Jump to content

Jim Roseberry

Members
  • Content Count

    686
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Jim Roseberry

  1. Back to the M1 Mac Mini with 16GB RAM Standalone instance of Superior Drummer 3 with the Ayotte kit loaded. Only other thing open is the Orion Studio Synergy Core's control panel applet. RAM use is 9.8GB
  2. This is borderline silly... I got the 16GB model to test... because I know the 8GB version would be limited (by comparison). Hmmm... why would Apple offer a 16GB version of the M1 Mini... if the 8GB version offered identical performance/capability??? The reason is obvious... I've built audio/video specific machines professionally for nearly 30 years. There's no way paging the VM Swap-file (on M.2 NVMe SSD) in lieu of enough physical RAM comes at zero performance penalty. Unless Apple has re-written the laws of physics, it's not possible. Clearly, the onboard SSD is not performing at ground-breaking speed. What would be different if I tested the 8GB version? The difference is that it would start hitting the VM Swap-file sooner. In either case, I'd push the M1 Mac Mini to use more than the installed amount of RAM (causing either to page the VM Swap-file - which makes it a moot point). Currently loading large sample libraries onto an external M.2 SSD (attached to the M1 Mac Mini). Detailed performance examples to follow...
  3. 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.
  4. 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. 😁
  5. 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.
  6. You can't add anything internal. You've got HDMI, two USB ports, and two Thunderbolt ports
  7. 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.
  8. 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. ðŸĪŠ
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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. 😁
  12. 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.
  13. FWIW, There's extremely limited OC headroom. What you get is higher turbo frequency across more of the cores.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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...
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. No need to watch videos... 😀 I'll grab one with 16GB RAM... and put it thru some real-world circumstances.
  24. 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.
  25. They're loaded into (and stream from) RAM.
×
×
  • Create New...