Which Mac for my setup???

[Rayman]

Im about to buy an iMac with a 2.4GHz core 2 duo processor and 2gb ram (2x1gb). Im using a Presonus FP10 firewire 400 soundcard and i want to be able to record 8 tracks simultaneously at 24bit/96k. Latency isnt really a problem for this.

I also do alot of sequencing and need to playback at least 30 tracks, most of them with EQ, effects and what not with very little latency as i have some MIDI hardware i will be using.

Will this do the job?i was also looking into getting a second hand power mac g5 with a 2.0GHz core 2 duo processor and 2gb ram but from what ive heard this will not give me as good performance.

Thanks in advance for your help, i really dont want to splash out £800 and find that it cant do what i want.

Also ive got a 500gb 7200rpm USB 2.0 external harddrive, would it be more benificial to record onto this or onto the internal harddrive?

Thanks again, Rayman

[davidaltemeier]

yeah, the imac should be able to handle that.

it's always better to record to an external/2nd drive. though firewire would be better then usb.

Will this do the job?i was also looking into getting a second hand power mac g5 with a 2.0GHz core 2 duo processor and 2gb ram but from what ive heard this will not give me as good performance.

this is a complete contradiction. it's either a G5 or an Intel Core Duo, can't be both.

[Rayman]

Oh yes, what i meant to say was a 2.0GHz dual core G5.i think thats right.

[davidaltemeier]

Oh yes, what i meant to say was a 2.0GHz dual core G5.i think thats right.

Yeah, that'd make sense. Still probably better off with the Imac, it's a bit more powerful and isn't legacy tech.
(plus it's almost certainly quieter, i've heard some of those G5's and they sound like stinken' vacuum cleaners)

[Rayman]

Thanks for the help guys,

it turns out the iMac doesnt use a TI chipset anymore...dunno how i missed that.

so its gonna be a G5 powermac 2.0GHz with 4GB ram, or a 2.5GHz with 2GB ram. both are dual core. the G5 with 2.0GHz processor is quite abit cheaper, but 4GB is the max ram. the 2.5GHz G5 can take 8GB and im pretty sure it runs at 64bit opposed to the 2.0GHz at 32bit. the bus speed is also higher as it is a newer model.

the concern i have is that the 2.5GHz G5 is liquid cooled and ive heard bad things about them leaking...

any suggestions? i really want to avoid blowing all my cash on the 2.5GHz if i can, but i will if its gonna perform alot better.

thanks again guys, youve been a real help

[G-Dub]

Thanks for the help guys,

it turns out the iMac doesnt use a TI chipset anymore...dunno how i missed that.

so its gonna be a G5 powermac 2.0GHz with 4GB ram, or a 2.5GHz with 2GB ram. both are dual core. the G5 with 2.0GHz processor is quite abit cheaper, but 4GB is the max ram. the 2.5GHz G5 can take 8GB and im pretty sure it runs at 64bit opposed to the 2.0GHz at 32bit. the bus speed is also higher as it is a newer model.

the concern i have is that the 2.5GHz G5 is liquid cooled and ive heard bad things about them leaking...

any suggestions? i really want to avoid blowing all my cash on the 2.5GHz if i can, but i will if its gonna perform alot better.

thanks again guys, youve been a real help

True, no TI chipset, so far it only affects RME gear.

[Nanashiwanderer]

If I recall the switched back to Ti a while back, after a consumer back lash. I don't see why they would switch bac again. Double check how recent your source is. Personally A Mac Mini will out power todays G5, and has similar performance to the iMac and uses Ti Firewire to my knowledge. If your tight on cash a Mac Mini, with an External Drive, 2GB of RAM , Apple Care, Keyboard + Mouse is good cash.

[Rayman]

If I recall the switched back to Ti a while back, after a consumer back lash.

you might be thinking of the Mac Book Pro. they switched back recently.

i spoke to an apple rep the other day who told me the imac was not TI.

i find it hard to believe the mac mini and imac would outperform a G5...doesnt the imac use laptop parts?

rayman

[davidaltemeier]

If I recall the switched back to Ti a while back, after a consumer back lash.

you might be thinking of the Mac Book Pro. they switched back recently.

i spoke to an apple rep the other day who told me the imac was not TI.

i find it hard to believe the mac mini and imac would outperform a G5...doesnt the imac use laptop parts?

rayman

yeah, so? there're lots of laptops out today that would kill workstations from a few years ago...

[Rayman]

yeah, so? there're lots of laptops out today that would kill workstations from a few years ago...

im just saying isnt there supposed to be a noticable difference between the performance of most laptop parts and desktop parts due to their size and build quality?

i could be wrong about this though as im sure it depends on the laptop...but i mean this in a general sense

rayman

[G-Dub]

If I recall the switched back to Ti a while back, after a consumer back lash.

you might be thinking of the Mac Book Pro. they switched back recently.

i spoke to an apple rep the other day who told me the imac was not TI.

i find it hard to believe the mac mini and imac would outperform a G5...doesnt the imac use laptop parts?

rayman

Recent benchmarks show that the core 2 duo machines outperform the last dual G5 powermacs that were released.

http://www.barefeats.com
http://www.macspeedzone.com
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com

I own an older core duo mini, no problems with sessions of 32-48 tracks, using virtual instruments and effects, no need to freeze tracks.

[Nanashiwanderer]

im just saying isnt there supposed to be a noticable difference between the performance of most laptop parts and desktop parts due to their size and build quality?

i could be wrong about this though as im sure it depends on the laptop...but i mean this in a general sense

rayman

Build Quality? No.


A comparably clocked CPU on laptops compared to desktop is about 10 to 15% slower, and the fastest availible part is about 15% slower. Quad core just came out for laptops. Since Most audio software today is optimized for dual core machines, that isn't really a big deal. In 1999 there were big differences between laptops and desktops, but since about 2002, the gap in performance between laptops and desktops have been closing. The highest end laptops can match Mid range PCs today. The main areas where laptops get clobbered is in the upper midrange, and highend, the lowend Performance on laptops v.s desktops already match. Almost any new lowend machine laptop or dekstop would be as fast if not faster than anything in existance 2 years ago. (Apple stopped selling the G5 a little over 2 1/2 years ago)


IT should not be any surprise that a Mac Mini out performs a G5. G5s were top of the line about the same time a Pentium IV 3.00GHz was, more than 5 years ago, and even then its performance compared to PCs were mixed. Many Cross platform apps ran much faster on Windows, Adobe in particular. The reason Apple abandoned the AIM alliance to begin with is IBM failed to release and update their CPU any where near the samee pace that Intel and AMD updated their CPUs.

This is a old benchmark that pits the iMac Core Duo against Dual G5. The Core Duo is 20% slower than the Core 2 Duo of the same speed. Or should appropriately be called a Pentium-M Dothan Dual Core. The speed of this CPU is roughly comparable to an Athlon X2 4600+, a CPU which was top of thel line in 05. Todays Mac Mini is substantially faster than this, and this was done at a time which most software was not optimized for Intel Macs, particularly things like Photoshop ect. When people were still waiting for Universal Binary software. Now adays software on apples platform is optimized and makes better use of Intel CPUs, so the performance gap as actually widened, as many apple software were run in emulation. Particularly youll notice that in most tests the iMac Core Duo wins, but on Photoshop looses. On Windows most operations on Core Duo were faster than the Photoshop meant for Apple G5 (by substantial amounts).
http://www.barefeats.com/imcd.html

[intergalactic]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but my mid-2008 Core 2 Duo Mac Mini with OSX 10.5.5 recognizes 4GB of RAM. Which isn't supposed to happen/ didn't with older machines and OSes. But it was the best $49.99 I have spent in a while. I got it at OWC computing. The video on how to get into a Mac Mini was REALLY helpful. Now if it only could do dual monitor...