Future Macs ARM , and The Intel answer

[InstrEd]

30 minutes ago, Bapu said:

But still, no hovercraft. WTF?

I can't mention the above. I would not survive. I'm already in trouble that you exposed the name of the new vehicle. WTF!

I'll have to go into hiding now ?

[Starise]

1 hour ago, Jim Roseberry said:

Just a couple of points:

 

"Long Battery Life" and "High Performance" are diametrically opposed.  You can have one or the other... not both.

 

General-purpose use (Office Apps, Surfing the Internet, etc) doesn't require much in the way of CPU.

ARM CPUs are already fine doing these tasks (iPads).

 

We work with a lot of Mac users who were essentially abandoned (as power-users) by Apple.

Most often they're professional composers... who need specific components in a high-performance machine; a machine that can be expanded/upgraded as need demands.

The new Mac Pro???  7k for the base model.  Specs our composer clients need would be ~$10,000... and still not offer the same speed/performance and custom/expansion/upgrade options.

 

I agree  it appears only more light weight hardware is going to  be forthcoming initially. If they can bring higher spec'd Macbooks into this i.e Macbook Pro, then maybe they are onto something.  ARM chips apparently exist as controller chips in existing Macbooks, so it seems they are simply taking things a step further.

Probably the thing that peaked my curiosity some was the "simplified instruction set" in a new Mac OS. Simplified instructions probably mean faster processes which translates to more streamlined computations using less energy.  Essentially doing  more with less. While Intel has been adding more cores and using smaller diameter connections and to a lesser extent Ryzen, Apple's instructions sets could possibly make better use of ARM processors.  There has been talk of a 10 core + eventual ARM processor. That doesn't sound like small device territory any more. 

In any case, I'll be staying a PC guy for the foreseeable future. I'm not going to spend 2X the money to see a negligible gain. Not only that  but all of my present software and plugins are PC. Bapu would have to call like 5000 plug in companies to get changed over ?

If in the future Mac started letting their chips out to anyone who wanted to buy one at similar prices to Intel. If they suddenly let Gigabit and others make mobos we would truly be onto something interesting. We know that won't happen. Intel will stay viable one way or the other....maybe they will get a contract making vaccination droids. Something to take a shot at?

 

[Jim Roseberry]

16 minutes ago, Starise said:

There has been talk of a 10 core + eventual ARM processor. That doesn't sound like small device territory any more. 

How does adding more cores affect latency and potential clock-speed?

Generally speaking:

• To make effective use of significantly more cores, you're talking higher buffer sizes.
• The more cores on the CPU, the harder it is to achieve high clock-speed
• Super tight enclosures mean low clock-speed (thermal limitations)
• Long Battery Life means low clock-speed 

 

AMD has 32 cores on 3970x Threadripper, but the all-core clock-speed is about 4GHz.

Intel 10900k has 10 cores, with all-core clock-speed of 5.3GHz.

• At large buffer sizes, the 3970x will smoke the 10900k
• At smallest buffer sizes, the 10900k will smoke the 3970x

 

In my experience, Mac laptops currently provide longer battery-life than most PC laptops.

When using a laptop, I'm almost always plugged-in.  ?‍♂️

 

[Starise]

5 minutes ago, Jim Roseberry said:

How does adding more cores affect latency and potential clock-speed?

Generally speaking:

• To make effective use of significantly more cores, you're talking higher buffer sizes.
• The more cores on the CPU, the harder it is to achieve high clock-speed
• Super tight enclosures mean low clock-speed (thermal limitations)
• Long Battery Life means low clock-speed 

 

AMD has 32 cores on 3970x Threadripper, but the all-core clock-speed is about 4GHz.

Intel 10900k has 10 cores, with all-core clock-speed of 5.3GHz.

• At large buffer sizes, the 3970x will smoke the 10900k
• At smallest buffer sizes, the 10900k will smoke the 3970x

 

In my experience, Mac laptops currently provide longer battery-life than most PC laptops.

When using a laptop, I'm almost always plugged-in.  ?‍♂️

 

Good points Jim. I guess I really don't know how Apple plans to compete. If they totally dump Intel though, that only leaves a few more options especially given that they are planning all in house silicon. So far the towers are still on the Intel teat. My understanding was  Apple plan an eventual total break from Intel silicon. In order to do that they would likely, as you say, be running into some of the same kinds of issues Ryzen and Intel run into.

I guess anything could happen. Since Apple pretty much still command the small device market, even if only by a very small margin,  they might simply drop out of or cut back on the large computer segment. If they continue to develop their ARM line and have a more streamed line instruction set they might be competitive in larger computers even though they run against the same multi core limitations Intel and Ryzen have. 

I'm not one of those to not have my laptop plugged in either so it usually isn't a concern for me. My i7 usually has at least 2 hours of battery in the event I would be forced to use battery power.  So yeah, that benefit is missed on me as well. As I understand it, the architecture of the  new ARM core layout will have capability if needed and throttle back if it isn't needed.....so if you only surf Amazon and Facebook it'll probably last quite awhile. OTOH if you're running complex programs more cores ramp up which I'm sure uses more energy. The hype is always tilted to the positive in any marketing plan it seems. The only things I know right now are

- Apple is dumping Intel.

-ARM computers will be out end part of this year sometime.

The rest is "extrapolation" on my part  I do wish we seen more of a game plan from Intel, especially some word on how they plan to break past the next computing barriers.

[Bapu]

34 minutes ago, Jim Roseberry said:

• At large buffer sizes, the 3970x will smoke the 10900k
• At smallest buffer sizes, the 10900k will smoke the 3970x

@Jim Roseberry

Please define the range of large buffer sizes. 1024? 2048? 4096? larger?

Is smallest 512 and lower?

[antler]

3 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

General-purpose use (Office Apps, Surfing the Internet, etc) doesn't require much in the way of CPU.

I still remember when multi-core processors were a new thing - my 'favourite' explanation/sales pitch on TV adverts was that (to paraphrase) with multiple cores, you can do multiple things at once, like listening to music while surfing the Internet

[Jim Roseberry]

30 minutes ago, Bapu said:

@Jim Roseberry

Please define the range of large buffer sizes. 1024? 2048? 4096? larger?

Is smallest 512 and lower?

The lower the latency (smaller the buffer size), the greater the advantage of the 10900k's significantly higher clock-speed.

The higher the buffer size (higher the latency), the greater the advantage of the 3970x's many additional cores.

 

I don't consider 512-sample buffer size to be small.

I wouldn't work at anything higher than 256-samples.

Most times, I'm working at 32/64/128-sample ASIO buffer size.

 

Insert a single instance of Helix Native... running with Presonus Quantum set to 96k using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size.

That's running at 1ms total round-trip latency.  An extreme example...

• AMD 3950x and 3970x - audio will glitch
• Intel 10900k - no audio glitches

If I'm paying $2000 for a CPU, I want it to excel at ultra low latency performance.

10900k is about 1/3 the cost of the 3970x... and offers a great balance of features:

• 5.3GHz all-core clock-speed
• Runs quiet with large/quality air-cooking
• 10 cores/20 processing threads
• TDP = 125w

There's no such thing as a quiet 3970x machine (TDP = 280w)... unless you allow it to thermal-throttle (which negates the purpose)

[craigb]

So, per Jim above, the entire World must be currently in "Long Battery Life" mode... ?

[bitflipper]

I have two primary synths here, one is ARM and the other some kind of x86. The latter comes up in about 10 seconds. The ARM-based instrument takes over two minutes to boot. Which sounds like no big deal until somebody kills the power in the middle of a set and the singer has to tell lame jokes while the whole room waits for Dave's computer to reboot. And I can't even leverage the CPU's efficiency to run the thing off batteries.

I miss the pre-computer keyboards that took 83 milliseconds to initialize.

[InstrEd]

Yep Dave I agree sometimes it is better to have the hardware and make do with the onboard sounds.

[Bapu]

My Intel 10900K arrived yesterday.

Mobo, memory and cooler due Monday.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Bapu

[Jim Roseberry]

18 hours ago, craigb said:

So, per Jim above, the entire World must be currently in "Long Battery Life" mode... ?

In nearly 30 years, I don't think I've ever been contacted by a client who wanted to work at high ASIO buffer sizes (higher latency)... or at lower CPU clock-speed (to conserve battery-life or power).  ?

Folks have different levels of needs/expectations.

 

[Bapu]

I would love to work at 64 sample buffers whilst having 100+ tracks and multitudes of VSTs active. ? 

[Rico Belled]

20 hours ago, craigb said:

So, per Jim above, the entire World must be currently in "Long Battery Life" mode... ?

What does that even mean? LOL

Bottom line is, once you work with full software input monitoring through Cakewalk it's impossible to go back.

 

R

[craigb]

20 hours ago, craigb said:

So, per Jim above, the entire World must be currently in "Long Battery Life" mode... ?

 

19 minutes ago, Rico Belled said:

What does that even mean? LOL

Bottom line is, once you work with full software input monitoring through Cakewalk it's impossible to go back.

 

R

It was an observation about the current state of life in the World which is DEFINITELY not in "High Performance" mode this year.

[Tony Carpenter]

3 hours ago, Bapu said:

My Intel 10900K arrived yesterday.

Mobo, memory and cooler due Monday.

You'll love it Bapu. My 10940x is SOOO quiet and fast. I still haven't hooked up the studio live though... downstairs waiting on other room still... wife won't let me bring it into dining room where the beast is currently residing... LOL. 

[Jim Roseberry]

24 minutes ago, craigb said:

It was an observation about the current state of life in the World which is DEFINITELY not in "High Performance" mode this year.

Here's hoping 2021 is a much better year!!!

[Jim Roseberry]

52 minutes ago, Bapu said:

I would love to work at 64 sample buffers whilst having 100+ tracks and multitudes of VSTs active. ? 

We've got one client (scores Films) who's running a Cubase template with 2600 (that's not a typo) tracks.

He's not running at a 64-sample ASIO buffer size.

[Starise]

20 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

We've got one client (scores Films) who's running a Cubase template with 2600 (that's not a typo) tracks.

He's not running at a 64-sample ASIO buffer size.

Similar to  comparing a formula race car to a Peugeot  in my case.  I couldn't come up with 2600 tracks even in my dreams. I guess maybe this is the appeal of Ryzen to the stereotypical "average home studio musician"  whatever that really is.  I just received my weekly Newegg sales flyer in my email. One of the sales is a 3000 series Ryzen chip that some are claiming comes close enough to an i9 in performance to rub the whiskers on it.. No it isn't an i9 but only marginally less so.Something like 3600 positive reviews on it. I read through maybe the first 10 pages of reviews and at least one person was using it for recording.  Don't misunderstand, I'm still solidly Intel when it comes to DAWs.  People trading up their old i5 machines are ecstatic.

I tend to be content with less if it works. In many cases I think even in a DAW situation Ryzen is ok for smaller projects ( like mine tend to be).  So it's sometimes a comparison apples to oranges. Probably depends a lot on available funds. To be fair, most who are using these and not complaining about the cooling fan are using water.

But yeah, for me, if it's only a little more money for Intel I'll always go Intel. If the margins were wider i.e. Apple computers .vs PC computers AND it works ok for my purposes I'll take the marginally lesser chip. So far Ryzen isn't leaps and bounds lower in price unless you consider a 100.00-200 difference something that would tilt the scales on a total DAW build IMO. I mean, you still need to consider connectivity, the mother board and the whole rest of it. Now a 500 difference. I'm listening.

[Will.]

All I know is, I'm not changing back to Mac ever again, I'm loving my microsoft surface 3 laptop for personal use too much. I've also been sitting heavily on the idea to upgrade my studio machine to the Surface studio 3 - with one main monitor against the wall, when microsoft launch it soon. 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Will_Kaydo