Core i5 or i7 for DAWs/Logic Pro?

My late 2007 MacBook Pro is starting to show its age. I need a new computer.

Background:

I don't want to turn this into a tedious mac vs. winbox flamewar, so let me just say that I'm looking to run Logic Pro and Reaper, and maybe fiddle with other DAWS, and I have some firewire Apogee gear that requires Core Audio, and I've got 5 years invested in the Mac OS ecosystem, for better or worse. So I'm going to get a Mac. Sorry. There's a really good chance it'll be my last Mac before moving on to something else, but for now assume I'll be running OS X on something.

I'll also be doing some light photo/video editing, but the computer will be mostly general use with (hopefully) heavy DAW action on the weekends. I might play some games.

Question:

Assuming I go with a 27" iMac, do my own RAM upgrade via Crucial (add 16GB to base 8, or swap in a full 32GB), pay $250 for a Fusion SSD/HDD hybrid, and tack on a GTX 680 MX ($150), is it worth pitching in another $200 to upgrade from a 3.2 GHZ Quad i5 to a 3.4 GHZ Quad i7?

I'd really like to run a DAW without any hitches. I need to get back into making music. But I'd also like to avoid paying $200 for hyperthreading unless it's worth it. And I don't want to employ an i7 if it actually hurts performance in other areas (does this actually happen or is it just BS?).

I know there are a lot of similar questions on teh internets, but the responses are skewed towards people who are doing video work, and the general wisdom is don't buy an i7 if you aren't doing significant video work. I won't be doing more than casual video work. I will hopefully be making some music that doesn't suck, after re-training myself to make music on a computer again.

Advice is appreciated, based watmm gods

i7 = hyperthreading, if I remember.

hyperthreading will definitely come in handy for VSTs. depends how beefy a VST setup you're likely to run all at once, along with effects and shit.

i'd say it's worth it, but that's just me.

Thanks, osc. I'm not sure quite how far I'll push it with VSTs, but I'd like to have the option of going a bit overboard.

I should probably just cough up the last $200.

  On 12/10/2012 at 8:38 PM, baph said:

Thanks, osc. I'm not sure quite how far I'll push it with VSTs, but I'd like to have the option of going a bit overboard.

 

I should probably just cough up the last $200.

with your spec there you listed, it'd be an 8 thread machine, but that's still definitely not to be sniffed at

Excellent.

Any truth to the idea that hyperthreading can cause some games to run worse?

I think I can turn hyperthreading off in OSX via the CLI, so I guess it doesn't matter too much.

  On 12/10/2012 at 8:47 PM, baph said:

Excellent.

 

Any truth to the idea that hyperthreading can cause some games to run worse?

 

I think I can turn hyperthreading off in OSX via the CLI, so I guess it doesn't matter too much.

no idea about gaming on the Macintosh, but there's not too much truth to it for the PC.

in any case, if there ever was an issue with a particular game, you can just force the game to only run on certain cores. you can also turn off hyperthreading in the BIOS. but yeah, a Macintosh doesn't have a BIOS so you're screwed there...

  On 12/10/2012 at 8:53 PM, oscillik said:

 

  On 12/10/2012 at 8:47 PM, baph said:

Excellent.

 

Any truth to the idea that hyperthreading can cause some games to run worse?

 

I think I can turn hyperthreading off in OSX via the CLI, so I guess it doesn't matter too much.

no idea about gaming on the Macintosh, but there's not too much truth to it for the PC.

 

in any case, if there ever was an issue with a particular game, you can just force the game to only run on certain cores. you can also turn off hyperthreading in the BIOS. but yeah, a Macintosh doesn't have a BIOS so you're screwed there...

 

Probably not much of an issue, then. Looks like there are temporary solutions available with some tweaking on OS X, just not a permanent disable solution. There are a lot of people running i7s on macs at this point, and I can't say I've heard any specific complaints, just general (OS-agnostic) murmurs. So it's probably BS.

Thanks for the input

running a 2011 iMac with a 2.7GHz Core i5 + 12GB RAM here...regularly use Reaper and Numerology and have never managed to overtax my CPU yet, with multiple VSTs, FX, MIDI, live recording etc all happening at once.

  On 12/10/2012 at 9:24 PM, BCM said:

running a 2011 iMac with a 2.7GHz Core i5 + 12GB RAM here...regularly use Reaper and Numerology and have never managed to overtax my CPU yet, with multiple VSTs, FX, MIDI, live recording etc all happening at once.

BCM speaks sense - he has been running music stuff on a modern Mac, whereby my last Mac was a Core 2 Duo.

yeah, sandy bridge and especially the new ivy bridge processors are more than capable for most audio stuff i reckon...if you're doing a lot of video work though the i7 is probably worth the extra bucks.

Good to know, thanks BCM.

Might sit back and wait a few weeks, see how the maxed out 27" gets reviewed (afaik, none have been delivered yet, just gimpy baseline unupgradeable 21" models). Looks like a pretty solid system, but who knows. If it ends up sucking I might need to scare up some free time and build myself a cheap/ugly hackintosh.

or just get a 2011 model from a reseller or 2nd hand...still shit hot, sandy bridge processors, decent graphics cards, much more upgradable than the 2012 models and will be loads cheaper!

  On 12/11/2012 at 1:44 PM, BCM said:

or just get a 2011 model from a reseller or 2nd hand...still shit hot, sandy bridge processors, decent graphics cards, much more upgradable than the 2012 models and will be loads cheaper!

Yeah, the 2011 models are great. Unfortunately one of the biggest selling points for me on the newer model is the reduced reflectivity of the screen. The older models are too reflective for me. I am, I think, much more sensitive to that than most people. It seems to trigger migraines. I tested the newer model out in the store, aimed at ridiculously overbright ceiling lights, and it was a pretty good improvement. Not perfect, compared to a matte screen, but good enough for me.

The new 27" iMac has a user upgradeable RAM access slot. I'd be putting a nice GPU in there since it's a remarkably inexpensive BTO option from Apple, for once. Hard drive access is a bit more worrisome, but in the event of an out-of-warranty catastrophe in >3 years, I'm fairly confident I could rig up a fix or just run a fast external HDD via Thunderbolt. Don't care about the lack of the optical disk drive because (a) that has been the first internal component to fail in 2/4 of my last computers, and (b) based on previous failures I've had to purchase a nice, fast, tiny external Samsung DVD writer for all of $30.00.

I think the new 27" would fit my needs, particularly for living in a tiny loft and having limited time to tinker. The new baseline 21" is laughably terrible, but I've got enough of a budget together (after 2 years of saving and catching a break on another anticipated expense) for a fairly maxed-out 27", which spec-wise seems like a solid system that'll work for me for at least 3 years.

Going to hold out until reviews come in, since I am concerned with the thermal performance of the new, unnecessarily slim cases. Baseline 21" reviews so far seem to show markedly better power usage/thermal performance over sandy bridge units, so I am hopeful. If it sucks, though, I'll either try to ignore the reflectivity of the 2011 screen or build my own PC and say goodbye to Logic/Apogee. Or build a hackintosh which I know I don't actually have time to do.

  On 12/11/2012 at 9:49 PM, baph said:

 

  On 12/11/2012 at 1:44 PM, BCM said:

or just get a 2011 model from a reseller or 2nd hand...still shit hot, sandy bridge processors, decent graphics cards, much more upgradable than the 2012 models and will be loads cheaper!

 

Yeah, the 2011 models are great. Unfortunately one of the biggest selling points for me on the newer model is the reduced reflectivity of the screen. The older models are too reflective for me. I am, I think, much more sensitive to that than most people. It seems to trigger migraines. I tested the newer model out in the store, aimed at ridiculously overbright ceiling lights, and it was a pretty good improvement. Not perfect, compared to a matte screen, but good enough for me.

 

The new 27" iMac has a user upgradeable RAM access slot. I'd be putting a nice GPU in there since it's a remarkably inexpensive BTO option from Apple, for once. Hard drive access is a bit more worrisome, but in the event of an out-of-warranty catastrophe in >3 years, I'm fairly confident I could rig up a fix or just run a fast external HDD via Thunderbolt. Don't care about the lack of the optical disk drive because (a) that has been the first internal component to fail in 2/4 of my last computers, and (b) based on previous failures I've had to purchase a nice, fast, tiny external Samsung DVD writer for all of $30.00.

 

I think the new 27" would fit my needs, particularly for living in a tiny loft and having limited time to tinker. The new baseline 21" is laughably terrible, but I've got enough of a budget together (after 2 years of saving and catching a break on another anticipated expense) for a fairly maxed-out 27", which spec-wise seems like a solid system that'll work for me for at least 3 years.

 

Going to hold out until reviews come in, since I am concerned with the thermal performance of the new, unnecessarily slim cases. Baseline 21" reviews so far seem to show markedly better power usage/thermal performance over sandy bridge units, so I am hopeful. If it sucks, though, I'll either try to ignore the reflectivity of the 2011 screen or build my own PC and say goodbye to Logic/Apogee. Or build a hackintosh which I know I don't actually have time to do.

 

fair enough, yeah hang on for some reviews...not that i need to, but looking at the options for upgrade myself (just window shopping) i came to the conclusion that i'd have to go for the 27" (currently have a 21") and spend that bit extra if i were to upgrade, primarily due to the lack of RAM upgradability on the new 21s...pretty unbelievable they left that option out imo. also the fact that the screen is glued in place rather than held in place with magnets (as in my current model) is disappointing.

  On 12/10/2012 at 8:53 PM, oscillik said:

you can also turn off hyperthreading in the BIOS. but yeah, a Macintosh doesn't have a BIOS so you're screwed there...

have you considered a mac mini as an option? internet here is 1993 speed, too slow to check, but you might be able to get a similarly specced, cheaper & more portable machine that way... 3rd party screens can be a better value & have matte option etc..

  On 12/12/2012 at 1:42 PM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

 

  On 12/10/2012 at 8:53 PM, oscillik said:

you can also turn off hyperthreading in the BIOS. but yeah, a Macintosh doesn't have a BIOS so you're screwed there...

LOLoLOL

 

dunno what you're lolling at?

a Macintosh doesn't have a configurable BIOS setup. Unless things have changed drastically since I had an Intel based MacBook Pro...

i think he's vaguely insinuating that Macs are not as good as PCs because they don't have a configurable BIOS? that's how i read it anyway... silly Mac haters, any bloody excuse! no BIOS....woooooo....

  On 12/12/2012 at 3:07 PM, phling said:

have you considered a mac mini as an option? internet here is 1993 speed, too slow to check, but you might be able to get a similarly specced, cheaper & more portable machine that way... 3rd party screens can be a better value & have matte option etc..

The new Mac Minis are pretty decent except they're basically gimped by Intel HD Graphics 4000 and you couldn't pay me to touch that. I'm not going to be gaming a lot on the desktop but I'd like to have the option to play something once in a while that is relatively contemporary, and have a GPU that won't be totally useless in two years.

[bFC, thanks for doing the one thing to cunt up this thread that I politely asked everyone not to fucking do. Thread ruined. LOLolOLo I ARE 12 year old]

  On 12/12/2012 at 8:25 PM, BCM said:

i think he's vaguely insinuating that Macs are not as good as PCs because they don't have a configurable BIOS? that's how i read it anyway... silly Mac haters, any bloody excuse! no BIOS....woooooo....

i wasn't insinuating that at all.

i was stating that a Macintosh doesn't have a configurable BIOS, and thus cannot turn off hyperthreading at the hardware level.

  On 12/12/2012 at 9:58 PM, oscillik said:

 

  On 12/12/2012 at 8:25 PM, BCM said:

i think he's vaguely insinuating that Macs are not as good as PCs because they don't have a configurable BIOS? that's how i read it anyway... silly Mac haters, any bloody excuse! no BIOS....woooooo....

i wasn't insinuating that at all.

 

i was stating that a Macintosh doesn't have a configurable BIOS, and thus cannot turn off hyperthreading at the hardware level.

 

I'm almost certain that the "he" in BCM's post was referring to BFC and his mocking lolz, not you.

i need to sleep :(

sorry guise

Hey, Hicks... Man, you look just like I feel.

  On 12/12/2012 at 10:00 PM, baph said:

 

  On 12/12/2012 at 9:58 PM, oscillik said:

 

  On 12/12/2012 at 8:25 PM, BCM said:

i think he's vaguely insinuating that Macs are not as good as PCs because they don't have a configurable BIOS? that's how i read it anyway... silly Mac haters, any bloody excuse! no BIOS....woooooo....

i wasn't insinuating that at all.

 

i was stating that a Macintosh doesn't have a configurable BIOS, and thus cannot turn off hyperthreading at the hardware level.

 

 

I'm almost certain that the "he" in BCM's post was referring to BFC and his mocking lolz, not you.

 

indeed i was!

  On 12/12/2012 at 10:17 PM, oscillik said:

i need to sleep :(

 

sorry guise

I completely forgot that Macs do not have a BIOS and I genuinely think that is hilarious. I'm sorry to be so "immature", but I didn't think I would hurt any feelers. I assumed Mac users were extremely comfortable with their Apple superiority, hence why they would choose to pay quite a bit more.