2.8 dual core or 2.2 quad core i7

  • Thread starter Thread starter Drewseph!
  • Start date Start date
D

Drewseph!

New member
Hello gents, I just have a quick question to throw your way that I have been pondering for some time now. I am in the market for a new MacBook pro to use as my main audio computer. I currently run logic pro but I have been contemplating taking a look at PT10 or cubase. That's beyond the point though. My question is, what will be the performance difference between the 2.8ghz dual core i7 and the 2.2 quad core i7 as far as performance. Now I obviously know that with multi threading and what not, the i7 is way faster, but with the money I save, I will be upgrading to 8 or 16gb ram and a SSD. So scratch that last question, my REAL question is.. 2.8ghz dual core with 8gb memory and 128gb SSD to run my os and apps (I have an external drive for audio), or 2.2ghz quad core with 4gb ram and either a 5400 or 7200 rpm HDD.

Thanks guys!
Drew

P.s. currently I am running a Mac book with 2.16ghz core 2 duo, 2gb ram and 5400rpm internal HDD... Obviously I hit some pretty severe bottle necks
 
Hi there,
I can't directly answer your question, but i did recently change from a 2.2 core2duo dell to a 2.3 i5 dual core MBP.
The different is very very noticeably, but to be honest, the biggest different I noticed was from dropping an SSD in.

Not much of an answer, but whichever path you choose I would certainly go for SSD with it.
Even putting an SSD in the dell towards the end of its life made it so much more usable.


Hope that's some help.
 
There's not going to be a big difference between the dual core to your current one. The quad core could make things a little easier for the computer, but i doubt you'll notice that at the low clock speed either. I'd just get yourself the better drive and extra RAM. That's where you'll notice the biggest improvement.
 
I agree about the better hard drive, but are you sure about not seeing a big difference between processors, somegeezer?

My 2.3ghz i5 mbp just about beats my core2quad q9550.
Surely any i7 chip is going to kill any core2duo chip, right?
 
Steenamaroo said:
I agree about the better hard drive, but are you sure about not seeing a big difference between processors, somegeezer?

My 2.3ghz i5 mbp just about beats my core2quad q9550.
Surely any i7 chip is going to kill any core2duo chip, right?
Click to expand...

There will be a difference. Just not one that is going to make a "wow" kinda difference. and the CPUs were both i7s. Core 2s are about 2 generations back? Maybe 3 by this point. Even then, Intel are so far ahead of AMD, that they have actually been upgrading very little. Just enough to stay in front of AMD. So each new generation isn't a massive difference on the last one. My first gen i5 could compete with current i5s easily.

But RAM is always a go to upgrade for a good amount of speed boost. Faster RAM, as well as more of it. and an SSD is going to be a whole lot noticeably faster than even the 7200/10 000RPM spinning drives. Though they are very expensive comapared. So going for the lesser i7 and the RAM and hard drive instead, is going to give a better performance boost.

If it were me, I'd save my pennies just a little longer and get all 3 though.
 
To which I said, there wouldn't be much of a difference between the new dual core and his current dual core. The biggest difference will be in the quad core. =] Even then, not enough to take that over the RAM and drive.
 
So lets say I am able to get the ram and ssd upgrade for either computer. Is the 2.2 quad worth the $300 upgrade from the 2.8 dual? I mean I wil also be getting a bigger screen and better graphics card, but that is irrelevant to me
 
If you can afford it comfortably, go for it, but I don't think it's going to show a huge difference.

My i5 @ 2.3 doesn't limit me at all, but I don't use more than about twenty tracks and 2/3 vst instruments.
 
If youre upgrading RAM, and going to an SSD, the dual core 2.8 will seem a LOT faster. Save your $300 until you upgrade your motherboard - THEN upgrade your cpu format.
 
According to average geekbench scores, 2.2 quad has the most horsepower. Your 2.16 scores 2822, the dual 2.8 scores 7086, and the quad 2.2 scores 10,006! I'd recommend the quad with a 7200 rpm drive. 4 gig of ram should be plenty and would be cheap and easy to upgrde later. As SSD's drop in price, you could upgrade in a year or two if you wanted. That's what I'd do anyway. Either way, logic will be much happier than with your 2.16.
 
By the way, I use a free program called mactracker to get performance info on macs. You might want to check it out if you don't have it already.
 
Thanks Jeff! I appreciate the specifics. I was only thinking an ssd because I could install one for what mac would charge me for a 7200rpm. Also 8gigs or ram is only like $40, so I feel completely compelled to do it, even if I dont need it ;). What about a 10,000 rpm hdd? Those seem to be fairly well priced. Would there be any issues with heat though? I can imagine those mo-effers get a little toasty at 10k rpm :).

Thanks, Drew
 
If you're thinking about hard drives I would definitely go SSD.

My previous drives were 10k and sure, they were good, but not a patch on SSD.

Plus, SSDs are silent and generate no heat.

Google "WD raptor vs X25-m" just for a quick comparison if you want to be certain, but really SSD all the way!!

My MBP genuinely boots in something like 10 seconds and shuts down to dead in 3.
Protools ( (with stacks of plugins) completely opens in 18 while I'm doing other stuff. That sounds long, but it's very good for protools!
 
Damn Steenamaroo, you may have convinced me :D. One more final question though. The main reason I want an ssd (aside from rediculous boot times and the like) is to track to it (I do alot of location recording and hate carying around my HDD) and then just transfer the session files to my external hdd back at home to mix. Also since I do not have dedicated tracking/control rooms, having a silent computer would be very nice :) Do you think though that I could fit a moderatly sized session (16 tracks @ 24bit 44.1k, 4 min) on a 128gb ssd, or would I be wise to opt for a 256gb?

Thanks, Drew
 
Drewseph! said:
Do you think though that I could fit a moderatly sized session (16 tracks @ 24bit 44.1k, 4 min) on a 128gb ssd, or would I be wise to opt for a 256gb?
Click to expand...

Don't have the exact math in front of me...but 16 tracks of a 4 min song might eat up about 2GB...if that.
I track 24/88.2 and have projects with a couple of dozen tracks, and see less than 3GB total.


<EDIT>

Here's the math for file size VS bit rate and sampling frequency:

AudioMountain.com


Still...I would get the bigger drive. :)
 
Thanks Miro, I appreciate it!

I don't really know if I will need a bigger drive though. All I have is my OS, Logic, Ableton live, plugins (cant be more than a few gb max. Unless waves take up tons of space). Almost 0 photos, no games, itunes & samples are on my external HDD. I may be over estimating 128 gb though :D.

Thanks, Drew
 
Once you start recording and saving all your audio and mixes, the HD space goes quick.

You may want to get an external HD too...for backups.
 
Your setup sounds similar to mine.
I work off a 60gb SSD.

Every time I do a session I back it up to an external drive. As long as I do that, 60gb is fine.
I don't use any sample libraries or anything like that though.

Admittedly it get's a little tight sometimes, but I really feel like 128 would be perfect, for me at least.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Computer & HDD for Home Recording
Replies
4
Views
489
TalismanRich
TalismanRich
A
i5 / i7 6th/7th gen for home production
Replies
15
Views
1K
pipelineaudio
pipelineaudio
I
Help an idiot upgrade their laptop
Replies
4
Views
738
TalismanRich
TalismanRich
H
Late 2019 MacBook Pro Specs for Logic Pro X
Replies
5
Views
1K
Steenamaroo
Steenamaroo
R
FlexTime Audio Quality Problem, Logic or my machine?
Replies
1
Views
1K
JamEZmusic
J
Back
Top