Are the Xeons the cream of the crop? Probably regarding endurance, but not speed. They are truly suffering in single core performance vs the home desktop enthusiast parts. There are some startling results in that topic. The forum is called "Gearslutz" and I can find the specific topic for you if you were interested, although I am not a member there but it's in my safari history somewhere. Plenty of annoying waffle but when you get to the meat, the DAW testing, you can see how they are only really suited to specific tasks. For using virtual instruments they are weak, compared even to a desktop part that is 1/10th the price. If I was doing high end video for a commercial studio, then sure, the new expensive Vega II graphics and the 28 core mac pro would be extremely powerful. However, i actually completely understand what Mr Roseberry was trying to tell me in the topic I started here regarding the best DAW for high core count processors, in that you need speed first and foremost to run the intensive plugins "per core". I have been guaranteed a 4.3 ghz, 24/7 stable clock speed on all 16 cores, so I think that will be a very nice balance of single core performance and core count. It will surely make my current mac pro look like a toy, and I paid more for this than I will be paying for the coming computer. Ridiculous when you think about it.pekbro wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:15 am I believe the Zeon CPU thing is pretty much bull anyway. They are the same processors as the regular,
just the cream of the crop after binning. Even the lower rank models are the same, just disabled or
limited in some way. They don't actually have separate manufacturing runs for different chips, that
would cost way too much. Mostly it's just marketing to add or remove value in the eyes of the consumer.
To Steve above, thank you! Happy New Year!
