  |
 Cubase 1.x In G5 Environment - The Real Life, Trying to find out how G5 actually does |
  Wed 10 Sep 2003, 19:20
Post
#1
|
|
 Newbie Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 07-Sep 03 From: Vanda - FI Member No.: 24,309  |
Hi,
New here, just registered. The thing is that I've wanted a MAC for a while now, but the G4s didn't appeal as they were at the end of the life cycle. Now that the G5 is out and I've been able to touch one (grin) I'm convinced that I MUST get one. But... How do they handle themselves? If any of you guys out there have a G5 (any version) and have Cubase 1.x, could you please run this test - Create 4 A1 synths (with obersweep preset) - Add insert EFX Reverb A to every A1 and then - Add another Reverb A to the instrument - repeate adding Reverb As to each A1 until you reach the critical 80-90% performance limit What I found out was that my Athlon computer handled - 4 A1 with obersweep with 5 Reverb As each. - Performance meter was somewhere around 80% (Disclaimer; I had quite many background processes going while doing this test so the actual performance should be a bit better). The audio settings were 48Khz and 24bit (using SB Audigy 2 Platinum EX that means that the actual input is 16bit and Cubase translates that to 24bit - which again might hurt the performance). But to get the feeling how the G5 could stack up against this athlon (XP2100+, 512MB 333DDR) I'd appreciate _very_ much. Don't make it lean and mean, just please run this simple test... |
 |
 
|
|
Fri 12 Sep 2003, 23:40
Post
#2
|
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 10-Aug 03 From: Santa Barbara - US Member No.: 22,761 |
My bet is on the G5, period, no questions asked.
... But, that's not the point. If you're looking for sheer $p33d then perhaps a Mac isn't best for you. This post has been edited by bracken: Fri 12 Sep 2003, 23:43 |
|
|
|
|
Fri 12 Sep 2003, 23:54
Post
#3
|
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 07-Sep 03 From: Vanda - FI Member No.: 24,309 |
QUOTE (bracken @ Sep 12 2003, 22:40) My bet is on the G5, period, no questions asked. ... But, that's not the point. If you're looking for sheer $p33d then perhaps a Mac isn't best for you. Maybe... in cubase.net -forum i've already gotten some results. And it's not about the pure speed... although it's a very important factor. The things is that I want a _stable platform_ that I don't have to tweek every other day and the fact that I don't have to read all these "Windows update - serious security update" notifications all the time. I'v had it up to my hip... The thing is that I want a stable platform, fast enough, able to run my VSTs and capable enought compared to my current setup (or a bit more since I've run out of processor speed on a couple of my last songs). And the fact that I can use applications such as Secure Shell etc and can work with a decent command line environment (weird huh?)... I have the cash, but I'm not entirely sure if G5 is the best bet Cubase wise... And I _don't_ want to switch to Logic. I just went from Sonar to Cubase just because I found it more intuitive and better to work with. I've tried Logic and the logic simply escapes me 
|
|
|
|
|
Sat 13 Sep 2003, 10:17
Post
#4
|
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 10-Aug 03 From: Santa Barbara - US Member No.: 22,761 |
I hear you, that's for sure.
I did see a new test yesterday that includes Cubase: musimac.it: PowerMac G5, a premiere test drive I don't see any technical validity to it, take it with a grain of salt. (It doesn't test the dual either.) It'll be some time before applications are written to take advantage of the G5. For example, IBM just released it's G5 tuned XLC compiler. On my non-real world integer benchmark I got a 47% increase compiling with it versus GCC 3.3--and that's on my G3. Others have had similar experiences. I wish I had a G5 to run your test on, but oh well... 
This post has been edited by bracken: Sat 13 Sep 2003, 10:24 |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
