Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: uvbnskoold Sat 24 Oct 2009, 17:28

Hi there community,

I have asked this question of many other people and forums but no one can give me a straight answer.

I compose music using Logic Studio and all included sounds, VSTs and a lot of different libraries (EW/QL samples) with very little live recording.

I want to upgrade my system (currently using a dual 2.3 Ghz PowerMac G5 with 8 GB of RAM) to one of the new 27" iMacs - definitely going to go 16 GB of RAM and a 2 TB HD, but I'm torn as to processor.

I just don't know whether the 3.33 Ghz Dual Core processor will be adequate or I should wait and get one of the Quad Core i7 processors for about $500 more money, but I'd have to wait.

For what I do, will the processor make a huge difference? What I've been told is that processor only matters for audio encoding (which I am not really doing a lot of) or video work/rendering... not really applicable to composing with samples using Logic.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Uvee

Posted by: kayj_prod Sun 25 Oct 2009, 08:39

Whew! If you're going for 16 gb of RAM
then an extra 500 for processing speed is a drop
in the ocean!!!
I always think it's best to buy the fastest you can afford at the time- you never know what you'll need in the future. I remember a time when my 350 MHz G3 was enough... Then my 450G4... Then my DP1.2 G4...!

In your position, I'd buy half as much RAM and the faster processor. You can easily upgrade RAM.

Posted by: ironhead Sun 25 Oct 2009, 09:24

well as long as logic is going to make use up the quad core efficiently i would just wait if i were you for 500 bucks more its a good deal your double the speed for only 500 bucks
as long as you not in a hurry
also you can go to the apple store and they will advice you.
i hope that helps

Posted by: lunar 1 Sun 25 Oct 2009, 09:31

Yes.

This is quite incorrect. LOTS of things are CPU hogs. Just open up the Activity Monitor to see how busy your G5's processor gets.

While the i7 looks like a significant step up from Intel's Penryn (in Core 2 Duo), I think you'd be quite pleased with either.. You -will- outgrow the dual core sooner though. Is it worth an extra $500 to push your next new Mac purchase back a year or two? Maybe, you decide. But if all I had were an extra $500 to put into it, I'd fix it up with an internal SSD (solid state drive) to run the OS & programs and keep your samples and such on an external firewire drive.
G'luck

Posted by: tweedmusic Mon 26 Oct 2009, 08:34

Hi There,
I would advise getting the Quad Core to deal with future 64 bit processing , get the snappiest processor you can get , get a large internal 7200 rpm hd and a large external hard drive and if you are recording.... get a quiet glyph ...
You have to be sure what you want to do ?
No one has asked you what you want to do from here , so I'll assume you want to keep your options open for the future. Don't let technology get in the way of your musical creativity. Technology can distract you , so get the best thing you can afford and keep it.

Posted by: houstonmusic Mon 26 Oct 2009, 16:49

well, no straight answers here, and you won't get one from me either.
i'll just report that i do multi sampler composition on a daily basis, often running 100 or more simultaneous voices, using Play, Kontakt, and variety of virtual analog synths. i often don't have time to bounce to audio for my mixes. (though i always prefer to)

this work flow is speeded considerably by my quad core. there's no question i got a bump in speed and stability when i went from the duo to the quad.

Posted by: lunar 1 Tue 27 Oct 2009, 09:44

Ah houstonmusic, ya makes me green with envy! How soon ya think it be a-fore quads get shoved in MB Pros? (snif-whimper) May not be a straight answer, but Real World experience makes fer pow'ful persuasion!

[100 or more and etc etc etc? Dang! Kudos! ...umm, would you do my income taxes? (grins)]

Posted by: lepetitmartien Tue 27 Oct 2009, 11:47

On a practical way, if you see that your actual use on a dual core (if you have one) tends to dispatch work evenly on both cores, the jump to quad could be beneficial as the code of your software threads smoothly.

What CPU/mac are you using now?

Posted by: tweedmusic Wed 28 Oct 2009, 11:18

Hey ..I thought the idea of this forum was to be of benefit to those who seek... can you help with the original question ?

Posted by: deaconblue Thu 29 Oct 2009, 08:04

hey tweedmusic,

I thought it was answered a few times in the thread. But there are actually two questions posed:

Q: if the 3.33 Ghz Dual Core processor will be adequate?

A: Yes. It will

Q: [Or] I should wait and get one of the Quad Core i7 processors for about $500 more money?

A: If you can wait and scrape up the $500, then wait because the Logic application will take better advantage of all four cores of the processor.

Or not. It is a matter of opinion.

Mine is, get the quad core.

And, yes you are correct. This forum is for those who seek.

peace.

Posted by: tweedmusic Fri 30 Oct 2009, 06:56

Posted by: tweedmusic Fri 30 Oct 2009, 07:32

The Question , the one followed by the question mark..? .is answered , although the information provided was insufficient to provide meaningful advice....although you also agree the quad is the way to go.
Maybe you should also ask what this person wants to do , with what and how , and you can even help
the ones who are compelled to to tell us how much they know , rather than seeking to understand before being understood ....fellow seeker.

Posted by: deaconblue Sat 31 Oct 2009, 06:01

I guess it was assumed that since the original message stated that uvbnskoold is using their computer to "... compose music using Logic Studio and all included sounds, VSTs and a lot of different libraries (EW/QL samples) with very little live recording." there was no need to delve further. I don't think anyone on this forum takes the stance of "Let me show you how much I know" and instead actually attempt to answer the questions posed as best as possible.

The primary root issue at hand in the original post was "... I'm torn as to processor." All other decisions seemed to have been made based upon the initial post. From reading back over the entire thread, that specific question was specifically addressed with everyone stating "get the quad core if you can afford it". Including your response to the question.

Everyone offers up their time, their energy and their knowledge and opinion to each other, but unless you sit with someone and do a feasibility and ROI analysis there is no other way to provide a rock solid response for someone else's purchase. In the end, via a forum, it is an opinion, only.

peace.

Posted by: lepetitmartien Thu 5 Nov 2009, 04:00

Mind that for now the iMac 27" has a CPU leak issue (some power is drained in a mysterious way…) typically, it should be corrected someday with an EFI update as it seems rather low level. So don't expect full power from it in the at least coming weeks. (source hardmac, should be online soon, saw it on the French version)

Posted by: SadPandas Wed 2 Jun 2010, 02:38

Hey guys, we have always said since the "should i get X now or wait for Y in a couple of months" to purchase now ONLY if you NEED it otherwise why not wait? The great thing is that you could always purchase now and resell it although that is a hassle for me at least. I am quite happy with my 2 year old Mac Pro and all of my 32bit plugs work fine but when idle the Audio Bridge will crash every now and again.... Sorry, tangent. Anyway, I say you wait for the quad core but the lack of internal drives makes me hesitant to use one for music or video but thats because i am stuck in the 'old' way of thinking that reading and writing to an external isn't as reliable as an internal drive but that could be, like i said, an old wives tale at this point. Does the 27" iMac come with only 1 firewire port? Guess you can always daisy chain those if you needed more. Anyway, hope my .02 cents helped to confuse matters worse, kidding. Like i said at the beginning though, get it when you NEED it.

Viva La Panda!