Topic: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

I am on research for a new laptop to combine with the RME UFX which I am also planning on buying and I would like to ask some questions:

How well does the UFX perform with the new MacBook Pro's? What about the performance with the USB connection? How low can it perform in terms of latency?
Would a PC laptop perform better? Any suggested models?

And a more general question(maybe needs a different topic):
How is the performance compared to the Hdsp pcie interfaces? Will I achieve similar performance as I get with my multiface II?

Thank you

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

Anyone using it with a new Macbook Pro yet?

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

What software do you intend to use?

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

Hi,

I will be using Cubase 6, Wavelab 7 and lots of sample libraries (Kontakt, Vienna Instruments, Eastwest Play). I guess Thunderbolt will help in running these libraries as well.

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

According to the DAW performance tests published on Gearslutz Cubase runs better on Windows, especially with lower buffer sizes. Thunderbolt won't help since there are no peripherals available yet, eSATA might be a better and less costly choice.

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

Yes, I know, I wouldn't bother for a Macbook Pro, but PC laptops are such a hit and miss procedure. How can I be sure that a PC laptop will work regarding FW chipsets, controllers, DPC Latency etc? I don't see anyone having to suggest a specific model unfortunately. While with the Macbook Pro's there is only a couple of models, so if it works for one, you know that it will work for you too.

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

Dom wrote:

How can I be sure that a PC laptop will work regarding FW chipsets, controllers, DPC Latency etc? I don't see anyone having to suggest a specific model unfortunately.

That's why it's good to contact specialized retailers of audio PCs... Here's one in Greece, who gave me his card in Frankfurt: www.pcmajor.gr


Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

Hello Daniel, we also met in Musikmesse wink

Well, that's why I am asking about the performance of RME UFX on a Macbook Pro(the new Sandy Bridge series).
I will be in UK for quite some time so I am not sure if the retailers in Greece could help. And apart from this, the 3XS laptops that they use, are not available for the time being.

So any comments on the performance of the Macbook Pro/ RME UFX would be more than welcome. I have also contacted support about this issue.

I am using RME Multiface II and I want to upgrade to a UFX but since this is going to be my mobile interface as well I am pretty concerned how it will work on my future laptop.

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

I can tell you so much:

When I compared the performance of Ableton Live on Windows vs. OS X on a 2010 MBP I could not playback more than 8 tracks of a special benchmark set at 64 samples via HDSPe + MF2 on OS X, but up to 20 tracks on Windows. Since I got better performance on 2008/09 MBP it seems that Live suffered very badly from the i7 dual-core CPU's features (Core Parking etc.).

Now I did a quick comparison on a 2011 MBP with a Babyface (same drivers as UFX, but if you insist I can try UFX, too). On OS X it can playback 30 tracks at 64 samples, on Windows over 40 tracks. Final  performance depends a lot on current CPU temperature, because Turbo clock rates over the specific standard frequency vary depending on temp (and the i7 Quad Core gets hot easily, with the fans ramping up quite fast).

Needless to say that I consider the 2010 MBP a lemon. And even if you consider using Windows on the MBP 2011 it will be easier to begin with. That is because the NVidia Windows driver of the 2008-2010 models kept messing with DPC latencies, while the ATI driver is the least of your problems in that department.

10

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

Timur wrote:

I can tell you so much:

When I compared the performance of Ableton Live on Windows vs. OS X on a 2010 MBP I could not playback more than 8 tracks of a special benchmark set at 64 samples via HDSPe + MF2 on OS X, but up to 20 tracks on Windows. Since I got better performance on 2008/09 MBP it seems that Live suffered very badly from the i7 dual-core CPU's features (Core Parking etc.).

Now I did a quick comparison on a 2011 MBP with a Babyface (same drivers as UFX, but if you insist I can try UFX, too). On OS X it can playback 30 tracks at 64 samples, on Windows over 40 tracks. Final  performance depends a lot on current CPU temperature, because Turbo clock rates over the specific standard frequency vary depending on temp (and the i7 Quad Core gets hot easily, with the fans ramping up quite fast).

Needless to say that I consider the 2010 MBP a lemon. And even if you consider using Windows on the MBP 2011 it will be easier to begin with. That is because the NVidia Windows driver of the 2008-2010 models kept messing with DPC latencies, while the ATI driver is the least of your problems in that department.

Well, your reply was quite useful Timur.

Do you have an 2011 MBP? Do you think it will be a good choice over another pc laptop?
I was wondering as well why does RME always use Macs in Musikmesse shows? Is it just because of "show off" on flashy macs, or do the interfaces work better on Macs? I am sure that someone from RME has tested a UFX on a 2011 Macbook Pro that's why I started the topic here.

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

Yes, I am using a MBP 2011 myself now (i7 Quad 2.3 gHz), on which I did the testing. The reason for using Macs on Musikmesse likely is that the developers use them themselves, which makes a lot of sense if you are developing both for Windows and OS X. They are the only "legal" systems on which you can run both operating systems. wink

Question is what kind of tests I can do for you? Playback + Record of *all* I/Os at low latencies is not as taxing as you might think, so in the end it mostly comes down to software-effects/plugins and how well the software (Cubase in your case) is integrated into the OS.

I don't have access to Cubase/Wavelab at the moment, but the UFX will likely work fine with it on OS X just as with anything else.

12

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

Timur wrote:

Yes, I am using a MBP 2011 myself now (i7 Quad 2.3 gHz), on which I did the testing. The reason for using Macs on Musikmesse likely is that the developers use them themselves, which makes a lot of sense if you are developing both for Windows and OS X. They are the only "legal" systems on which you can run both operating systems. wink

Question is what kind of tests I can do for you? Playback + Record of *all* I/Os at low latencies is not as taxing as you might think, so in the end it mostly comes down to software-effects/plugins and how well the software (Cubase in your case) is integrated into the OS.

I don't have access to Cubase/Wavelab at the moment, but the UFX will likely work fine with it on OS X just as with anything else.

First of all thank you for even suggesting running a test!

I have seen numerous benchmarks on how many Multiband compressors you can run on Cubase and how Windows outperform Macs in these benchmarks.

I really don't find this quite useful.
Although I do a lot of intense mixing with many plugins, I still believe the most important and demanding part is when I arrange.
So a test that would make sense in my case is how many VSTi's can you run (Omnispheres for example) without crackles and pops and at what latency. I would for example take a heavy Omnisphere (or other demanding VSTi) patch, record a three note chord and duplicate the part until crackles start to appear.

And the most important thing is how low can you go on latency when you play live a VSTi? Most of the time I choose to play safe with a 256 sample buffer on my Multiface II, however I KNOW I can get a lot lower if I want to, so if I record a Virtual drum kit or percussion elements and want even tighter timing, I lower the buffers to get even lower latency.

So the most important factor is live VST recording in low latencies. If I can achieve that on a MBP then I wouldn't mind switching to 512 or 1024 samples when mixing if this is absolutely needed.

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

At dawbench we also tested VSTi performance and saw the same thing there. Better windows then OSX performance. The tests we perform (using multiband compressors or running 100´s of Kontakt voices for the VSTi test) have proven the be a very reliable indication of how machines compare to each other and OS´s too in the real world. For example if you use lots of sample playing in your arrangements (like me) the key to success is the raw cpu speed and the speed of the ram (and in the past the FSB speed but that is gone on the latest intel machines), more so then the number of cores. For effects processing the number of cores has more effect.
If there are performance issues with a machine or OS these test show them mercilessly. They are created by musicians for musicians (and engineers...). The main brain BTW is Tafkat, not me.

In most cases if a machine (computer and sounddevice) is capable of serious low latency VSTi playing it is also suited for low latency mixing.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

When I tested the UC 2 years ago I built a test in Reaper and Logic that used instances of NI Reaktor's "Space Drone". I did not count the number of instances, but just made sure to load the CPU close to 100%.

Then I played and recorded through *all* I/Os of the UC at 48 samples on Windows and 32 samples on Logic without dropouts. This test was meant to prove that the RME USB driver/protocol is not a culprit.

Space Drone creates artificial noise and tones, it doesn't need much bandwidth like playing lots of samples through Kontakt, it just eats CPU cycles (and likely may even fit into the CPU cache). I had to trick Reaper to real-time CPU priority, but that's not the RME driver's fault.

The UFX uses the very same USB driver (maybe with some specifics for the UFX) and other than the higher number of I/Os I don't see why it should not work the same. In most real-life situations you won't get close to anything higher than 65% at low buffer setting, likely not even 50%. That is because most audio software and hardware won't allow that.

The drawback of current quad-core CPUs is that they start at a rather low clock-rate (2.3 on mine). And while they will use at least a single TurboBoost blib even when using all cores (3.1 gHz on mine) they will lower clock-rate when temperature increases. Running those 40 tracks (+reverb returns) in the Ableton Live test made my CPU run around 2.5 - 2.8 gHz. Since these values can change depending on fan-speed, ambient temperature and load you never know what your real maximum load is. On Windows you can turn off TurboBoost, but that leaves you stuck at 2.3 gHz (in my case).

That being said, for FX using 4x 2.3 gHz on an i7 (with a prospect to run up to 3.2) is still better than using 2x 2.8 on a Core2Duo.

Last but not least: The most compelling reasons to use a Macbook are either because you need OS X software or because you want to use it on-stage knowing that thousands of other musicians use the same computer. Other than that it might be worth taking a look at a specialized builder like Daniel suggested.

15

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

Timur wrote:

Last but not least: The most compelling reasons to use a Macbook are either because you need OS X software or because you want to use it on-stage knowing that thousands of other musicians use the same computer. Other than that it might be worth taking a look at a specialized builder like Daniel suggested.

I guess you are totally right. Right now I have a very reliable desktop PC with 12Gigs of RAM and my trusty Multiface II and I am able to run huge templates with heavy sample libraries.

I KNOW I won't be able to do that on a laptop be it PC or Mac. The point is maybe a Macbook Pro is more future proof than a PC laptop in general as, to be honest I will be forced to use it for other stuff as well (Internet, mail, scheduling) so, in that regard a Mac would be better than a Windows System. My desktop PC may run wonderfully on Windows 7, however it is used as an audio machine ONLY, so no antivirus installed, no office, no Skype etc. I really don't know how well it would perform if I loaded it with all this stuff.

I just want to make sure that once I plugin the Fireface UFX on the Macbook Pro's FW port (or USB maybe?) I will get the performance of an i7 laptop and not a glitchy performance with 8-10 VSTi's loaded. I hope , of course that I will be able to compose a piece from start to finish on it as well, hell I was able to do this on my Toshiba Core2Duo laptop 5 years ago, if I cannot do it on a 2011 Macbook Pro then I would really start thinking things are going backwards!

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

Main problem with off the shelf PC laptops is that you don't know what you get. So either you need to try through a couple of them until you are satisfied or get one from a dedicated builder.

Windows and all the day-to-day software is less of a problem. I'm still mostly using bootcamped Windows here and I install *everything*, including Quickbooks, Office, Games of various sorts, anti-virus (which I can keep active during audio application use), codecs for video/audio playback (watching films via a projector), remote access software for my clients (+VPN connections) and last but not least full internet access. None of all these applications has any negative impact on audio performance (active anti-virus could have, depending on which one you are using), especially since they are not active when I don't want to.

Re: UFX performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to Windows 7

I am a newbie to all of this.  I first installed Pro Tools 9 on a two core 2.x Ghz Toshiba.  Pro Tools takes over 5 minutes just to load.  On my new 2011 MBP it takes 20 seconds.  That must tell something about the relative efficiency of Pro Tools operation on either platform.