The clue here is we've always known that single core performance is clue to realtime audio processing, and the cores in M1 and M2 are basically the same. I know nothing about the M2, except what I read it seems it's built on the M1, same clock speed, more cores, and can access more ram. It just seems like the 'system-on-a-chip' ram handling works in a different way… It's good. This is with lots of things in the background, browser, streaming etc. The memory might run into the yellow in Activitymonitor, but everything is cool. I can tell you that I can run a PT session and Adobe Lightroom, which is more ram hungry than PT, without a hitch. I'm also happy with 16GB memory, but I'm mostly mixing audio. I haven't even bothered to try any apple silicon native DAW.) It's the biggest jump in power I've experienced in over three decades with macs! (Added: I'm talking strictly PT performance, and this is running PT in Rosetta2. I can't prove this in any way, but I came to the conclusion that the M1 gave me about 1.6 times the audio realtime processing power of the intel. I tried out sessions between them, and tried to get a unscientific realworld sense of the difference in performance. You don't use Windows at all, do you? How do you compare your M1's performance against the other macs you've used?įWIW I went from a i7 3,2mHz Mac Mini (2018) 32GB to a M1 mini 16GB 7 months ago. I believe you because I've read it in many places. I've come across this before and I asked the question here some time ago, but I was told it wasn't so.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |