Dual G4 or single G5 for Logic Audio?

[KP]

I am about to purchase a Mac to replace my PC desktop for music
production and am weighing the pros and cons of my options. My main
question is, am I better off with a low-end G5 (1.6GHz) or a Dual
1.25GHz G4 machine? I see lots of comparisons of the two machines for
graphics apps but no one ever comments on using them for Audio.

I use Logic (will be upgrading to version 6) and do mostly electronic
(synth) based production with software synth use and a fair amount
(but not ridiculous) of plugin use.

Can anyone share their experiences or thoughts on which machine I
should go for? Or point me to a site that has some information on
Audio based benchmarks or comparisons? I'm happy to hear subjective
views as well.

Thanks for your help,
kp

[Brian Takei]

KP ) in article
> wrote:
>
> Can anyone share their experiences or thoughts on which machine I
> should go for? Or point me to a site that has some information on
> Audio based benchmarks or comparisons?

I would try asking in the Logic Users Group, which I think is probably
the most concentrated assembly of very knowledgable and helpful
Logic/Mac folks online:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/logic-users/

- Brian

[Eli Krantzberg]

(KP) wrote in message >...
> I am about to purchase a Mac to replace my PC desktop for music
> production and am weighing the pros and cons of my options. My main
> question is, am I better off with a low-end G5 (1.6GHz) or a Dual
> 1.25GHz G4 machine? I see lots of comparisons of the two machines for
> graphics apps but no one ever comments on using them for Audio.
>
> I use Logic (will be upgrading to version 6) and do mostly electronic
> (synth) based production with software synth use and a fair amount
> (but not ridiculous) of plugin use.

I am also a Logic user and I just ordered a dual 1.25 G4. They are
great bang for the buck. But if you are coming from PC, I don't think
I would recommend the G4. I chose it for three reasons. First, I am
deeply invested (software wise) in OS 9 and want to breath as much
longevity into my OS 9 useage as is reasonably possible. Second, I
have a lot of VST plug ins that run in OS 9. I would be starting from
scratch with audio unit plugins in OS X. Third, I have a Digi 001
audio interface, which won't run in the new G5s. So I want to put off
changing it for as long as I can.

But if you are starting from scratch coming from PC, with no previous
investment (either in $$ or knowledge) in OS 9 and and no non-G5
compatible audio hardware; you're probably better off going for the
G5. It's more forward looking. It will likely be upgradeable in the
future in a way that the G4 won't be. The main reason for audio people
buying the current dual G4s is to run OS 9 on for as long as they can
(for the above reasons).

Eli

[Garrett Cox]

I'd totally get the G5. I'd get the 1.8 tho. You get more memory and a
faster bus with the 1.8 vs. the 1.6. Other reasons to get the G5 is
that it comes with SPDIF in and out on the motherboard. The G4 is the
dying standard. If you get the G5 now you'll always be able to upgrade
to the newest processor. This may not be the case with the G4. You'll
be limited at dual 1.42GHz when the G5's hit dual 3.0GHz next fall.
The G5 is also quieter. The G4's can get really really loud. And if
you going to be using Logic 6 the G5 is going to be the only way to
go. the G5's run OS X way better 60% faster i believe and they are
going to be even quicker when 10.3 comes out in 3 days. This will help
plug in count a lot. If you want to check out some benchmarks check
www.barefeats.com and i think www.choasmint.com. You'll be way happier
in the long run with the G5 also if you're any way related to the
education market i.e. student, teacher, staff, administrator or maybe
your parents are or sibilings you get like a couple hundred dollars
off the price at the apple store for education.

garrett

(KP) wrote in message >...
> I am about to purchase a Mac to replace my PC desktop for music
> production and am weighing the pros and cons of my options. My main
> question is, am I better off with a low-end G5 (1.6GHz) or a Dual
> 1.25GHz G4 machine? I see lots of comparisons of the two machines for
> graphics apps but no one ever comments on using them for Audio.
>
> I use Logic (will be upgrading to version 6) and do mostly electronic
> (synth) based production with software synth use and a fair amount
> (but not ridiculous) of plugin use.
>
> Can anyone share their experiences or thoughts on which machine I
> should go for? Or point me to a site that has some information on
> Audio based benchmarks or comparisons? I'm happy to hear subjective
> views as well.
>
> Thanks for your help,
> kp

[Sugarite]

> I am about to purchase a Mac to replace my PC desktop for music
> production and am weighing the pros and cons of my options. My main
> question is, am I better off with a low-end G5 (1.6GHz) or a Dual
> 1.25GHz G4 machine? I see lots of comparisons of the two machines for
> graphics apps but no one ever comments on using them for Audio.
>
> I use Logic (will be upgrading to version 6) and do mostly electronic
> (synth) based production with software synth use and a fair amount
> (but not ridiculous) of plugin use.
>
> Can anyone share their experiences or thoughts on which machine I
> should go for? Or point me to a site that has some information on
> Audio based benchmarks or comparisons? I'm happy to hear subjective
> views as well.

Definitely a dual 1.25 G4. OS X has historically consistently liked duals
over single-cpu Macs. And considering OS X itself doesn't even fully
implement Altivec yet, not much point in investing in new tech that will
also take another 3 years to actually get usage.

[Garrett Cox]

I respectfully disagree. OS X has always in the past liked Dual
proc's. They are the better situation given one or 2 proc's. However
with 2 processors you get at most 40 percent more power than a single
CPU. 2 processors does not mean 2 times as much power. I was sadly
informed by my apple engineer. Especially after hearing Steve Jobs say
"throw in another processor and get twice as much power" This isn't
the case. I also have friends at digi in the QA department and say
that they see gains of 30 percent. Which IS great, but, not when you
look at the fact that the G4 is a 32bit proc and the G5 is a 64 bit
proc. This difference does double the power of the CPU.

Also, OS X is not optimized completely for Altivec processing. I
agree. They are also dropping the Moto. G4 processors. I doubt they're
going to spend many hours testing and refining an old technology. The
G5 is the future. IBM is going to make much bigger steps in CPU
performance than Motorola ever has. They already have G5 3GHz set for
a Sept. release date. And the Power5 chips are even more amazing!
Apple has all their proverbial eggs in the IBM basket.

This coupled with the fact that the G4's have a 167MHz bus speed but
the Motorola chip only supports 133MHz bus' and the G5's have up to
1000MHz is also a great advantage. So even if the G4 wasn't less than
half as fast as the G5 you still couldn't push that power through the
system bus because it's not big enough... PCI-X, SPDIF I/O, Serial
ATA, Quiet performance, expansion. There is no other way to go.

Apple now owns Logic. I guarentee that they are going to be dumping
everything they can into the G5 "Money is no object"

garrett

"Sugarite" > wrote in message >...
> > I am about to purchase a Mac to replace my PC desktop for music
> > production and am weighing the pros and cons of my options. My main
> > question is, am I better off with a low-end G5 (1.6GHz) or a Dual
> > 1.25GHz G4 machine? I see lots of comparisons of the two machines for
> > graphics apps but no one ever comments on using them for Audio.
> >
> > I use Logic (will be upgrading to version 6) and do mostly electronic
> > (synth) based production with software synth use and a fair amount
> > (but not ridiculous) of plugin use.
> >
> > Can anyone share their experiences or thoughts on which machine I
> > should go for? Or point me to a site that has some information on
> > Audio based benchmarks or comparisons? I'm happy to hear subjective
> > views as well.
>
> Definitely a dual 1.25 G4. OS X has historically consistently liked duals
> over single-cpu Macs. And considering OS X itself doesn't even fully
> implement Altivec yet, not much point in investing in new tech that will
> also take another 3 years to actually get usage.

[KP]

I appreciate your feedback. One thing I failed to mention is that
price is a factor. Yes, I agree with the "forward thinking" strategy
and that the G5 will be the future, but I can get a refurb dual 1.25
for $1399 compared to a 1.8 G5 for $2399. $1000 is alot of decision
power at this point. Or even $1999 for the 1.6 G5.

Speaking to an Apple rep who specializes in audio (albeit a DP user
not a Logic user), he said that between the 1.6 G5 and a dual G4, bang
for your buck over the next year or two he'd go with the G4. Overall,
the opinion everyone has is pretty split. Which isn't all that helpful
for me solving my dilemma except to say perhaps that either choice
could be justified.

Any other further thoughts are welcomed. Thanks again.

kp

[Sugarite]

> I respectfully disagree. OS X has always in the past liked Dual
> proc's. They are the better situation given one or 2 proc's. However
> with 2 processors you get at most 40 percent more power than a single
> CPU. 2 processors does not mean 2 times as much power. I was sadly
> informed by my apple engineer. Especially after hearing Steve Jobs say
> "throw in another processor and get twice as much power" This isn't
> the case. I also have friends at digi in the QA department and say
> that they see gains of 30 percent. Which IS great, but, not when you
> look at the fact that the G4 is a 32bit proc and the G5 is a 64 bit
> proc. This difference does double the power of the CPU.

I'll admit I'm not entirely familiar with the ramifications of a 64-bit
processor, but what I've been told is that as long as 32-bit code is
involved, it just enables access to more ram. Logic Audio will undoubtedly
be the first to fully implement the G5, but what about the plug-ins and soft
synths, the things the original poster actually uses, the things that
actually take up CPU? It took over 2 years for Logic's bundled plugs and
Reason to support Altivec, which represents an even bigger performance boost
than 64-bit processing, and they were the first!

As for dual processors, they can be implemented for a full 2x performance
boost, as I am told is the case with DVD2OneX. What benefits you get from
Reason and Logic I don't know, but even at 30% he'll have matched a 1.6GHz
G5 for $1000 less, and see much better responsiveness from OS X.

> Also, OS X is not optimized completely for Altivec processing. I
> agree. They are also dropping the Moto. G4 processors. I doubt they're
> going to spend many hours testing and refining an old technology. The
> G5 is the future. IBM is going to make much bigger steps in CPU
> performance than Motorola ever has. They already have G5 3GHz set for
> a Sept. release date. And the Power5 chips are even more amazing!
> Apple has all their proverbial eggs in the IBM basket.

The G5 still uses Altivec, and would benefit from it by no less of a margin
than a G4. And the history of computer audio has clearly shown that it is
unwise to count on the prompt implementation of ANY new technology, no
matter how obviously it would benefit it.

> This coupled with the fact that the G4's have a 167MHz bus speed but
> the Motorola chip only supports 133MHz bus' and the G5's have up to
> 1000MHz is also a great advantage. So even if the G4 wasn't less than
> half as fast as the G5 you still couldn't push that power through the
> system bus because it's not big enough... PCI-X, SPDIF I/O, Serial
> ATA, Quiet performance, expansion. There is no other way to go.

There is no way you'll saturate even a 133MHz bus with soft synths and
plug-ins. There just isn't enough data exchanging hands. My 24-track mixes
were just as happy on a beige G3's 66MHz bus as my B&W G3's 100MHz bus with
the same processor. If he was doing video it would matter, but it doesn't.
PCI-X doesn't matter for the same lack of prompt implementation of new tech.
S/PDIF is rather pointless since he'll undoubtedly have it on an audio card
of some sort. SATA is definitely pointless because only access speeds
matter to audio, even an EIDE interface will provide enough bandwidth for 24
tracks of 24/96 audio as long as a 7200RPM drive is used (seek time 10ms or
less). Sure 10k rpm SATA drives are becoming available, but it's cheaper
and more prudent to just use two 7200RPM drives. And there's a few dozen
websites out there showing how to quiet a G4 case if that's really
important.

> Apple now owns Logic. I guarentee that they are going to be dumping
> everything they can into the G5 "Money is no object"

Money is always an object. Are you prepared to pay the guy the $1000
difference in cost plus interest in 12 months when it turns out the dual G4
still outperforms the G5? I thought not. Your guarantee is worthless, and
your opinion seems to be formed from specifications and not experience. My
5-year-old B&W G3 is still in service at a friend's studio, now with a
900MHz G3 upgrade, and holds its own against a 1-year old 1GHz G4 for
Protools use. If I hadn't bought a Digi001 back in 2000 (required upgrade
to B&W G3) the beige G3 would still be in service.

All that audio has EVER cared about is 7200RPM drives and raw CPU clock
speed. There is no more reason to think that will change now than there was
3 years ago.


> "Sugarite" > wrote in message
>...
> > > I am about to purchase a Mac to replace my PC desktop for music
> > > production and am weighing the pros and cons of my options. My main
> > > question is, am I better off with a low-end G5 (1.6GHz) or a Dual
> > > 1.25GHz G4 machine? I see lots of comparisons of the two machines for
> > > graphics apps but no one ever comments on using them for Audio.
> > >
> > > I use Logic (will be upgrading to version 6) and do mostly electronic
> > > (synth) based production with software synth use and a fair amount
> > > (but not ridiculous) of plugin use.
> > >
> > > Can anyone share their experiences or thoughts on which machine I
> > > should go for? Or point me to a site that has some information on
> > > Audio based benchmarks or comparisons? I'm happy to hear subjective
> > > views as well.
> >
> > Definitely a dual 1.25 G4. OS X has historically consistently liked
duals
> > over single-cpu Macs. And considering OS X itself doesn't even fully
> > implement Altivec yet, not much point in investing in new tech that will
> > also take another 3 years to actually get usage.

[Eli Krantzberg]

(KP) wrote in message >...
> I can get a refurb dual 1.25
> for $1399

Dude, You can get a 100% brand new one with a full warranty and
support and free upgrade to Panther, etc.... for $1599.

Look here:
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/70307/wo/g64uzHhbVETW2tK9qmT17V4qncP/0.0.7.1.0.5.13.0.1.1.3.0.7.12.1.1.0



Eli

[Garrett Cox]

I'm not going to further comment on this as it appears as I
inadvertantly stepped on someones toes. Get the G5. You'll be much
happier. It's in your best interest. Especially since the G5's power
will increase by at least 30% when pather arrives tomorrow night.

Garrett Cox
Apple Technician
San Francisco, CA

"Sugarite" > wrote in message >...
> > I respectfully disagree. OS X has always in the past liked Dual
> > proc's. They are the better situation given one or 2 proc's. However
> > with 2 processors you get at most 40 percent more power than a single
> > CPU. 2 processors does not mean 2 times as much power. I was sadly
> > informed by my apple engineer. Especially after hearing Steve Jobs say
> > "throw in another processor and get twice as much power" This isn't
> > the case. I also have friends at digi in the QA department and say
> > that they see gains of 30 percent. Which IS great, but, not when you
> > look at the fact that the G4 is a 32bit proc and the G5 is a 64 bit
> > proc. This difference does double the power of the CPU.
>
> I'll admit I'm not entirely familiar with the ramifications of a 64-bit
> processor, but what I've been told is that as long as 32-bit code is
> involved, it just enables access to more ram. Logic Audio will undoubtedly
> be the first to fully implement the G5, but what about the plug-ins and soft
> synths, the things the original poster actually uses, the things that
> actually take up CPU? It took over 2 years for Logic's bundled plugs and
> Reason to support Altivec, which represents an even bigger performance boost
> than 64-bit processing, and they were the first!
>
> As for dual processors, they can be implemented for a full 2x performance
> boost, as I am told is the case with DVD2OneX. What benefits you get from
> Reason and Logic I don't know, but even at 30% he'll have matched a 1.6GHz
> G5 for $1000 less, and see much better responsiveness from OS X.
>
> > Also, OS X is not optimized completely for Altivec processing. I
> > agree. They are also dropping the Moto. G4 processors. I doubt they're
> > going to spend many hours testing and refining an old technology. The
> > G5 is the future. IBM is going to make much bigger steps in CPU
> > performance than Motorola ever has. They already have G5 3GHz set for
> > a Sept. release date. And the Power5 chips are even more amazing!
> > Apple has all their proverbial eggs in the IBM basket.
>
> The G5 still uses Altivec, and would benefit from it by no less of a margin
> than a G4. And the history of computer audio has clearly shown that it is
> unwise to count on the prompt implementation of ANY new technology, no
> matter how obviously it would benefit it.
>
> > This coupled with the fact that the G4's have a 167MHz bus speed but
> > the Motorola chip only supports 133MHz bus' and the G5's have up to
> > 1000MHz is also a great advantage. So even if the G4 wasn't less than
> > half as fast as the G5 you still couldn't push that power through the
> > system bus because it's not big enough... PCI-X, SPDIF I/O, Serial
> > ATA, Quiet performance, expansion. There is no other way to go.
>
> There is no way you'll saturate even a 133MHz bus with soft synths and
> plug-ins. There just isn't enough data exchanging hands. My 24-track mixes
> were just as happy on a beige G3's 66MHz bus as my B&W G3's 100MHz bus with
> the same processor. If he was doing video it would matter, but it doesn't.
> PCI-X doesn't matter for the same lack of prompt implementation of new tech.
> S/PDIF is rather pointless since he'll undoubtedly have it on an audio card
> of some sort. SATA is definitely pointless because only access speeds
> matter to audio, even an EIDE interface will provide enough bandwidth for 24
> tracks of 24/96 audio as long as a 7200RPM drive is used (seek time 10ms or
> less). Sure 10k rpm SATA drives are becoming available, but it's cheaper
> and more prudent to just use two 7200RPM drives. And there's a few dozen
> websites out there showing how to quiet a G4 case if that's really
> important.
>
> > Apple now owns Logic. I guarentee that they are going to be dumping
> > everything they can into the G5 "Money is no object"
>
> Money is always an object. Are you prepared to pay the guy the $1000
> difference in cost plus interest in 12 months when it turns out the dual G4
> still outperforms the G5? I thought not. Your guarantee is worthless, and
> your opinion seems to be formed from specifications and not experience. My
> 5-year-old B&W G3 is still in service at a friend's studio, now with a
> 900MHz G3 upgrade, and holds its own against a 1-year old 1GHz G4 for
> Protools use. If I hadn't bought a Digi001 back in 2000 (required upgrade
> to B&W G3) the beige G3 would still be in service.
>
> All that audio has EVER cared about is 7200RPM drives and raw CPU clock
> speed. There is no more reason to think that will change now than there was
> 3 years ago.
>
>
> > "Sugarite" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > I am about to purchase a Mac to replace my PC desktop for music
> > > > production and am weighing the pros and cons of my options. My main
> > > > question is, am I better off with a low-end G5 (1.6GHz) or a Dual
> > > > 1.25GHz G4 machine? I see lots of comparisons of the two machines for
> > > > graphics apps but no one ever comments on using them for Audio.
> > > >
> > > > I use Logic (will be upgrading to version 6) and do mostly electronic
> > > > (synth) based production with software synth use and a fair amount
> > > > (but not ridiculous) of plugin use.
> > > >
> > > > Can anyone share their experiences or thoughts on which machine I
> > > > should go for? Or point me to a site that has some information on
> > > > Audio based benchmarks or comparisons? I'm happy to hear subjective
> > > > views as well.
> > >
> > > Definitely a dual 1.25 G4. OS X has historically consistently liked
> duals
> > > over single-cpu Macs. And considering OS X itself doesn't even fully
> > > implement Altivec yet, not much point in investing in new tech that will
> > > also take another 3 years to actually get usage.

[Chris Smalt]

Garrett wrote:

> Get the G5. You'll be much
> happier. It's in your best interest. Especially since the G5's power
> will increase by at least 30% when Panther arrives tomorrow night.
>
> Garrett Cox
> Apple Technician


Someone who is serious about recording with his computer wouldn't
install a new version of the OS until it's reported safe for use with
his applications, plugins and hardware. Let's leave the pioneering to
the beta testers. The same goes for the G5. Come again in a couple of
months.


Chris

______________________________________
Please remove the r from my address to reply by email

[JR]

Umm...I do music production and music for film and TV for a living...my
sytem? Dual G5 and Logic 6 Platinum....NOTHING can compare to this
powerhouse...Softsynths, plugs, track count...with a 5% usage on each
processor showing, I get 64 tracks or playback of 24/96K audio and 32
plugs, mostly Waves stuff....Like I said it looked like about 5% usage
on the CPU and 10% on the hard drives....The G5's are ready for prime
time...

JR


>
> Someone who is serious about recording with his computer wouldn't
> install a new version of the OS until it's reported safe for use with
> his applications, plugins and hardware. Let's leave the pioneering to
> the beta testers. The same goes for the G5. Come again in a couple of
> months.
>
>
> Chris
>

--
www.jrhonephotography.com

[Sugarite]

Nothing costs as much as that powerhouse either. The key issue here is
whether a 1.6GHz G5 is worth $1000 more than a dual 1.25GHz G4 for audio
purposes. I say definitely not.

"JR" > wrote in message
...
> Umm...I do music production and music for film and TV for a living...my
> sytem? Dual G5 and Logic 6 Platinum....NOTHING can compare to this
> powerhouse...Softsynths, plugs, track count...with a 5% usage on each
> processor showing, I get 64 tracks or playback of 24/96K audio and 32
> plugs, mostly Waves stuff....Like I said it looked like about 5% usage
> on the CPU and 10% on the hard drives....The G5's are ready for prime
> time...
>
> JR
>
>
> >
> > Someone who is serious about recording with his computer wouldn't
> > install a new version of the OS until it's reported safe for use with
> > his applications, plugins and hardware. Let's leave the pioneering to
> > the beta testers. The same goes for the G5. Come again in a couple of
> > months.
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> --
> www.jrhonephotography.com

[R Tyck]

"Sugarite" > wrote in message >...
> Nothing costs as much as that powerhouse either. The key issue here is
> whether a 1.6GHz G5 is worth $1000 more than a dual 1.25GHz G4 for audio
> purposes. I say definitely not.

It may or may not change your argument- but I think we were talking
about a $600US diff and not $1000US.

R

[Scott]

I vote Dual 1.25 G4.

I have NEVER run out of processing power using Pro Tools, Cubase SX,
Nuendo, or Logic!!!
I run BIG projects with lots of plugins all the time.

Plus that OS9 thing is pretty important too!





R Tyck wrote:

> "Sugarite" > wrote in message >...
>
>>Nothing costs as much as that powerhouse either. The key issue here is
>>whether a 1.6GHz G5 is worth $1000 more than a dual 1.25GHz G4 for audio
>>purposes. I say definitely not.
>
>
> It may or may not change your argument- but I think we were talking
> about a $600US diff and not $1000US.
>
> R

[Tom Loredo]

Do you have any existing PCI cards? The G5 requires 3.3V logic for
the PCI interface. The G4 can support the older 5V logic standard.
Some audio PCI cards require 5V capability. Check with your
hardware manufacturer(s). For example, I believe the Digi001 card
is not compatible, nor are any of the M-Audio Delta line (including
the Audiophile). M-Audio has announced new versions that will sense
the bus logic level and be compatible with both 5V and 3.3V buses;
I don't know what Digi is planning.

Similarly with software---some software is not currently compatible
with 10.3, so whatever you get you might want to make sure you have
a copy of 10.2 for it. BIAS Peak 4 is an example.

In other words, something to factor into your decision is whether
you can live with a period of discomfort and decreased productivity
if you buy the bleeding edge G5 and happen to have hardware or
software that won't play along (the software will come up to speed,
but the hardware may require a new investment).

Just some factors. You might want to poke around macmusic.org for
more on this.

Peace,
Tom

--

To respond by email, replace "somewhere" with "astro" in the
return address.

[Chris Smalt]

> > Someone who is serious about recording with his computer wouldn't
> > install a new version of the OS until it's reported safe for use with
> > his applications, plugins and hardware. Let's leave the pioneering to
> > the beta testers. The same goes for the G5. Come again in a couple of
> > months.


JR wrote:

> Umm...I do music production and music for film and TV for a living...my
> sytem? Dual G5 and Logic 6 Platinum....NOTHING can compare to this
> powerhouse...


OK, just don't move to Panther until the issue with disappearing
external Firewire drives is cleared up. People have lost data over
this.


Chris


______________________________________
Please remove the r from my address to reply by email