In some cases they may use other applications that simply aren’t available on macOS, and don’t have any comparable option on macOS.
This is why I have both a MBP and a PC Laptop.
An important application (to me) doesn’t exist on macOS (and never will, per the developer - and it’s a pretty huge company) and the F/OSS alternative (which works well) also isn’t available on macOS because it heavily utilizes .NET Framework and Windows APIs and they say they aren’t porting it over (they’d basically have to rewrite the entire thing).
Some people need their computers for more than a single task/usage scenario.
When someone asks me for a recommendation like this, the very first question I ask is “What do you want to do with it?” and “What software can you not live without?”
With Boot Camp not being a thing on M-Series, it’s muddied the waters a bit, as well. Before, I would just Boot Camp windows onto the Mac and switch based on what I needed. Now, I literally need two separate laptops (or to eschew Mac altogether).
I came across this thread looking for a new laptop for mostly Cubase and Ableton Live where I believe maximum no. of Performance Cores is most beneficial in the Windows-sphere? There don’t seem to be many laptops available yet with the AI Max+ 395 CPU in it (which has 16 Performance cores in it), so I was also looking at the Macbook Pro’s which are prohibitively expensive for me I think.
One thing which came up in my search is that the memory bandwidth available with Macbook Pro M4 Pro and M4 Max are 273Gb/s and 546Gb/s respectively. This is far, far higher than the bandwidth specs of the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 which is around 128Gb/s. Is memory bandwidth actually something that makes any noticeable difference at these numbers? eg. perhaps when running large multi-gigabyte sample libraries and certain ‘heavy’ synths? Or will it be irrelevant in the decisioon making process? (in which case the Mac M4 Pro/Max becomes the better option?)
Not sure if this would help in the Mac vs Windows discussion - memory bandwidth?
I bought one of those. I stress tested it at 54 samples buffer size with ASIO Guard engaged, and disengaged and gave me the same plugin count. I could go from 23 instances a ampsim, on separate stereo tracks, and manage to jump to 46 at 1024 sampleswith ASIO Guard maxed, if not he wouldn’t do it quietly. The Task Manager CPU meter showed 57% usage when the APM on Cubase get busy.
I don’t like the PC, my previous intel machine had lower count at 64 samples, like 4 instances of the same plugin, but at 128 it doubled, at 256 it was pretty usable, as the project kept going I managed the buffers to keep going.
On this new machine the low latency monitorinh is staggering, but for mixing is anout enough, but I was expecting it to scale more like a ‘normal’ CPU.
Windows 11 seems not to be the culprit, but it isn’t helping either.
AI apps are “confused” too, so I decide to came here to see what’s the word on those, if this behavior is to be expected, or I didn’t set it right.
I’m very confused with the way the PC is behaving, I have mixed feelings. I installed Windows 11 LOT enterprise LTSC, over the weekend. It runs smoothly. It opens 16 instances, on separate stereo tracks, of Gojira X, with all the modules at 8 samples, at 16 it opens like 24, at 32 samples opens 35, 46 instances at 64 buffer, but increasing the buffer past 64 samples doesn’t increase performance. The latency felt at 8 samples or 1024 is the same. AI told me that the new CPU are built for real time, Volume processing, as in rendering is not their aim. Still, with Reaper the same benchmark as different results, quite the same up to 64 samples, but it goes on until opening 81 instances at 1024 samples. AI told me this is a Windows issue, as it is Steinberg and they are adressing it, but it will take a while. That doesn’t happen with Reaper because they handle DSP in a less cautious way than Steinberg, and wherever it sees a CPU cycle to burn, it doesn’t ask permisdion and goes ahead. Also tried me to explain why ASIO guard is working against me past 64 samples buffer size.
I have a fantastic machine for real time monitoring, and quite capable of handling a lot of processing, but I stiill have to relay on the usual techniques and worarounds to defeat lack of DSP, instead of increasing buffer, as I go from record to mixing.
i take back everything I said about my setup. For me, from now on on, it is AMD forever. I just bought a MacBook Pro M5 pro, I went with the AI reports all of them about the performance of those machines. After a week of wrestling it, testing diferent drivers core Audio, having a dedicated local account for music, disabling all bloat. A laptop a little more than half the price and with technolohy from mid 2024, trounces an minces it at low latency, it does things the MacBook isn’t even set to do, like having 8 sample size buffer. I open 8 Gojirax with the safe buffer engage, 3 without it. About the same performance the Mac has at 32 samples. I’m very sorry for the people that buy into Apple marketing, like Gemini, ChatGPT, and all those people that never had a naked Windows LTSC instalation on their DAW. Having said i’m to check the harware forum because the performance difference it’s so big that i’m allowing the thought of it being all user error. But, no. It’s truly a scandal. And, it’s sad because Audioapps work very well on iPads, they are way more reliable for live use than Macbooks, a huge difference. They drag, when there is overload, like a PC does. Macbooks just vanish Cubase Windows with a single plugin open and running. Quite unreliable behaviour, and unforgivable fail. It’s up for sale.
