<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
	<rss version="2.0"
		xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
		xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
		xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
		xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"

			>

	<channel>
		<title>Cycling 74  &#187;  Topic: Best Max version (performance-wise)?</title>
		<atom:link href="http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/best-max-version-performance-wise/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/best-max-version-performance-wise/feed</link>
		<description></description>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:57:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<generator>http://bbpress.org/?v=2.2.4</generator>
		<language></language>

		
														
					
				<item>
					<guid>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/best-max-version-performance-wise/#post-62428</guid>
					<title><![CDATA[Best Max version (performance-wise)?]]></title>
					<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/best-max-version-performance-wise/#post-62428</link>
					<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 22:42:56 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>xidance</dc:creator>

					<description>
						<![CDATA[
						<p>Sorry, my first trials on search were just bad.</p>
						]]>
					</description>

					
					
				</item>

			
				<item>
					<guid>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/best-max-version-performance-wise/#post-225509</guid>
					<title><![CDATA[Re: Best Max version (performance-wise)?]]></title>
					<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/best-max-version-performance-wise/#post-225509</link>
					<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:47:56 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>n00b_meister</dc:creator>

					<description>
						<![CDATA[
						<p>Does it not depend entirely on one&#8217;s OS and hardware? I still haven&#8217;t &#8216;upgraded&#8217; to 6 yet; with my system that would be akin to putting twin exhausts on a Clio:</p>
<p>Max 5.1.9<br />
Vista (how we miss XP)<br />
1.6 dual core<br />
generic soundchip (ASIO4All)</p>
<p>Brendan</p>
						]]>
					</description>

					
					
				</item>

			
				<item>
					<guid>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/best-max-version-performance-wise/#post-225510</guid>
					<title><![CDATA[Re: Best Max version (performance-wise)?]]></title>
					<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/best-max-version-performance-wise/#post-225510</link>
					<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 18:44:09 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>Roman Thilenius</dc:creator>

					<description>
						<![CDATA[
						<p>well performance wise it is 4.5 &#8211; 4.6 on OSX, and 6 is the worst.</p>
<p>but it probably depends also on what you are doing. if you can use gen~ in<br />
6 to biuld a reverb, the performance difference between the runtime and its<br />
basic objects of v. 4 and 5 do not matter anymore.</p>
<p>-110</p>
						]]>
					</description>

					
					
				</item>

			
				<item>
					<guid>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/best-max-version-performance-wise/#post-225511</guid>
					<title><![CDATA[Re: Best Max version (performance-wise)?]]></title>
					<link>http://cycling74.com/forums/topic/best-max-version-performance-wise/#post-225511</link>
					<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:56:10 +0000</pubDate>
					<dc:creator>xidance</dc:creator>

					<description>
						<![CDATA[
						<p>ok thanks. regarding this comparison i don&#8217;t think hardware is more important than the version of max you run (given all drivers are optimized). however, it&#8217;s on windows xp (sp3). </p>
<p>bad thing is version 4 had no presentation mode, so i guess to stuck with version 5. gen~ is not much of use for me, i do 95% of all the audio processing externally and use max for recording/sampling, sequencing and jitter.</p>
						]]>
					</description>

					
					
				</item>

					
		
	</channel>
	</rss>

