2.93GHZ Nehalem 8-core vs 3.33Ghz Westmere 6-core?

Hello fellow logic lovers,

I'm in a desperate need to upgrade to a new mac pro, and after much research have narrowed my search down to two mac pro flavors (which actually run about the same price): a refub 2.93GHZ Nehalem 8-core or the new 3.33Ghz Westmere 6-core.

I'm running very heavy sample instruments as well as some monster synths/cpu heavy effects, so I need both a powerful machine and plenty of ram. Luckily multiple ram manufacturers have stated compatibility between the 6-core machines and their 8GB chips, which means a 6-core can actually hold up to 32GB of ram (which should be plenty), so it looks like its down to the CPU.

Which system would ultimately be able to handle heavy CPU logic sessions better? the slightly slower clock speed, but 2 additional cores of the 8-core mac, or the blazing fast clock speeds and faster ram access of the 6-core?

Anyone know of any sites that might have benchmarks? I found a great logic benchmark thread at gearslutz but oddly enough they dont have a listing for the 2.93GHZ Nehalem 8-core. http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/371545-logic-pro-multicore-benchmarktest.html

If you have either of these machines PLEASE run the benchmark test and let me know your score! Thanks in advance for your help and reply!

p.s. on a related note, would purchasing an SSD drive as a system drive improve logics performance in any way, even if I store all my logic projects on a separate internal SATA drive? I'm thinking that the OS could potentially run better on a SSD drive, and thus increase logics performance, but would love some definitive evidence or user feedback if possible.

Hi JT,

There are some threads over on the Apple/Logic forum that might be of interest to you on the subject of processors...

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2541408&tstart=0

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2547307&tstart=15

Regards,

Ski

I just posted some info and links in this other thread.

http://www.logicprohelp.com/viewtopic.php?p=315583#315583

The short version is that Logic doesn't seem to have been designed to work on six cores and performs very badly on that config (worse than on a quad, even though the clock speed is much higher). I haven't seen a report from anyone trying Logic on a 12 yet.

Sorry, I don't understand. When someone has one of the new machines and runs logic on it and reports back the result, how is that "speculation"?

And how else would you get real data on how Logic runs on the new machines other than running Logic on the new machines?

Or are you assuming that those people screwed something up when they tested? Is there some magic number of users reporting the same thing that moves it beyond "speculation" for you?

Like I said on the other thread were you asked the same thing.

This "real test" was done by a dude that isn't even a Logic user. 46 instances of the same thing and the CPU maxes out. That's all he did.

Ooohh... a "real test" for sure. And because of this suddenly the 6-core is crap.

Wow. There are four threads going on this topic.

I am officially bored with it.

I'll wait and see what happens.

Until then, I'm sticking with my iMac. It works just fine. 8)

Like I said on the other thread were you asked the same thing.

This "real test" was done by a dude that isn't even a Logic user. 46 instances of the same thing and the CPU maxes out. That's all he did.

Ooohh... a "real test" for sure. And because of this suddenly the 6-core is crap.

I posted a more detailed response on the other thread, but in short:

He used a standard benchmarking session, and the result was fewer plugins on a fast six core than other users were able to get on a slower quad running the exact same session. Read the other thread for details.

18months ago i bought a 2.26 i core to replace my 2ghz dual.

i run huge projects, 30-40 virtual instruments 30-40 audio tracks typically. usually not Logic instruments either (nexus etc)

the new computer never gives it a second glance, it can handle anything i throw at it no matter how over the top..

cores are everything, logic can onl.y use 4.5 gb anyway, speed is irrelevant.

whichever one u buy will be so much more powerful than what u have it will freak u out!!!!

cores are everything, logic can onl.y use 4.5 gb anyway, speed is irrelevant.

Only if you run Logic 8, Logic 9.0.4 or Logic 9.1 in 32-bit.

Ram in 32 bit apps is around 3 gigs.

64 bit apps use all the ram you got.

Logic 9.1 can do it with Snow Leopard.

this is true, but the main thrust of my argument is this.

the computer that is being replaced is SUCH old spec that the improvements with either new model will be incredible and any differences between the two qoted machines will be in the 'theoretical' area of dicussion.

my advice would be 'get the most cores you can'. logic spreads the load over your cores so the more you got the more it can do.

by all means pm me and i can send you some screenshots of what my old wheezy 2.26 8 core can do, goodness know how much a 2.98 could cope with!!!!!

I disagree and here is why clock speed IS important.

When you arm software instrument tracks, they all go to one core and with the really huge ones, Like Hollywood Strings, that core will spike and you will get pops and clicks and eventually system overloads. The new 6 core Westmere has a 3.33 GHZ clock speed, which is almost 40% faster than i.e a 2.4. That should help greatly with this issue.

If I had some extra dough and could upgrade, THAT is the machine I would be looking at for Logic Pro 9.

the computer that is being replaced is SUCH old spec that the improvements with either new model will be incredible and any differences between the two qoted machines will be in the 'theoretical' area of dicussion.

No question that the improvement will be huge, but that's no reason to be careless about trying to determine what you need on an upgrade. There is absolutely a noticeable difference in performance between different machines, it's not just "theoretical".

There definitely is much higher CPU use when a VI track is armed. Hopefully the logic devs can do something to help with this in future updates, there are situations where playing back a full orchestral session uses a small amount of cpu power as long as an empty dummy track is selected, but when a VI track is selected one core spikes way up. It seems like there should be some way to avoid that - it just doesn't seem right that having a track selected would spike a core even when nothing is being played on the midi keyboard. I guess using all individual instruments instead of multis would probably help, but that can use much much more ram, which isn't really an option with instruments that aren't 64 bit yet like PLAY.

the computer that is being replaced is SUCH old spec that the improvements with either new model will be incredible and any differences between the two qoted machines will be in the 'theoretical' area of dicussion.

 

No question that the improvement will be huge, but that's no reason to be careless about trying to determine what you need on an upgrade. There is absolutely a noticeable difference in performance between different machines, it's not just "theoretical".

 

There definitely is much higher CPU use when a VI track is armed. Hopefully the logic devs can do something to help with this in future updates, there are situations where playing back a full orchestral session uses a small amount of cpu power as long as an empty dummy track is selected, but when a VI track is selected one core spikes way up. It seems like there should be some way to avoid that - it just doesn't seem right that having a track selected would spike a core even when nothing is being played on the midi keyboard. I guess using all individual instruments instead of multis would probably help, but that can use much much more ram, which isn't really an option with instruments that aren't 64 bit yet like PLAY.

I 100% agree! Thank you all for pointing me to the other threads. There is a TON of knowledgeable discussion going on in those, so maybe we should let this one die? If so, I wanted to make sure to thank you all again for sharing the same info here and pointing me to the other threads. Its very much appreciated.

Even with all the info I've read, I'm still confused on which way to go, refurb 2009, or either 6 or 12-core 2010. Right now it looks like the 2.93 8-core from 2009 is testing the best, and you can get it used/refurb for about the same price as a new 6-core 3.33, but I wonder which will be the better machine in the long run; not to mention I have yet to see any tests from a 12-core.

I'm still very, VERY confused...

You wanna consider also the faster architecture of the new chips, bigger chip cache, faster memory bus. I don't know about the system bus.

These factor play a big role in performance also.

Jay,

Not sure if you've read the other threads here regarding the 6-cores in which Mike C. posted commentary and performance results. According to Mike's findings the marriage between Logic and those machines is a bit rocky. Might be worth having a read. Links are contained in this thread. FWIW.

..for the record, PLAY is a 64bit instrument

It is, but only on windows. On the mac side (which I assume most people are using here on a Logic board) it's still 32.