Jim Roseberry

It's because there's 16 cores... and they heat up quick under load. With fewer cores, temp fluctuation is less extreme. Forget anything but robust cooling.

Means different things to different folks/scenarios. Have you ever loaded the Yamaha C7 grand piano from Keyscape? It loads terribly slow... even from the fastest M.2 SSDs. You've been touting the M1 Mac Mini using internal M.2 SSD in lieu of enough physical RAM (random access memory). In that scenario, the speed of the internal M.2 SSD is of extreme importance. As time permits, I'll post performance examples running multiple large sample libraries. The whole purpose will be to push the RAM limit... (not to adhere/cater to it) Thus far the M1 Mac Mini has performed admirably... especially for what it is (small form-factor relatively inexpensive machine). Based on what it is, I never expected the M1 Mac Mini to compete head-to-head with a decked out workstation. Thus far... it hasn't, but as I said many posts above (based on what it is), that's not a fair apples:apples comparison. The 5950x couldn't run in that tiny enclosure... without sounding like a vacuum cleaner. 😁

Benchmarked M1 Mac Mini Internal M.2 NVMe SSD Fast... but not a premium M.2 NVMe SSD Samsung 970 and 980 EVO sustain ~3500MB/Sec Inland Platinum sustains ~3300MB/Sec Note: To reach speeds upward up 7000MB/Sec, a machine has to be running PCIe 4.0 and using a PCIe 4.0 compatible M.2 NVMe SSD.

You can't add anything internal. You've got HDMI, two USB ports, and two Thunderbolt ports

As I said before... I'll post more specifics as time permits. I don't get where you're being "bullied" by anyone. People see claims that don't jibe with common (computer) sense. ie: Your statements claim that a M.2 SSD is a viable substitute for having enough physical RAM to run larger projects. More power to you, but I've listed technical reasons (and speeds) why that's not ideal. The fastest M.2 drives currently available sustain up to 7000MB/Sec. DDR4 sustains up to 25000MB/Sec. RAM is also random access... whereas M.2 SSD is sequential. Latency of RAM is ~500,000 to a million times less. Many Apple fans have been over-zealous about the M1... to the point of (grossly) exaggerating performance. I've been in discussion with folks claiming the M1 is currently the fastest (single-core) CPU currently available. It's certainly not a bad performer... but it's nowhere near that benchmark. When testing RAM use, one thing you want to do is use different sample libraries (not several instances of the same library). I'll load numerous large sample libraries (running in a DAW application)... and show RAM usage and performance. I'll also benchmark the Mac Mini's M.2 SSD. I doubt it sustains 7000Mb/Sec... but we'll see.

I remember reading, "Windows 10 will be the last version of Windows." That's akin to saying, "I'll never do _____." Almost always winds up happening. 🤪

I wouldn't expect it to be better with legacy applications. The further you get (development/time wise), the wider the gap... and greater the odds of issues.

If the machine doesn't specifically have a Thunderbolt controller (either on the motherboard are via an add-in-card), it doesn't have Thunderbolt. Many motherboards have USB-C ports... but not Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt ports have the lightning-bolt logo. If you try to plug a Thunderbolt peripheral (audio interface, etc) into a USB-C port that's carrying USB 3.2 (not Thunderbolt), it will not function.

Uhhh... you're mistaken on several things. I've got a M1 Mac Mini sitting in my studio. I didn't say the Mac Mini couldn't run The Grandeur. What I showed... was the amount of RAM used by running a single instance of Kontakt (no DAW application loaded) with a single instance of The Grandeur (piano sample library). That isn't made up, opinion, etc. Some of us have read ridiculous claims about the M1 besting single-core performance of ANY current CPU. Though the Helix Native test is hardly all-encompassing, it's bent to single-core performance clearly shows the M1 is not that CPU. That's what I had been saying all along. The M1 is what it is... a great mobile (small-form-factor) CPU. It's not currently a high-end workstation CPU. It can't compete with the likes of a full-bore 5950x machine with massive cooling. Apple didn't re-write the laws of physics and Thermal-Dynamics. If you put the 5950x or 10900k in the Mac Mini enclosure, their performance would be severely diminished. Again, the point here isn't to bash the M1 Mac Mini. It's a slick machine... for an inexpensive price. You can push it to its limits... with glitch-free audio. But it is what it is... and it's not what it's not. The M1 does best the low-latency performance of the new Intel 11900k. 😁

Regarding the 5950x, if you're used to a near dead-silent machine... you're going to work much harder to achieve that with the 5950x vs. the 9900k or 10900k. And while we're talking about CPUs, the new 11900k is a bit of a let-down. Can't run the Helix Native test (96k with a 32-sample ASIO buffer size) without glitches.

FWIW, There's extremely limited OC headroom. What you get is higher turbo frequency across more of the cores.

5950x is the newest Vermeer version of Ryzen. The 5xxx series is where AMD got their ultra low-latency performance together. The 3950x and 3970x (previous gen Ryzen and Threadripper) are great at multi-threaded performance... but a bit weak at ultra low latency audio. Until the 5xxx series, that was their Achilles Heel. Running this test, the Intel i9-10900k is right about even with the 5950x. The 5950x is a more complex machine to configure... if you want it to run close to dead-silent. Also, if you disable four of the cores, the 5950x's performance at ultra low-latency is slightly faster.

Here's the same Helix Native test running on a 5950x. Still a substantial load... but significantly less so This is comparing an $800 CPU (5950x)... with an $800 computer (M1 Mac Mini with 16GB RAM). It's not a fair comparison by any means. The M1 Mac Mini is a slick, small, quiet machine. Note that the 5950x (using Antelope's ASIO driver) can actually go down to a 24-sample ASIO buffer size (glitch-free). The Mac Mini wouldn't allow buffer size smaller than 32-samples. Though CPU load would have been thru the roof, I suspect it could have sustained the load (at 24-samples) glitch-free. More to come as time allows

Here's a stress-test I like to run. Indicative of single-core performance and if the machine can sustain heavy load (glitch-free) at super small buffer size. Orion Studio Synergy Core audio interface set to 96k using a 32-sample buffer size (1ms total round-trip latency) Presonus Studio One Pro v5 running Helix Native with a substantial patch Here's the performance of the Mac M1 Mini There's been a lot of hype regarding the M1's single-core performance. I've read posts claiming single-core performance bested any current CPU. As you can see, this test is a substantial load for the M1. Though CPU load was high, audio playback was completely glitch-free. I'll post the same test running on a 5950x.

With the Vermeer 5xxx series, AMD finally got their low-latency performance together. One thing with the 5950x; the cores heat up quickly under load... causing fan-speed ramp-ups (which can be annoying). Otherwise, a fantastic performer...

I bought the Revv Generator 120 mkIII (based on liking the D20 and G20 and the G2 and G3 pedals). Didn't like it at all... Probably the most disappointed I've been in any amp purchase. I'm wondering now if the amp was defective.

I'm not spreading any misinformation whatsoever. You might want to look closer at the picture in my above post. That is from a M1 mini that has 16GB RAM. Bottom line is that you're not going to be doing anything serious with 8GB RAM. The OS and one standalone Kontakt instance with The Grandeur and you're already above 8GB of RAM used.

FWIW, None of those virtual-instruments are using deep-sampled libraries. Single instance of The Grandeur (Kontakt standalone - no DAW application open) puts Mac Mini well over 8GB RAM.

M1 Mac Mini running OSX Big Sur v11.3 This is with most extraneous things disabled. Running idle, it's using well over 7GB RAM. Open standalone Kontakt 6 and load The Grandeur (piano library)... and memory usage is 8.37GB. That's no DAW application... just a single large piano sample library running standalone. More details to follow

Anybody else notice that performance at ultra low latency (96k using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size - 1ms total round-trip latency) is significantly better than before? You can now run Helix Native at 1ms round-trip latency (above settings)... without ASIO peak overloads. That wasn't the case with Cubase 10/10.5. I'd been putting off upgrading to Cubase 11... because ultra low latency performance wasn't particularly great. Didn't see anything listed about performance improvements for v11. I might just go for Nuendo 11. Somewhat affordable (relatively speaking) at $240 for the crossgrade

No need to watch videos... 😀 I'll grab one with 16GB RAM... and put it thru some real-world circumstances.

Speed: PCIe 4.0 NVMe currently sustains ~7GB/Sec DDR4 sustains ~20-25GB/Sec Response Time: NVMe is ~0.05ms DDR4 is ~0.00005ms NVMe is sequential (not Random Access like RAM) While NVMe drives are fast... they're not a good substitute for RAM. There is no magic/voodoo with machines. Slower hardware means slower performance. The M1 MacBook Air is passive-cooled.

They're loaded into (and stream from) RAM.

Uhhh... yes. First, not all virtual-instruments stream samples from disk (Superior Drummer 3, EZ Drummer 2, Addictive Drums, etc). Those Vi's that do stream from disk... buffer the transient of each sample using a small bit of RAM. I'll use Reaper as an example (MacBook Pro in this case)... as it's cross-platform and extremely small-footprint. Open an empty project, add a single instance of Kontakt... and load up The Grandeur (acoustic piano). With just Reaper and The Grandeur loaded, OSX shows 4.51GB of RAM being used. Now, add a second track with Super Drummer 3... and load the "clean" Ayotte kit. OSX now reports 6.61GB memory being used. On a MacBook Pro with 8GB, you've got less than 1.5GB of free RAM. I wouldn't consider a two track piano/drum project to be "heavy orchestration". 😁 If a machine runs out of physical RAM, it'll use the VM swapfile (in lieu of physical RAM). That kills performance. Professional composers working on TV and Film are running a minimum of 64GB RAM (most are now running 128GB). Many of these folks are clients...

It would blow away your older MacBook Pro. I'm not much of an Apple guy... and not a fan of ultra small form-factor machines for "workstation" purposes. A laptop that's passive-cooled with 8GB of RAM is suitable for it's design purpose (Surfing the Web, office duty, etc). With 8GB RAM, a small handful of virtual-instruments would have the machine RAM-starved. Open up Chrome with half a dozen tabs active/open. You can chew thru RAM quickly. Even using compression to stretch that 8GB further... it's running lean. If small-form-factor also means small-cooling, that's going to limit performance. Some folks will try to tell you the M1 (mobile CPU) will out-perform something like the 5950x (desktop CPU). If expecting that level of performance, the laws of thermal-dynamics (tight enclosure) are going to disappoint you. 😁 If you're expecting a great performing mobile CPU, you'll be pleasantly surprised. It will be interesting to see what Apple does in a desktop version of the M1. My idea of a great small-form-factor machine: Lian-Li TU-150 mini-ITX case - allows full-sized Noctua 140mm cooler Full-sized cooler means you can run a high-end desktop CPU... at full speed. Up to 64GB RAM Multiple internal SSDs (including M.2 NVMe Ultra) Small... but zero performance compromise Runs near dead-silent