Jump to content
cclarry

Apple Mac Mini M1

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jim Roseberry said:

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.

I've read that if you disable four cores, you can overclock them higher and get even better single core performance because less heat is being generated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, InstrEd said:

Heck competition is great. Now Intel, AMD on the x86 hardware front have work to do and MS on the software end. Just think when Ryzen is on 5nm for laptop chips😊

Agree 100%. I am all for competition and the more the better because we will all benefit in the end. What I am not for is people asserting that their gluphorkan of choice is so much better than yours, you may as well go home and die because what you are using now is so obsolete.

What was that about a sale again?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Doug Rintoul said:

I've read that if you disable four cores, you can overclock them higher and get even better single core performance because less heat is being generated.

Ahh.. ok. Now I see the why.

3 minutes ago, Doug Rintoul said:

Agree 100%. I am all for competition and the more the better because we will all benefit in the end. What I am not for is people asserting that their gluphorkan of choice is so much better than yours, you may as well go home and die because what you are using now is so obsolete.

What was that about a sale again?

Exactly^^^^

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Doug Rintoul said:

I've read that if you disable four cores, you can overclock them higher and get even better single core performance because less heat is being generated.

FWIW, There's extremely limited OC headroom.

What you get is higher turbo frequency across more of the cores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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.

 

Edited by Jim Roseberry
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Hugh Mann said:

Not even the expert has experience  with one. Yet he made that claim.

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.  😁

 

Edited by Jim Roseberry
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jim for passing along your knowledge. As always most appreciated 🙂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, InstrEd said:

Thanks Jim for passing along your knowledge. As always most appreciated 🙂

Yep!

Thanks Jim for keeping it real!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

is this address familiar to anyone:

 

10040 Southridge Terrace,

Oklahoma City, OK 73159, USA

I ask this because I got a BS email today that is bogus. Here is the email:

image.thumb.png.ba61ec56721e4f5b94ec500a03437f44.png

There are no links in this email except my email address. It's a bogus email for sure. Such a coincidence I get an email like this. 

Edited by Grem
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/11/2021 at 2:52 AM, Jim Roseberry said:

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.

 

Im not a glutton for punishment, but I’m not gonna let you guys bully me into letting this  very inaccurate statement be taken as a fact.  This is not true.  It’s inaccurate.  And making this claim is spreading false information.   An 8gb m1 Mac will be suitable for way, way more than surfing, office, etc..,   Saying otherwise  is just not true.  Even the air.   This is proven in many of the videos out there.  Not opinions or exaggerations.  But measurable and repeatable.  You can see it with your own eyes in many of the videos out there.    The next statement of “8gb ram a small handful of virtual instruments would have the machine ram starved”.  This is misleading.   It implies the machine is weak and can’t handle much.  Yes, the ram will be at about 7 gb.  But it stays there. Keep adding kontakt instruments, keep adding,keep adding,  and the ram stays there.  It will play back , glitch free at 96khz 64 buffer. It will take an impractical amount of  abuse before it starts to crack.  And still at super low latency.  Under 3ms with my UAD  interface.  .  you can very much do way more than  a handful of vstinstruments.    You can do some serious productions on it.  So to say it as you have is a very exaggerated statement that is taken by many as facts.  That’s a disservice to the community.  As far as the chrome tabs.  Why not safari? I had like ten tabs open with my monster project and it kept going.  Glitch free.   
 

All that you have pointed out is with a 16 gb machine.  that’s fine and good info.   I’m talking about an 8gb.   the statements you are making here as facts, are  about an 8gb machine. And the above statements are simply inaccurate.  When you test one, you will see.  
 

 

Till then,  I think the bullying reflects more on you guys than it does me.    
 

as far  as whether one machine is better than anything else. lt’s all just tools  use what ever gets you there.  this tool happens to be great for music makers   If one wants to save a bit of money, an 8gb m1 will be a phenomenal machine.  Even the air, from the videos I’ve seen.  At many points in my life, the price difference between 8gb and 16gb would be something I’d have to consider very carefully.  To characterize it as you have is inaccurate  and misleading.  And you have caused me some grief, lol.
 

 I’d still get a 16gb.  Because I’m blessed to be able to afford it.  For future proofing, since you are stuck with whatever configuration you initially purchase.  But if all I could afford is an 8gb Mac mini or even an air,  I know for sure it would be capable of handling way, way, way more than how you are making it seem.  

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Edited by Hugh Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Jim Roseberry said:

 

ie: Your statements claim that a M.2 SSD is a viable substitute for having enough physical RAM to run larger projects.

 

 

 

I never said that.  I don’t think that.  I said  an 8gb machine can run way way way more that how you are making it seem.   And that’s a verifiable fact.  

 

Edited by Hugh Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guyz , can we add another drive in those ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Zo said:

Guyz , can we add another drive in those ?

You can't add anything internal.

You've got HDMI, two USB ports, and two Thunderbolt ports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

255067083_ScreenShot2021-06-15at7_42_55AM.thumb.jpeg.2d4098bfefd10c70bfbc140f01ca5d56.jpeg

 

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.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hugh, you did suggest that when the loaded vst would hit the 8gb limit, then the M1 would use the ssd/hard drive/page file to "keep things going". Then Jim pointed out that even a good ssd couldn't keep up with ram, thus performance would suffer. That's why I kept suggesting to you to re-read his posts. 

And no one is bullying you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well no matter how great these are I wont be owning one anytime soon unless I win one.

  • Great Idea 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Grem said:

Hugh, you did suggest that when the loaded vst would hit the 8gb limit, then the M1 would use the ssd/hard drive/page file to "keep things going". Then Jim pointed out that even a good ssd couldn't keep up with ram, thus performance would suffer. That's why I kept suggesting to you to re-read his posts. 

And no one is bullying you. 

What I said is not inaccurate.  Maybe not stated in a technical way.  But the point was that it uses the ssd as a sort of ram.  Isn’t that what a swap file is?  You can try to get me on a technicality if you want,  but the point is accurate.   He is saying that because the sad is slower than the ram, performance will suffer.  He assumes, since he hasn’t tested an 8gb one.  Now of course, it’s not a bad assumption.  It will be a performance hit, compared to internal ram.  But how much of one? As in real world difference?  One can assume, but until tested,  it’s all speculation.  He is making it seem like it will be a crippling hit.  That is not the case.  It’s a misleading statement.  Here is a video that explains it well.  Around 1:20 minutes in.   Maybe Doug can practice his google searching and look up other articles and videos that explain this better.  

 

Edited by Hugh Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grem said:

And no one is bullying you. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

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

255067083_ScreenShot2021-06-15at7_42_55AM.thumb.jpeg.2d4098bfefd10c70bfbc140f01ca5d56.jpeg

 

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.

 

So what does all this equal in real world situations? One can load a 20gb file in 10 Vs 10.5 seconds? One can stream 860 vs 820 Audio tracks at once?  One can run 70 vst’s vs 90?  Testing and benchmarking is good and kind of fun,  but what does it mean in  real, practical,  scenarios?  To me,I was able to do anything I could possibly think of and way more on an 8gb machine.  The limits are not on the machine, as far as producing music.  In fact, that has been true for a Long time now, with computers.  I managed to produce and release a few songs with record labels using way older machines.  I’m sure many of you have as well. 

Edited by Hugh Mann
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...