 |
 |
New Mac, Need Help.
|
 |
|
 |
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Fellow Mac users, I've upped sticks from an iMac G4 800, and I'm about to migrate to a dual.
I use Cubase, which makes the question at least focused:
Which Mac is best-suited to offer the best performance?
2.0ghz Dual-core, 2.3gh Dual-core ... or refurb Dual 2.7ghz.
As Cubase is not Intel-native, and isn't likely to be until 2056, I have no immediate need to switch to this system.
I'd be happy if someone told me that the 2.0ghz DC is fine, with the 2.3 and Quad superfluous.
Any help would be much appreciated.
I bow before your vast experiences 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
get the refurb dual 2.7 GHz, cheap price for great machine. You will no regret it
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm running it on a DP 2.5 and it works great. I'd hit the wall frequently with
my old G4/400 but I can run some of the more obnoxiously CPU hungry plug-ins
such as D'Cota (I couldn't run more than a couple of those under my G4) in
large quantities and I have yet to make the thing scream for mercy.
I'm running an older version of Cubase (the older one where you click a
checkbox to allow for the second processor to be used) and I've had no
problems.
Largest project so far - 80 tracks, a mix of real and synthetic instruments
with plug-ins on almost every instrument and still haven't hit the wall yet.
The 2.7 should work fine for you. If you could afford a Quad I'd suggest
that since Logic Pro is optimized to work on four processors according to
all reports I've heard.
Still, if you're a Cubase user you will likely do just fine with the 2.7. I know
I've yet to run into a project I can't run on my 2.5.
I do recommend getting 3 years of Applecare if you can swing it (mine
came with that as a bonus) that way you're covered in case the unthinkable
happens.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Thanks for the replies.
So, you believe the 2.7 to be worthwhile over the DC 2ghz? ... I mean, there will be 'that much difference'?
I doubt I'd aspire to 80 tracks!
48 tracks with modest VST's and effects?
Decisions decisions ...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Just to add into the equation:
For the same price, a 2.3ghz Dual-core is available.
So for the refurb route, it's 2.3ghz DC or 2.7 Dual G5.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/05...arks/index.php
The 2.7 still holds its ground. I guess the only bad thing or 'deal breaker' may be that it's not brand spanka'. But I guess you aren't that worried about the computer being brand new if you are contemplating getting it. I would put more consideration into a re-furb 2.7, however in Australia Apple doesn't offer re-furb's. So I have no choice than to go new!
|
|
"Amidst all the hype of modern design and computers, we have remained true by generating the majority of our designs by hand, viewing the computer as a tool and not letting it dictate our designs." - Ames Design.
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
New price drop (in the UK) means the Dual-core 2.3ghz is now available at the same price as a refurb 2.7.
From what I've read, the 2.3 is 'as fast as', or 'equal to' the older 2.7.
Can anyone confirm?
Thanks!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|

|
|
 |
Forum Rules
|
 |
 |
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|