If you had to stick to one DAW, which one would it be?

[Jac459]

For RISC vs CISC, it is the same. CISC is a less elegant architecture, they keep adding specific instruction sets in order to stay in the race...

For those who are confused because some "CISC" (Intel/AMD) processors are still more powerful than very good "RISC" (M1 or M2) processors, think of it this way:

To measure the efficiency of a process/product/anything, the method is always the same. You measure how many resources you spend and how much resources you get in return.
It is like a financial investment, you look how much money you block and how much "guaranteed" money you get in return, and you know the efficiency of your investment.

For CPU it is the same, you look at the TPD (the electric energy you put) and you see how much CPU (MIPS) you get. Generally an M2 is at least 2-3 times more efficient than an intel or AMD of the same generation.
You could also say that the resource we put on a CPU is not only electricity but also actual cost. But there also it is well known that a RISC CPU is much simpler and less expansive to build than a CISC one.

So whatever the criteria you get, RISC is much much better than CISC.

So basically, the reason why today the top CPU are still CISC (Intel/AMD) is just because it is not a segment Apple tried to go. If tomorrow AMD or Intel were to do the transition to RISC and try to go to the top segment, they would create immensely more powerful CPUs.

[skijumptoes]

I was a Windows/PC apologist up until the introduction of the first M1 Macbook.
Buildt my own PCs since my old Amiga times. So in my case you're wrong.

Same boat as you, the MBP I got in November was the first thing I've bought in years where I've felt absolutely no buyers remorse. It still amazes me how efficient and simple it is. And being an Amiga user it feels like I've gone back over that line and feel more at home, as I've never been a 'fan' of Microsoft but I have appreciated what they do.

Not having to make changes to fan speeds, throttle CPU, watch the battery like a hawk. Heck, I can load up a DAW and use the built-in speakers and make music, load up youtube and it not shit out on me.

Maybe these aren't things that a desktop power user is looking for, but as a portable DAW it's just golden. I'm really considering selling my main PC now and replacing it with a Mini or Studio, but I'll take such a loss on the PC as prices have dropped so much recently.

[fedexnman]

I'm glad y'all like your M1 and M2 macs . To be honest I'd love to have a mini PC that had the same kind of chip , but be able to get into it and put my own bigger better faster RAM and SSD in it. I am jealous of some parts of Apple and then some parts I'm like NO .. I'm just not gonna run an external SSD and pay more for Ram ... It's just NOT worth it to me . Anyhow I'd be fine with Reaper ... Even though I don't use Reaper . In fact I'd be ok with Ardour if it did midi better. I'm a very basic person . To me a DAW is like a 4-track cassette in steroids for me . We are spoiled .

[FapFilter]

Apple prices have become quite competitive... as long as you can live with their base models, as their RAM and storage upgrade prices are nothing else than complete rip-offs.

[Serhii Kot]

I'm glad y'all like your M1 and M2 macs . To be honest I'd love to have a mini PC that had the same kind of chip , but be able to get into it and put my own bigger better faster RAM and SSD in it. I am jealous of some parts of Apple and then some parts I'm like NO .. I'm just not gonna run an external SSD and pay more for Ram ... It's just NOT worth it to me . Anyhow I'd be fine with Reaper ... Even though I don't use Reaper . In fact I'd be ok with Ardour if it did midi better. I'm a very basic person . To me a DAW is like a 4-track cassette in steroids for me . We are spoiled .

I have M1 Pro MacBook (16gb ram) and 7950x PC (32 gb ram). My MacBook can handle same amount and sometimes more Kontakt libraries then my PC. I start to think, that RISC and CISC memory access is different somehow.

I prefer to use MacBook 100% for my work and creative cases. I am not an apple fanboy, it just works better for me (and quieter) than my top tier PC.

[Jac459]

....
My MacBook can handle same amount and sometimes more Kontakt libraries then my PC. I start to think, that RISC and CISC memory access is different somehow.

I prefer to use MacBook 100% for my work and creative cases. I am not an apple fanboy, it just works better for me (and quieter) than my top tier PC.

Well I am not an expert as I studied it long long time ago but never actually worked on hardware development.
But my 2 cents would be that with CISC, you are dealing with "instruction Set Extensions", like MMX 25 years ago or AVX-512 now. These instructions set are kind of "shortcuts" that allow the CPU to be very fast on some specific use cases. These use cases are generally chosen by intel for the most power intensive case on media processing, large dataset management, etc...

That's actually why Intel has some very good benchmarks, it is because on some specific use cases, their CPU are freaking fast, and pretty slow on other scenarios that are not planned in the Instruction Set (or not optimised for).

RISC has an opposite philosophy. It is light weight and aiming to be fast and simple. This way it is never "freaking fast" but it is very fast for everything.

The result from a user point of view is what you describe (and I felt myself moving from PC to Mac) : my MBP isn't much faster on heavy task, like exporting a complex track or things like that. But it "FEEL" much much faster. I don't think it is because of Windows vs Mac, Windows since windows 2000 is very well written. It is because Windows runs on Intel and Intel, as CISC, as is fast for some stuffs, and slow for some others... Resulting on a less "snappy" experience.

[skijumptoes]

It is because Windows runs on Intel and Intel, as CISC, as is fast for some stuffs, and slow for some others... Resulting on a less "snappy" experience.

Moving everything into that chip (SoC) makes it feel more snappy too I think, I've got a PC with PCIe4 SSD which is faster than they put in my Mac.

Yet the Mac will load up plugins quicker, there's just overall less of that laggy/unresponsive feel in actions like that. I see it with large kontakt libraries quite a lot where it will actually freeze the system with the initial load. Only a few seconds, but noticeable if I go from Mac to PC.

[syntonica]

For RISC vs CISC, it is the same. CISC is a less elegant architecture, they keep adding specific instruction sets in order to stay in the race... It started (to my knowledge) in 97 with the pentium "MMX" instruction set, now I understand it is the AVX-512 in the latest Intel... From an engineering stand point it is just shitty... Why do you think Apple could manage to make such a powerful CPU that overshadowed for the while great specialists like AMD and Intel ??
The ARM way is the way to go. Apple understood it and scored a massive win. I just hope Windows will finally dump the "CISC" first and move to RISC. That would be a gain for the whole industry. But unfortunately, that means a transition period with compatibility issue like for MacOs these recent years. But the sooner we do it, the sooner we can have performant and less consuming CPUs....

There's nothing wrong with adding sets of SIMD instructions. ARM has Neon and it's a very efficient way of dealing with massive quantities of data that all need the same mathematical operations done. Without it, we'd never have had the media explosion we've seen.

The problem with CISC, as I see it, is that there's 10 different ways of doing one task, each taking a different number of cycles, So, not only do you have unnecessary opcodes bloating the number of components on your chip, you give compilers 10x more work trying to optimize the code for you. Fewer components also means less heat.

CISC really came from the idea that if you need more power, you need a larger instruction set. RISC is more about a single instruction for each task, each task taking a single cycle. Sure, you may need three instructions to match one CISC instruction, but the CISC instruction still takes 3 cycles itself.

I think the better speed returns have been in adding more cores, of course. Adding more available registers also helps since that mean fewer trips to the stack are needed. Coupled with thinner processes capable of higher clock speeds, Apple has hit the current sweet spot for fast processors.

You can get faster chips than Apple Silicon, but they come with turbo-jet fans strapped on to try to keep them cool. Same with the current GPUs. Personally, I like the peace and quiet. Gamers don't hear the fans over the loud games they're playing--they like the speed. You choose what works best for you, there's no wrong choice.

Unless you don't choose Mac.

[FapFilter]

none of them are pure "RISC" or "CiSC" for ages anymore though.
plus, both of them, at least historically, had different strengths anyway.
most RISC CPUs that i knew were incredibly fast in performing floating point operations, which is good for physics, AI, etc. but at least compared to some good CISC (mostly x86 architecture) sucked balls in the integer compartment, which is required for most other duties, including actually handling an OS.
guess why they went intel in 2006/2007 or whenever that was.
if someone nowadays wants fast floating point performance, most would reach for a performant GPU, which will blow everything else, including hardcore "RISC" CPUs out of the water

and regarding differences in more efficient memory handling should most likely come from more efficient memory compression and should not be related to different hardware architectures.
i only have a pretty old Windows 7 laptop (and now also a sparkling new Linux one) to compare to , since our Win 10 systems at work are not SSD equipped, but at least compared to my systems, macOS is extremely slow in loading apps, despite having the faster SSDs (at least in case of the old Win 7 laptop, which in theory should literally be 10 times slower).
they're extremely quick when the apps themself had been loaded (loading VSTi, etc.), so macOS and also iOS seem to have some extremely sluggish algorithms going on before actually launching an app.
so it's not that macOS is feeling snappy in everything.
not sure if this is security related, as most Windows systems have antivirus running too, or if this is caused by the containerized apps on macOS vs the non-containerized stuff on Windows IDK.

[Jac459]

It is because Windows runs on Intel and Intel, as CISC, as is fast for some stuffs, and slow for some others... Resulting on a less "snappy" experience.

Moving everything into that chip (SoC) makes it feel more snappy too I think, I've got a PC with PCIe4 SSD which is faster than they put in my Mac.

Yet the Mac will load up plugins quicker, there's just overall less of that laggy/unresponsive feel in actions like that. I see it with large kontakt libraries quite a lot where it will actually freeze the system with the initial load. Only a few seconds, but noticeable if I go from Mac to PC.

This is my experience too, yet I was moving from a 32GB/1TB Razer Gaming PC i79750H to a m1 8gb/256gb, it was very surprising for me to "feel" more power with the Mac...

Anyway, I am in favour of competition for the good of customers... The world doesn't need CISC vs RISC, the world need multiple actors on RISC, not only Apple, I really hope that Microsoft will take the things at hand and create their own chip... Then that will be the death of Intel which has not been able to pivot to the right technology... The RIM or Nokia of the 2020s if you prefer...

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/micro ... t%20claims.

"Microsoft is actively expanding a team tasked with making a new challenger to Apple Silicon, according to a report by Windows Latest. Like Apple's M series processors, the new Microsoft SoCs will be based on Arm architecture, the report claims. But making the SoC development somewhat more exciting, Microsoft is said to be working in parallel to make sure Windows 12 will be Arm optimized."

I don't know if it is wishful thinking from tomshardware... Tomshardware is not exactly a small news channel so I have a tendency to trust them. But if Microsoft does that... There will be only one winner... The consumer...

(Oh and of course, if windows moves to ARM, all applications will have to be recompiled to be optimised for windows 12 EXACTLY the same way the applications had to be recompiled for the Apple M1, this will be a delightful moment where the Apple users will (for once) be able to take revenge against PC users and have a laugh.

[syntonica]

It is because Windows runs on Intel and Intel, as CISC, as is fast for some stuffs, and slow for some others... Resulting on a less "snappy" experience.

Moving everything into that chip (SoC) makes it feel more snappy too I think, I've got a PC with PCIe4 SSD which is faster than they put in my Mac.

Yet the Mac will load up plugins quicker, there's just overall less of that laggy/unresponsive feel in actions like that. I see it with large kontakt libraries quite a lot where it will actually freeze the system with the initial load. Only a few seconds, but noticeable if I go from Mac to PC.

Actually, Apple is really feeling the pain of having chosen Objective-C to base their entire OS on. The messaging system is a real drag, both literally and metaphorically, on the "snappy". I really wish they had gone C++ at the time.

As much as I tend to dislike Swift, I'll be happy when it's finally taken over and maybe we can start to see the speed benefits.

[syntonica]

Anyway, I am in favour of competition for the good of customers... The world doesn't need CISC vs RISC, the world need multiple actors on RISC, not only Apple, I really hope that Microsoft will take the things at hand and create their own chip...

It's the opportunity MIPS had been waiting for! Considering the ARM instruction set can be licensed, I'm curious to see if Microsoft can beat Apple at ARM wrestling.

And actually, aside from one or two instructions, ARM is full-on RISC.

Okay, enough noon-DAW talk... (... scuttles off ...)

[Jac459]

Okay, enough noon-DAW talk... (... scuttles off ...)

Argh... I am tempted to answer to the interesting remarks done on your post and some others previously...

But you are right... I think I have filled my quota of "off-topic" for the month...

Now we can discuss on why Bitwig is the best DAW of all time and probably the greatest human creation after the "pain au chocolat".

[syntonica]

Okay, enough noon-DAW talk... (... scuttles off ...)

Argh... I am tempted to answer to the interesting remarks done on your post and some others previously...

But you are right... I think I have filled my quota of "off-topic" for the month...

Now we can discuss on why Bitwig is the best DAW of all time and probably the greatest human creation after the "pain au chocolat".

While I agree that pain au chocolat* is better than manna from the heavens, regarding Bitwig being the best, it will be MIDI cables at dawn! Bring your second! Oh, and Nounours, in case some one does get injured...

*Last one I greedily bit into squirted chocolate pudding all down my shirt front. Only in the US...

[Jac459]

While I agree that pain au chocolat* is better than manna from the heavens, regarding Bitwig being the best, it will be MIDI cables at dawn! Bring your second! Oh, and Nounours, in case some one does get injured...

*Last one I greedily bit into squirted chocolate pudding all down my shirt front. Only in the US...

Well to be honest I am not fully sure I am totally unbiased...