Logic Pro Multicore Benchmarktest !
Firechild
Thread Starter
#1
7th March 2009
Old 7th March 2009
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Firechild's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,472

Thread Starter
Logic Pro Multicore Benchmarktest !

Index of /logicprobenchmark

Here is a very simple benchmark test. Download the zipfile located on the link above.
Open with Logic 9.1.3 or higher. Then un-mute tracks one by one and check how many tracks your computer is able to run.
It is ok to hit play again after initial overloads. Logic has to "Learn" how to spread the processing load.

As of 9.1.3 you can now set the number of threads within Logic. preferences. For best performance set maximum threads instead of automatic.

Feel free to email your results to me, evan@evan.se

Chart updated 2011-09-03



Logic uses a fixed playback buffer which is ( not confirmed ) 512 samples so I/O buffersize and Process bufferrange doesn´t affect performance in this test as it is a playback only test.
But to be futureproof I recommend 256 samples and medium buffer.

It is though one parameter that affects performance and it is "Track Mute/Solo behaviour", it should always be set to "CPU saving" which I think is default. You find the parameter under preferences/general. There is also a parameter within EXS24 regarding virtual memory that affects performance which is default to the best setting.

Logic has currently a limit of 16 threads.
Logic can utilize virtual cores VERY good.
If your choice is between dual or quad CPU. ALWAYS go with quad.
If your choice is between quad CPU with or without hyper threading. ALWAYS go with hyper threading.
Quote
3
#2
7th March 2009
Old 7th March 2009
  #2
Lives for gear
 
nativeaudio's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,871

8 x 3.6 ghz? Skulltrail?
#3
7th March 2009
Old 7th March 2009
  #3
Lives for gear
 
LeMauce's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Paris and around the world
Posts: 2,234

Must be 8x2.8ghz i think. 3.6ghz doesn't exist "yet"
Firechild
Thread Starter
#4
7th March 2009
Old 7th March 2009
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Firechild's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,472

Thread Starter
Its an overclocked dual QX9775 ( stock@3.2 ) on a D5400XS motherboard known as Skulltrail. The QX9775 CPU is almost identical in Specs to the XEON 5482 CPU found in the former top end 8x3.2 MacPro.
Now, come on you lucky Nehalem owners with your results!
#5
7th March 2009
Old 7th March 2009
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Kamurah's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 582

I have a 2.66 Dual DualCore (i.e. 4 cores total) Running 10.5.6 and 8.0.2

2gb Ram

Buffer set to 256 samples per instruction.


Result:

25 tracks.


Cool test.


I will be anxious to see how the new Mac Pros do....but this just confirms to me that I will not be needing to upgrade anytime soon.... 25 samplers running with 100 plugins (50 of which are convolution reverbs and ringshifters) is way beyond anything I have come across in terms of a project for my meager workstyle.

Very cool though...I had wondered for a while what it would take to choke my Mac....now I know! thumbsup
#6
9th March 2009
Old 9th March 2009
  #6
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
7161's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,096

when i run the test only 6 of my 2.8 cores are working - the final 2 cpu meter's dont do zip.. number 7 might slightly flicker around the very very bottom, but it's kinda odd how cpu 7 & 8 dont get used
#7
9th March 2009
Old 9th March 2009
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Kamurah's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 582

7161:

Are you sure you are 'un-muting' the tracks? I ask this because it took me a few minutes to realize they were NOT muted in the channel strip, BUT rather you have to click on the track itself in the arrange window and hit "M" to un-mute it........or go to the drop down menu and un-mute.

At first I was thinking: "wow, I can play all the tracks with plenty of cpu to spare". lol not the case.

Cheers
#8
9th March 2009
Old 9th March 2009
  #8
Lives for gear
 
LeMauce's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Paris and around the world
Posts: 2,234

I did also the test:
Mac Pro 8core 3Ghz,
8Gb memory
Logic hard disk: Standard 320ghz
Project hard disk: 160Ghz Raptor

71 Tracks without SSL waves Channal plugin
58 Tracks with SSL waves Channel plugin

Nice test!
#9
9th March 2009
Old 9th March 2009
  #9
Gear addict
 
markus enochson's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: stockholm, sweden
Posts: 497

i got 24 tracks on 2.8 imac with 4gb metric halo drivers
#10
9th March 2009
Old 9th March 2009
  #10
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
7161's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,096

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamurah View Post
7161:

Are you sure you are 'un-muting' the tracks? I ask this because it took me a few minutes to realize they were NOT muted in the channel strip, BUT rather you have to click on the track itself in the arrange window and hit "M" to un-mute it........or go to the drop down menu and un-mute.

At first I was thinking: "wow, I can play all the tracks with plenty of cpu to spare". lol not the case.

Cheers
lol, Yeeeeeeeeees...

no i can do the test fine, but as i say, i cant get all 8 cores to move on the logic meter - only cores 1-6 move, core-7 flickers a tiny bit down at a few percent and core 8 never moves at all, not a flicker of activity

anyone else seeing that?

btw, whats good rates for audio track playback? just raw tracks not plugin counts - disk delivery rates i mean
Firechild
Thread Starter
#11
9th March 2009
Old 9th March 2009
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Firechild's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,472

Thread Starter
7161, I haven´t heard of two cores not showing activity, but almost every 8 core machine has no activity on the last 8 meter in the Logic performance meter but it is more a graphic bug than a "physical", cause if you open OSX activity monitor you can see that all cores are working.
In your case, open activity monitor and have a look, in case something is wrong with your machine.

You can also see the overall CPU load there, jumping up to almost 600 percent before CPU overload, meaning every core is working almost 80 percent load at the same time which is really good, but it will be even more optimized in Snow Leopard.

And track count on 44.1 / 24 bit is now not an issue anymore, several hundred tracks with no plugins should be no problem without RAID systems.
Firechild
Thread Starter
#12
9th March 2009
Old 9th March 2009
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Firechild's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,472

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMauce View Post
I did also the test:
Mac Pro 8core 3Ghz,
8Gb memory
Logic hard disk: Standard 320ghz
Project hard disk: 160Ghz Raptor

71 Tracks without SSL waves Channal plugin
58 Tracks with SSL waves Channel plugin

Nice test!
Wow, one of the top three results ever reported, you mean that 71 tracks played for you just unmuting the existing Logic arrangement without any modifications by you and then only for your own curiousity you inserted waves SSL plugins?

But 71 tracks is logical with your computer.
#13
9th March 2009
Old 9th March 2009
  #13
Gear maniac
 
MixHitz's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 291

Mac Pro 3.2 4 gb Ram

68 Tracks

Time for more ram
#14
9th March 2009
Old 9th March 2009
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: São Paulo/NYC
Posts: 1,231
My Recordings/Credits

i'm getting 14 tracks from my Macbook Pro dual 2.6

i'm running OSX.4.11 - can i expect better results from 10.5?
#15
9th March 2009
Old 9th March 2009
  #15
Gear addict
 
Pepe Ortega's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 423

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricey View Post
i'm getting 14 tracks from my Macbook Pro dual 2.6

i'm running OSX.4.11 - can i expect better results from 10.5?
Maybe. My macbook pro is 2.33ghz 2 gigs ram and OSX.5.6
I can run 14 tracks fine. Opening one more track , some times can run, but most of times Overload message appears..
#16
9th March 2009
Old 9th March 2009
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: São Paulo/NYC
Posts: 1,231
My Recordings/Credits

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe Ortega View Post
Maybe. My macbook pro is 2.33ghz 2 gigs ram and OSX.5.6
I can run 14 tracks fine. Opening one more track , some times can run, but most of times Overload message appears..
exactly my experience - ok, thanks!
#17
9th March 2009
Old 9th March 2009
  #17
Gear addict
 
Barbary Ape's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 431

Quote:
Originally Posted by MixHitz View Post
Mac Pro 3.2 4 gb Ram

68 Tracks

Time for more ram
Ram factors in a lot, your machine is more powerful than mine. I have an 8 core 2.8 w/ 8gb ram and I was able to get 67 tracks.
#18
9th March 2009
Old 9th March 2009
  #18
Lives for gear
 
YUGA's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Japan
Posts: 653

#19
10th March 2009
Old 10th March 2009
  #19
Lives for gear
 
nativeaudio's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,871

Quote:
Originally Posted by YUGA View Post

About 25% faster than the previous 2.8GHz model.
That's interesting, since it's the entry level 8-core Mac, isn't it?

Here are the three 8-core models:

Two 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon $3,299.00
Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $1,400.00]
Two 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $2,600.0]
#20
10th March 2009
Old 10th March 2009
  #20
Gear nut
 
Mr. Landmark's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 135

MacBook Pro 2,53GHz with 4 GB ram connected to Apogee Duet:

-17 tracks @ 256 samples
-19 tracks @ 512 samples.

Activity Monitor showing 167% cpu usage at most.
#21
10th March 2009
Old 10th March 2009
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 845

Just got a new stock 2.26 8 core and performance is horrible. Crapped out at 20 tracks. The OS and/or Logic needs serious optimizing.
#22
10th March 2009
Old 10th March 2009
  #22
Lives for gear
 
lozion's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Location: Changes all the time..
Posts: 1,896

yikes!
#23
10th March 2009
Old 10th March 2009
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 845

I just opened an older project that had to be frozen and barely got finished because of automation and bus FX CPU overloads. It barely put a 10% dent in the CPU's w/ all tracks unfrozen on the new 2.26 octo. If Logic had not of crashed twice this evening I'd be really impressed. Strange the logic benchmark test gives about the same results as my laptop- 17" MBP 2.4 Santa Rosa, Duet, 10.5.6, logic 8.0.2
#24
10th March 2009
Old 10th March 2009
  #24
Lives for gear
 
YUGA's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Japan
Posts: 653

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFTPH View Post
Just got a new stock 2.26 8 core and performance is horrible. Crapped out at 20 tracks. The OS and/or Logic needs serious optimizing.
Really?
What a letdown.
Can you open the system performance monitor to see if all cores are actually used?
Firechild
Thread Starter
#25
10th March 2009
Old 10th March 2009
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Firechild's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,472

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by YUGA View Post
new nehalem mac pro geekbench score
11226 (2.26GHz 32-bit)
MacPro4,1 : Geekbench Result Browser

About 25% faster than the previous 2.8GHz model.
But something is strange with the numbers, the memory results should be twice as high with the new DDR3 modules and "Processor integer performance" is kind of low too? I think its due to the 32 bit version of Geekbench used in that particular test.
Check out the top two results with the top end 2.93 machine with the 64 bit version.
New world record ! And if you look at the numbers the great result is due to the faster RAM but even more important is the fact that geekbench sees 16 cores and the multithreading results is almost twice as good as the older 2.8 machine, but in reality two virtual cores coming from one physical can´t be twice as fast as a single physical core.. I have to do some more research in this subject to clear my mind from this mystery...
Top Geekbench 2 Results : Geekbench Result Browser
Firechild
Thread Starter
#26
10th March 2009
Old 10th March 2009
  #26
Lives for gear
 
Firechild's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,472

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFTPH View Post
Just got a new stock 2.26 8 core and performance is horrible. Crapped out at 20 tracks. The OS and/or Logic needs serious optimizing.
What buffersize?
My guess is that you should play around the same track count as the older 2.8 8core, probably even more tracks...
#27
10th March 2009
Old 10th March 2009
  #27
Gear nut
 
MFPhouse's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 131

15 Tracks,

MacBook Pro 2,16 10.4.9 2GB
#28
10th March 2009
Old 10th March 2009
  #28
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 182

What are the specs on the system? Ram etc that you are crapping out at?
#29
10th March 2009
Old 10th March 2009
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 845

Quote:
Originally Posted by clownjuggles View Post
What are the specs on the system? Ram etc that you are crapping out at?
I don't know if this is a question for me but my machine is a dual quad 2.26/6 gigs ram/apogee duet. If you read my earlier post you will see only this test file gives poor performance. Other than Logic crashing constantly performance seems great. Now I can get a lot less work done a whole lot faster!
#30
10th March 2009
Old 10th March 2009
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Rufuss Sewell's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,822

My Dual G5 2.5 from 2005 can do:

7 tracks clean
at 8 tracks the CPU's are maxxed
at 10 tracks I get shut down.

My G5 has been really amazing and reliable for the last four years. I mean zero problems! But I can't wait to get one of these new MacPros... and Logic Studio 2!

(praying for elastic audio with grouping and handle bars at every transient!!!)
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Odditory / Music Computers
18
Dr Gruv / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0
Dr Gruv / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.