Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac Pro 5,1 vs Mac Mini Quad i7 for Pro Tools 11

13th Crowned said:
Amen to that jamesdmc, in my situation, I think downtime would be a little longer because I plan on getting the Samsung XP941 as my boot drive, and I'll be configuring this one a little different from My Mac Pro 1,1 which I have as a Raid O with (2) 1TB Drives, (1) TB Drive for my samples, and (1) Miscellaneous 750 Drive, all backed up to an external CCC, and a 2nd external to Time Machine.

Should I install all applications from scratch instead of from the CCC or Time Machine? Is it a good idea to do so since they're on 10.7.5, and I'll be running a newer OS on the SSD with the Mac Pro 5,1? I know my sample drive will remain the same, but I'm just concerned about the Applications that are currently installed on Lion.

Thanks for your forthcoming response…All The Best
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of installing OSes and applications from scratch and avoiding any sort of cloning or TM .

Any inefficiencies you currently have will be repeated with the target system , if you clone /restore .

I religiously perform fresh OS X and application installations once a year on all my drives . Very time consuming initially , but you'll get much better performance for the rest of the year . You just have to record all preferences , settings and bookmarks, etc. before you wipe the old drives .

New installations of an OS (even the same version) will make your Mac run so much faster, you'll think you're getting a brand new machine .

I'm doing this this week for a Chicago based studio since they cannot afford new hardware and their gear is "all clogged up," in their words . Their OS installations are like 5 ... years ... old ... won't be clogged up, once I'm done :)

P.S. it's a good idea to zero out the drives before the re-installation process .
 
13th Crowned said:
I dunno, but I did consider it after looking at some YouTube videos. From what I gathered, it's easier to upgrade the processor on a 5,1 than it is for a 4,1.
Click to expand...

The above statement is true for DUAL CPU MPs.

SINGLE CPU 4,1 and 5,1 MP's are virtually identical; Other than CPU, EFI and GPU are the only functional differences. EFI can be flashed to 5,1 for free. GPU can be upgraded.
 
Machines said:
I'm a big fan of installing OSes and applications from scratch and avoiding any sort of cloning or TM .

Any inefficiencies you currently have will be repeated with the target system , if you clone /restore .

I religiously perform fresh OS X and application installations once a year on all my drives . Very time consuming initially , but you'll get much better performance for the rest of the year . You just have to record all preferences , settings and bookmarks, etc. before you wipe the old drives .

New installations of an OS (even the same version) will make your Mac run so much faster, you'll think you're getting a brand new machine .
Click to expand...

^^This^^...good to know I'm not the only one with this frame of mind of doing a fresh install.:cool:
 
My apologies for bumping an old thread and asking something that is somewhat off-topic.

I'm looking to buy an older Mac Pro and my budget is around $300. One option I have is a Mac Pro 4,1 quad core 2.66GHz with 4GB memory. The other options are Mac Pro 3,1 2x quad core at various speeds and various GB of memory.

My intention is to have a machine that can handle recording 24 tracks (88kHz sample rate) with no plug-ins, and playback of 30 tracks with, say, a couple plug-ins each. This is the absolute top of the range of what I will need from this computer.

I also want the machine to be one I'll be able to use for a few more years. I'm not the kind of guy who's immediately getting the latest OS or PT version, but I'd like to be able to eventually update my system to move it ahead and have it be compatible with other setups.

The 4,1 being newer seems like a better candidate as far as longevity (I can upgrade it to a 5,1 if I ever wanted to + RAM is cheaper). On the other hand, its multi-core benchmark is much lower than any of the 8 core 3,1 Mac Pros. So the question is, will the quad core 2.66GHz 4,1 meet my requirements or am I better off getting a 3,1 8 core machine?

Thanks (and also hello! this is my first post here)!
 
Last edited:
Bump.

I understand my question is a bit specific and probably not everyone here is familiar with Pro Tools. So to phrase it another way, I need a computer for tasks that require a lot of cores. On the other hand, I also don't need it to be the fastest machine around, and having future upgrade options is important. I'd rather get the 4,1 because I know it's got more life left in it, but I can't tell if it will be able to handle what I intend to throw at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Veezer
If you want compute power get a 4.1 then upgrade and expand it however you want. Anyway, mini's power consumption is way better than the huge 5.1. That can be a decision factor for intense sessions. It also depends on DSPs and Accellerators you have or want to use. I.E. If you love UAD Plugins a mini with DSP Accellerator is good. But if you are on the Waves Team i think you should get a Pro.
 
Thanks, Veezer. I'm in the non-DSP card camp (so Waves and others), but also I'm going with a Mac Pro so I can keep using my existing hardware.

I don't think my sessions will ever be more than 30 tracks (and if they do, it'll be a while from now), and I don't use a ton of processing. Like I said - at most a couple of plug-ins per track. I haven't used a desktop machine for a while, so I can't gauge how the performance of the 4,1 (single quad-core processor) will be. It scores way below the 3,1 in the multi-core benchmarks, but if it can handle what I need, then that doesn't really bother me, especially since down the line I can upgrade it to a 5,1 equivalent.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if you are a Pro Tools Expert fan. Look at what they did with tests with 12 Cores and 32GB of ECC1333 DDR3 RAM to understand if it's really what you're after. Having a good computer that doesn't suffer hickups is great. And when you realize you need power all you have to do is upgrading the machine. Personally i think that even X5775 is good enough for 120+ tracks, i mean, is what pro studios use for Orchestral Recordings and mixing so it should fit for you. But look that under 40-50 tracks a Mini still delivers performance unless you want beastly processors like Channel strips per channel. A 12 core Pro can deliver that without sweating. Let us know your choice and have great mixes and never group drums
 
I just watched it. It's very impressive and good to know I'll be able to upgrade.

I guess it's not a lot to ask from a single quad core computer to run 24 tracks. If it can do that for now, I'll be very happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back