mac pro 2013 quad vs six core for logic pro x

Now, having said that: eventually you will run up against some limit of your hardware, no matter how 'phat' it is. This is why, of the various other factors, RAM-size is always most important: the computer can't make information available if there is no place to put it, and 'virtual memory' in this case is not the same. (Otherwise: 'system overload.') It doesn't matter how many CPU(s) it has to work on the data, if the data is not there. Remember: 'RAM is the only thing in your computer that is just as fast as your CPU(s).' And: 'your CPU(s) can do nothing without it.'Īs a so-called 'real-time application,' Logic, when used in real-time mode, must be able to get whatever-it-needs into RAM before it is needed. I'd say the most significant thing about a MacBook isn't what it can't achieve, but what it can. But I reckon I could just about make it work if I used Freeze on tracks, so they weren't running the plug-ins in real-time. Would I choose a MacBook Pro to handle a plug-in heavy 32+ track mix? Er. They certainly didn't want catch a flight to assemble in one studio for a mass sing-a-thon! The song was a big hit. That was because a lot of singers were prepared to take part, as long as the project came to them. I remember a charity single, more than 20 years ago, where most of the vocal tracks were recorded on a MacBook. It depends what you're trying to achieve, and your budget. However, I completely agree with that RAM is king when it comes to the number of real-time processes a machine can handle. If you want to run LPX on a laptop, the MacBook Pro is really the only machine to buy. What it 'looks like' is not really the point, with respect.

Can a computer-like thing, what looks like reminiscent of a monolithic thin client, used in client-server systems, considered studio-ready at all? Maybe it need a application server?

Mac pro 2013 quad vs six core for logic pro x