4 ms·
I would say that is more about the boxes they use than CPU. The difficulty of adding your own hard drives, memory, graphics cards etc to a Mac is the biggest pr
by jernfrost 9y ago
I would say that is more about the boxes they use than CPU. The difficulty of adding your own hard drives, memory, graphics cards etc to a Mac is the biggest problem I think.
What pro task, really requires high single thread performance? I imagine Apple could match intel by simply using more cores on their ARM CPUs.
- jcadam 9y agoTrue, I miss the old Powermac towers: Workstation class machines, but with low-end configurations for those of us on a budget. When I was faced with the choice between: - an iMac that didn't really meet my needs - a ridiculously unaffordable Mac Pro tower I jumped over to Linux running on commodity PC hardware.
- timc3 9y agoAudio from what I know is best with have multiple high speed cores, rather than many lower speed cores. (I use my machines for audio)
- jernfrost 9y agoAnd what are your processing times like? I use my Mac for video editing, but I have never had any problems doing that smoothly even on much weaker Macs. Only issue I have on Mac is compiling large programs.
- sno0ks 9y agoThe issue is with live streams of audio or virtual instruments with CPU heavy effects with very small amount of buffering (typically 64 samples @ 48kHz, which is 0.75ms). Also processing of instruments and effects for one track (+ relevant busses) has to be in series so more cores doesn't help a resource hungry signal chain. But of course they do greatly help overall effect/instrument count over many tracks.