separate hard drive. I want the XP drive to be the 640 GB hard drive that came with the Mac Pro, and the MacOS drive to be the added 1TB hard drive. I want the Windows drive to have 4 logical partitions ( C, D, E, and F) with the C, D, and E being NTFS (so they can exceed 32GB) and, F drive being FAT (for read/write compatibility with MacOS). I've been doing a fair amount of reading both on this forum and have a tentative plan to accomplish the setup. But, a lot of what I'm planning to do is new to me. So, before executing my plan, I wanted to get some feedback. Any thoughts or comments on the steps in my plan would be much appreciated. Here are my planned steps:
    1. Turn on the new Mac Pro computer but don't transfer and applications or files - just transfer the profile. Then check to make sure that the computer is working properly.
    2. Turn off computer and install 1 TB hard drive and RAM upgrade.
    3. Turn on the computer and transfer applications and files from my Macbook Pro to the Mac Pro using Migration Assistant (located in the applications, utility folder). Connect the computers using Firewire 800 (9 pin to 9 pin cable). I currently don't have such a cable, but from what I have read the migration can be very, very slow if done using the ethernet network or a USB-2 cable. I've got about 200 GB on my Macbook Pro so I assume that the Firewire cable is the only sensible way to go.
    4. Test the system to see that the applications are working and check that the data files have been transferred.
    5. Download SuperDuper and use it to create a clone of the 640 GB drive on the new 1 TB drive. Make the 1 TB drive the boot drive by choosing it from System Preferences > Startup Disc
    6. Check and make sure the bootup from the 1 TB drive works properly.
    7. Check to make sure the EFI Boot ROM version on the Mac Pro is up to date. If it needs updating, download latest version from Apple support website and install.
    8. Check Apple support for updates to Boot Camp Assistant. Once I have the latest version open Boot Camp Assistant (in the Utilities folder in the Applications folder). Create Boot Camp partition that is the entire 640 GB hard drive.
    9. Insert the Windows XP CD and click Start Installation in Boot Camp Assistant. Select the Boot Camp partition for installation of Windows.
    10. As I begin the Windows install, I'm expecting that I will be offered at the start of the setup process an opportunity to create the 4 separate logical partitions that I want on the 640 GB hard drive. Format the hard drive with the 4 partitions.
    11. Select the partition where I want to put Windows Operating System and follow the Windows setup process to install Windows XP.
    12. Once Windows is installed, eject the Windows disc and insert to Mac OS disc. Install the Boot Camp drivers for Windows.

    NTFS is read only already. You don't need anything just to access, only if you plan to write files, and NTFS won't like HFS file names if they have special characters.
    XP SP2 or later, and would have to be able to transfer to new hardware. What it lacks is good multicore and memory management.
    Newegg and Amazon has single system builder versions that can save but can't be used on another system. OEM (Dell, HP, etc) versions or "restore discs" won't work and aren't supported.
    I said you can get by without BCA. You don't have to believe me but it is a waste to have to say everything twice. Windows 7 is perfectly capable of doing any formatting and installing without it.
    Installing Windows 7 on Mac Pro is easier and different. There is a forum devoted to Boot Camp and Installing Windows.
    http://discussions.apple.com/category.jspa?categoryID=237

  • "I've made a huge mistake." The laments of a new mac pro and ridiculously slow AE renders

    I just purchased the late 2013 model of the Mac Pro with the following specs:
    Processor: 3.5 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5
    Memory: 12 GB
    Graphics: AMD FirePro D700
    It barely squeaks out a faster render than my early 2008 Mac Pro (which has the following specs):
    Processor: 2 x 3.2 Ghz Quad Core Intel Xeon
    Memory: 16 GB
    Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
    I obviously did NOT configure my new Mac Pro with the best features for AE CC.  I still have time to return the machine, and try again. I would appreciate advice from someone who can ID where I went wrong - and direct me toward a machine that will churn out faster renders. Thanks so much!

    Sorry, I'm out of the loop on the newer chipsets so would have to defer to others in that respect.  There's a lot of reading to be done on multicore rendering in after effects; but you're best off running some test renders to see if its helping or hindering your comps and then base your decision for number of cores vs core speed on that.  Either way multicore rendering does require a lot of RAM. You should be getting OK render speeds if you're not using the ray trace renderer, certainly should beat out the old box, that might be something to look into.
    I can't advise using those thunderbolt pcie chasis to add an nvidia card to the new mac pro trash can; the sonnet ones we bought have been finicky with our AJA cards and I can only imagine a full graphics card under load being worse performance wise.
    I built my hack a few years back on an ivy bridge i7 with 32 GB of ram.  They have some newer guides for hardware choices and methods at http://www.tonymacx86.com/home.php
    Although my build has been extremely stable, I will caution that putting together a hackintosh can be quite a pain even if you're an experienced system builder / knowledgable with *nix.  If Windows is an option that can be considered, I've heard good things about the HP Z series workstations but Quadro cards seem overpriced IMO compared to the Geforce series for the cuda cores / ram size (though purists will surely encourage you not to go the budget route).

  • New Mac Pro/Yosemite lost display resolutions that were in Mavericks

    After a 9 hour migration process from my old Mac Pro, late 2007 2.8Ghz Dual Quad core, to a new Mac Pro 3.5Ghz 6-Core, I have had issues with the display resolution I used on my old Mac Pro. They don't show up in the list of available resolutions, and now everything on my Dell 30" display is HUGE! How can I get the resolution settings back to where the old Mac Pro was?

    In the System Preferences "Display" pane - do you have "Best for display" or "Scaled" selected for the problematic 30" Dell display. Based on your comments I'm guessing it's the "Scaled" option which should show you the list of all resolutions that it knows your graphics board can do. So what graphics board do you have in the new and old Mac Pro? It's listed in the "System Information" app (click on the Apple in the menu bar at the top of the screen, then hold down the Option key and then click on "System Information". The graphics board is listed in the "Graphics/Displays" option about half way down the list of Hardware items on the left of the page. Did you migrate the old graphics board in the older Mac Pro over to the new one or does the new Mac Pro have it's own? What exactly is the list of resolutions that are shown for your new Mac Pro with the Dell 30"?
    Also I'm a little confused - on which system is the Dell 30" on now - the old Mac Pro or the new one? Which resolution setting did the Dell on the old Mac Pro used to be set at and what is it now on the new Mac Pro?

  • New mac pro is death

    Hi there, i bought a brand new mac pro 3.2 quad core with 8gb ram i install protools 7.4 with protools hd3 pcie cards, i run it perfectly untill i install the midi and audio drivers of a tascam interface then my protools sessions didnt worked, so i just turned off everything and when i restarted the mac it didnt start, the on botton of the mac and the monitor is lightened but nothing else, no video, wireless or usb signal, i cant even open the cd tray or reboot it, i opened it and see three red lights flashing on each of the ram cards, can somebody help me, im in a middle of a recording and i dont have time to send it to apple, THX

    * Pro Tools HD 7.4.1 software works with Mac OS X 10.5.1 only, and is NOT compatible with Apple’s new Mac OS X 10.5.2 release. Please do not update your OS until we’ve made an official announcement about compatibility.
    http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/1230
    More info on extended support:
    http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?langid=100&navid=54&eid=5505
    http://www.osxrecording.com/Article1004.html
    Some people held off on the Mac Pro originally to wait for CS3, and some use the older Mac Pro until all the software and hardware is ready.
    As for memory etc. always wise to try system as is and run Apple Hardware Test, even before a need. Did you remove the PCIe card and uninstall the drivers? you should.

  • New Mac Pro 2.8 vs. Refurbished Mac Pro 3.0?

    I'm trying to decide between a new Mac Pro 2.8 and a refurbished Mac Pro 3.0. The refurbished 3.0 is roughly $375 less. I'll be using this for a graphic design business, so we'll be routinely using CS3. Help me decide.

    I was faced with the same question at the end of 2007. I had even picked up a new Mac Pro 2.66 quad core, but did not open it. I decided to return it, and fortunately the next day, the 2008 Mac Pros came along. I went with the 8 core 2.8. The 3.0 from 2006/2007 is already dated, and there is no way you will make it faster without spending a ton of money. The refurb unit you are looking at is 2 years old in design. It first came out in August 2006. The expansion slots are all PCIe 1.1 if I recall. With the newer machines they have 2 slots that are PCIe 2.0.
    You also have to factor in the upgraded graphics card. Barefeats.com did a little comparison of the video cards, and the 2600 XT fared very well against the 1900XT that is what most folks upgraded to with the 2006 3.0 GHz Mac Pro. The 1900 xt is not a bad car, however, there is no guarantee that you will ever be able to put newer cards in that older machine. There is conjecture that the 8800 GT card that was released for the Early 2008 Mac Pros may work in the older units, but that is not a done deal yet. The 2600 XT does fairly well with Motion.
    The 3.0 also ships with 1 GB of RAM while the 2.8 8 core ships standard with 2 GB of RAM. Granted, you will want additional RAM, but you still come out ahead with the early 2008 8 core unit. You do not need to overspend on RAM. Otherworld Computing sells great RAM. I have Apple RAM, OWC RAM, and the Techworks RAM (sold by OWC) in my Mac Pro. I cannot tell the difference and I have had no crashes. 4 GB of RAM is about 219 bucks at OWC.
    As for any video or graphics work that you may want to do, the 8 core unit is much more robust for crunching the compression. Compressor can take advantage of the multiple cores. Barefeats.com also did some benchmarking of the 2.8 octo core and the 3.0 octo core unit from 2007. The early 2008 unit was just about even because of the improved L2 Cache and the improved front side bus speed. Overall, the early 2008 units are great performers. The 2.8 quad core should be just about even with the 3.0 quad core in terms of speed. The 2.8 octo core is faster yet, and is about even with the older 3.0 octo core MP. The reason for this is that the 2008 Mac Pros have a faster front side bus and a bigger L2 cache.
    I think you are wasting your money going with a discontinued unit, that has questionable upgradeability paths in regards to video cards, fewer cores, a slower bus speed, less RAM, slower RAM, and less L2 Cache memory. As an aside, the early 2008 Mac Pro features PCIe 2.0 slots, whereas the 2006 Mac Pro does not.
    As for adding a second DVD drive, you can get the drives for about 30 dollars. They are not expensive like they used to be.
    In regards to all of the stuff floating around about Leopard, I do a lot of graphics, including Final Cut Studio 1, and Creative Suite 3. I have had few issues. With the latest Leopard upgrade, and the recent updates with the other programs, Leopard runs every bit as good as Tiger did. The only recurring theme I have seen that has not been resolved with the newer systems and hardware has been the drivers for audio gear and recording. Otherwise, the new machines are very stable and speedy.
    Other folks have went the refurb way and have been very happy. Some folks went with the newer machine, and they are happy. Only you can decide what makes the deal the best for you. Do not base everything on the higher priced Crucial RAM. Oh, one other thing that you get with the early 2008 Mac Pro is a nifty aluminum keyboard. After using this keyboard you will not want to use anything else.
    Good luck with your decision. I know it is difficult.

  • New Mac Pro won't stay asleep

    Hi everyone. I took delivery of my new Mac Pro a few days ago. It's the highest spec model (12 core, 64gb memory, 2 x 6gb graphics and 1TB SSD). It's connected to two 30" screens and networked to a Windows storage server.
    The problem I have is that it won't stay asleep. Basically after being asleep for a couple of minutes the screens suddenly come back on and the login window appears as though somebody has pressed a key. After a minute or so it goes back to sleep and then it wakes up again and continues in a cycle.
    I have tried making sure all programs are closed and nothing is running at all but it still happens.
    I just wonder if anyone else has had this issue or might know a solution?

    Okay thanks for all the help guys, I've discovered what the problem is but not how to fix it.
    I unplugged everything but the bare minimum and the computer stayed asleep just fine. I then plugged everything in one thing at a time and tested. The culprit was one of my screens! I have an NEC Spectraview Reference 301 screen. It worked just fine on my old Mac Pro but when this screen is powered up the new Mac Pro will not stay asleep for more than 1 minute. My other screen is an Apple Cinema display and this works just fine on its own.
    The solution for now is that I have to remember to hit the power button on the NEC screen before I leave the computer. This is fine but I'd love to find out what's causing this issue so I don't have to remember every time! I'm thinking maybe the NEC has some built in power settings so I'm going to fiddle with them now. If anyone else has any further ideas I'd love to hear them!

Maybe you are looking for