The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Logic Pro Multicore Benchmarktest ! Audio Interfaces
Old 30th October 2018
  #3211
Lives for gear
 

Just wanted to give this old but new (for me) puppy a test run.

2010 Mac Pro, dual Xeon 2.66GHz, 16GB RAM, 500GB Samsung Evo 860 system (and Logic library) drive that I placed the testing project on.
OSX High Sierra 10.13.6
LPX 10.4.2

Interface: Zoom UAC-2 (running through an Inateck USB3 PCIe card).

Logic set to:
- High precision (64bit) summing (seems to make no difference to "normal" for this test, btw)
- Number of processing threads (makes a difference compared to "automatic"): 24
- Multithreading set to playback and live tracks (makes a difference, at least once you select one of the actively playing tracks and not choose an empty track, which has been the trick to squeeze the last ounce of juice out of earlier versions).
- Processing buffer set to "large" (makes a difference).
- EXS "Virtual Memory": Disk speed set to "slow" - this will allow the EXS to load as much as possible into your RAM rather than reading things from your drive. I recommend to check this setting out as it does make a difference on some machines.

32 samples (4.5ms roundtrip latency, measured not calculated): 248 tracks.
64 samples (5.9ms RTL): 247 - yes, that is one track LESS than with 32 samples! Did switch multiple times between the two, even restarted Logic after switching, so yes, the numbers are reliable.

Note: Same goes for all buffer settings up to 512 (and I always stick to 32 or 64, so they're irrelevant for me). The UAC-2 somehow seems to have its drivers optimized for lowest latency performance - but in daily life, once it comes to single core performance tasks (such as pretty complexed serial signal chains for guitar amp sims, Alchemy and what not), there definitely *is* a noticeable improvement when using higher buffer settings.

Note #2 : The internal interface performs about the same, just that I'm getting 1-2 more tracks at 512 samples.

Fwiw, that 8 year old Mac Pro still seems to be a pretty decent performer - very happy I got one (just recently, btw). And I can still upgrade the CPU (to 2x3.4) and RAM. Should be good for a while to come (just that I need a new GPU to install Mojave, should I feel like). Multithreading along with the latest LPX seems to work particularly well on this machine, single threaded tasks are more of a bottleneck.

Last edited by Sascha Franck; 30th October 2018 at 12:15 PM..
Old 4th November 2018
  #3212
Gear Head
macOS sierra 10.12.6
Logic Pro X 10.4.2
Audio device: motu pcie-424
Buffer I/O: 128 samples

2009 5,1 Dual x5675 3,06ghz, 12 core 24 thread/ 24gb


215 track



But refx nexus vsti plugin only 7 channel (around 500-1gb per preset of hollywood soundset) a few cpu thread overload, a lot of cpu thread is zero.

Last edited by trance54; 4th November 2018 at 10:32 PM..
Old 4th November 2018
  #3213
Gear Nut
 
Trendkill's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunday View Post
macOS Mojave 10.14
Logic Pro X 10.4.2
Audio device: Built-in
Buffer I/O: 128 samples


iMac Pro 2017 (Xeon 8-Core 3,2 Ghz / 32 GB)
302 tracks
How did you manage that? Logic Pro X support only 255 Instrument tracks...
Old 5th November 2018
  #3214
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendkill View Post
How did you manage that? Logic Pro X support only 255 Instrument tracks...
Pwned.
Old 13th November 2018
  #3215
Lives for gear
 
Chevron's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sascha Franck View Post
Just wanted to give this old but new (for me) puppy a test run.

2010 Mac Pro, dual Xeon 2.66GHz, 16GB RAM, 500GB Samsung Evo 860 system (and Logic library) drive that I placed the testing project on.
OSX High Sierra 10.13.6
LPX 10.4.2
Nice! With the same settings on my 2010 Mac Pro 2.93 ghz 12 core I am getting 238 tracks to consistently play.

In the 2018 Mac Mini thread here a guy was getting only 185 tracks on a 3.2 ghz i7 Mac Mini. Which I was thinking of getting to replace my MP, but the fact I get more on my machine has made me rethink that plan... Okay he hasn't tweaked the settings as in your post, added another 30 tracks playing for me and was around 215 before with stock settings. Why do you think he would be getting less tracks to play on a machine with a higher Geekbench score? Is this thermal throttling in effect?
Old 13th November 2018
  #3216
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevron View Post
Why do you think he would be getting less tracks to play on a machine with a higher Geekbench score? Is this thermal throttling in effect?
No idea. Might be. But then, doesn't the Mac Mini feature less CPU threads? When I did the test, multithreading was in full effect and all the 24 threads were maxed out.

Really, as soon as you don't need lots of serial (hence single thread) processing, these 2010-2012 MPs are still absolute power horses. Too bad you need a new GPU to update to Mojave - but then, HS is serving me fine for the time being, will possibly stick with it until some important software isn't compatible anymore.
Until then, I'll rather spend my money for more RAM and some more SSDs.
Old 13th November 2018
  #3217
Lives for gear
 
Chevron's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sascha Franck View Post
No idea. Might be. But then, doesn't the Mac Mini feature less CPU threads? When I did the test, multithreading was in full effect and all the 24 threads were maxed out.

Really, as soon as you don't need lots of serial (hence single thread) processing, these 2010-2012 MPs are still absolute power horses. Too bad you need a new GPU to update to Mojave - but then, HS is serving me fine for the time being, will possibly stick with it until some important software isn't compatible anymore.
Until then, I'll rather spend my money for more RAM and some more SSDs.
The 3.2 Mac Mini is a 6 core machine, but I assumed that if the geekbench score was higher it would mean a better result in the Logic test.

I hear you on the GPU for Mojave, but I am also considering sticking with High Sierra and the 2010 Mac Pro as an option for now. I am always a couple of OS behind anyways. Then when it gets too long in the tooth I can see how the land lies then..

Which could be in 2020 when the MP will be 10 years old, who'd have thought that you'd get a 10 year computer still worth keeping for audio production.
Old 13th November 2018
  #3218
Indeed! I have a friend recording different album around here ( children's music, singer songwriter, and his own stuff). His Mac Pro must be from 2004/2005, untouched / old pro tools and M-audio. records everything and mixes on it
Old 13th November 2018
  #3219
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevron View Post
Which could be in 2020 when the MP will be 10 years old, who'd have thought that you'd get a 10 year computer still worth keeping for audio production.
Well, I just bought mine recently (a few months ago) for a killer price. Great machine, possibly the most configurable Mac that ever existed and still pretty much future-proof. I'm even considering a CPU upgrade (mine is 2x2.66GHz, but there's replacment kits including all tools and even some thermal paste, going up to 2x3.4GHz). So far I can run pretty much everything I want at 32 samples (using a Zoom UAC, which has very excellent drivers, resulting in 4.5ms RTL) and only got a crackle here and there when checking out some of the maddest Alchemy+Plugins serial chains (they're completely beyond anything I'd ever do, so I'm fine).

Fwiw, before I used a 2008 Macbook with 10.6.8 and Logic 9. Still performs like a champ, especially after the last upgrade to an SSD 2 years ago. In case I keep things moderate in terms of plugin usage, I can run an almost full production on it. Compared to that machine, the Mac Pro is pure heaven - and it's keeping up against the newest kids on the block pretty well, especially now that Logic is vastly improved regarding multithreading.
Old 14th November 2018
  #3220
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trendkill View Post
How did you manage that? Logic Pro X support only 255 Instrument tracks...
How true is that? Does that figure also include audio tracks?

Jacob Collier claims over 700 tracks in the video below.
YouTube
Old 14th November 2018
  #3221
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by miscend View Post
How true is that? Does that figure also include audio tracks?
The test was solely using virtual instrument tracks. And there's "only" up to 255 virtual instrument tracks in Logic.
Old 16th November 2018
  #3222
Here for the gear
 

Can we create a similar test for Mainstage?

@S_A_P & @RyanC

I also built a 7980xe hackintosh and can verify similar Logic track counts as RyanC with his hack and S_A_P with his iMacPro.

The trouble is that Mainstage seems completely incompetent for multicore usage. There is no Mainstage performance upgrade from my previous 8 core hackintosh to this 18core hack.

I thought it may be due to a hackintosh discrepency and was hoping to compile a similar test session that we can use to test if Mainstage is actually utilizing its cores.

Couple of things. The mainstage CPU meter located near the transport shows between 60%-100% when my CPU iStats shows less than 10% load. The extended Mainstage CPU metering bar graph that details the CPU load for particular plugins only goes to 300/400% while utilizing 36 cores, when I should be seeing 3600%, no?

Depending on the buffer I/O setting, I actually have to reduce core usage down to 16/8/4 cores to avoid nasty clicks and a console message spam of IOperformwatchdog output. This console message does not cause a mainstage overload message, but causes 5-6 audible clicks per second until I lower core usage to around 16.

I have been trying to figure out this problem for over a year and am at my whits end. If anyone is interested in helping and has a iMac Pro / 18core hack / 12 core MacPro, I will happily reimburse you for the cost of Mainstage.

I am using RME UFX+, newest drivers & firmware. Right now it seems my only possibilities are 1)Audio interface 2)Hackintosh discrepency 3)Mainstage sucks at core optimization.

I will try to build a Mainstage project template that we can use but would greatly appreciate any insight/ideas/comments from the community here.

Spitballing:
1) We would need to test at multiple buffer sizes, focusing on 32 & 64 samples, as low latency is needed for live performance
2) We might need 2 tests, 1 for software instruments and 1 for live audio inputs.
3) Crosscheck performance with the number of CPU cores utilized to see if performance actually increases based on using LESS cores.

Please please please help!
Thanks!
Old 16th November 2018
  #3223
Lives for gear
 

@parispro00, while I have no real idea about Mainstage (apart from opening it ages ago when it came for free with Logic), how do you organize your projects?
Quite obviously (or maybe not, but that's what it's like in Logic land), any processing involving serial signal paths can't be distributed to multiple cores. As a result, your system will always only be as good as the weakest (well, let's rather say the most taxed) core/thread allows. If you overload that thread (in Logic that would likely be the "live" channel(s)), no amount of threads will help you. In Mainstage, I suppose a lot more channels need to be set to live mode for quick switching and whatever layered sounds - but from all I could imagine, it'd still be that the thread closest to being maxed out dictates how much stuff you'll be able to run (even if the other threads barely show up on your CPU meter).
In a nutshell: I would check how much serial processing you've got going and if possible, reduce the workload for the busiest chains. Thing suchs as using busses for reverbs instead of slapping them into an insert come to mind.
Old 4th December 2018
  #3224
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sascha Franck View Post
@parispro00, while I have no real idea about Mainstage (apart from opening it ages ago when it came for free with Logic), how do you organize your projects?
MainStage is meant to be used as a live audio support app. It lets you have a Midi control solution, a guitar effects emulation routing solution, and provides playback of background audio tracks (backup vocals, drums, etc.) all at the same time! I use it for backup tracks of vocals, drums and bass, and to provide my keyboard voices for my midi controller keyboard when I am live on stage. I have found the best way to keep resources efficient, is to bounce all my drum tracks into a stereo aux track and export as a stereo stem. Then I bounce all my vocal tracks the same way. Then I bounce any guitar parts the same way as well. This gives me a little bit of control over my mix while live on stage. With my Liquid Saffire 56, I even have the option to rout each stem playback into a separate stereo output pair, and give the sound man a bit more control over the mix in that particular room and setting. I haven't felt the need to do this, since I don't play stadiums.

I have found that mitigating the tracks down to only a few playback tracks, and having all the reverbs and compression done in Logic before the stems are bounced, has kept my hardware stress under control. I can even use a few Space Designer reverbs, and compression on my keyboards, without problem. Ive done a 6 effect setup in Pedalboard with Amp Designer, loaded to the brink of insanity, and played 4 backing tracks simultaneously, without a hitch. All of this on a Top Spec 2011 MacBook Pro w/ Samsung 840 Pro SSD. It's not meant to do much more than be an easy way to have your keyboard settings, layers and effects, guitars, and effects, lined up in a "schedule" based on your setlist. You just switch to the next song on the list and everything is lined up for you. I feel I have pushed it to it's limits, and, if I had a better computer, could possibly push it further.

I just got a 2018 Mac mini, completely decked out with full specs, and after I upgrade the Ram later this month to 32GB I'm going to be running some tests with this benchmark, AND putting MainStage through hell in my studio during practice. I'll drop both results here then.
Old 18th December 2018
  #3225
Here for the gear
 
LogicBenchmarks's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sascha Franck View Post
The test was solely using virtual instrument tracks. And there's "only" up to 255 virtual instrument tracks in Logic.
Do you think this limit will ever be increased? I guess when it comes to the practical part, not many people need this many tracks (correct me if I’m wrong). One day all Macs may be able to reach 255 tracks, which would make most Pro models obsolete I guess.


Also, does anyone else get the problem that’s described here? And if yes, what are the alternatives? I think this happens because the plugin setting files have moved with new updates.
Old 25th December 2018
  #3226
Gear Addict
 

Logic 10.2.2 osx 10.9.5 126 tracks

Macpro 4.1 2x2.26 64gb ram ssd
Old 27th December 2018
  #3227
Here for the gear
 
LogicBenchmarks's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea19837 View Post
Logic 10.2.2 osx 10.9.5 126 tracks

Macpro 4.1 2x2.26 64gb ram ssd
Interesting, I have following scores for your Mac:

108
108
209
104
151

The one with 209 tracks must be fake. Even 151 tracks sounds a lot. I wonder what setup the person had.
Old 28th December 2018
  #3228
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicBenchmarks View Post
Also, does anyone else get the problem that’s described here? And if yes, what are the alternatives? I think this happens because the plugin setting files have moved with new updates.
As far as the EXS files go, some of them have been altered with LPX, they're now partially using large "consolidated" CAF files instead of indvidual wave files. But I'm not sure whether that's the case with the files in question.

Another problem is the dreaded Library Manager - no idea what brought up the idea of calling it "Manager" as its only forte is mis-management. Usually, there's heaps of missing files even if you chose to install the full library content.
Can sometimes be fixed by deleting some of the library entries and re-starting the download. But sometimes that won't work, either. It's also depending on the state of happiness the Apple server is in right at the moment you attempt to download the libary.
Because of that I'd highly recommend to only do the test with all the required files (samples and IRs) supplied with the test song.
Old 28th December 2018
  #3229
Lives for gear
 
Fernand's Avatar
It may be worth repeating that for all the glitz the performance of desktops has leveled in the last 7 years.

That's why a 9 year old 2010 5,1 - or a 10 year old 2009 4,1 upgraded to 5,1 firmware - is still a great DAW.
It's as simple as that. The urge to upgrade is mostly a leftover from earlier days.

One limit: if you pack more gates onto the chip, you hit thermal ceilings, so clocks speed must go down.
Old 1st January 2019
  #3230
Here for the gear
 
LogicBenchmarks's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sascha Franck View Post
As far as the EXS files go, some of them have been altered with LPX, they're now partially using large "consolidated" CAF files instead of indvidual wave files. But I'm not sure whether that's the case with the files in question.

Another problem is the dreaded Library Manager - no idea what brought up the idea of calling it "Manager" as its only forte is mis-management. Usually, there's heaps of missing files even if you chose to install the full library content.
Can sometimes be fixed by deleting some of the library entries and re-starting the download. But sometimes that won't work, either. It's also depending on the state of happiness the Apple server is in right at the moment you attempt to download the libary.
Because of that I'd highly recommend to only do the test with all the required files (samples and IRs) supplied with the test song.
I admit that it's a bit messy. That's why I'm trying to figure out how to fix the test without making all old test results obsolete.

Someone made a new test here: New Logic Multitrack Benchmark Test - Logic Pro Help

The question is, is it similar to the old test, or completely different? The test should be "repaired" in the most minimalistic way. If we end up with ten different tests, the benchmark comparison will not work efficiently.
Old 1st January 2019
  #3231
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fernand View Post
It may be worth repeating that for all the glitz the performance of desktops has leveled in the last 7 years.
Not really, it's just that apple has failed to keep up. 7980xe is most certainly a huge step up from westmere and e5 in processing power. I have a 12c trashcan and it's simply no comparison to the 2 7980's systems I have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fernand View Post
One limit: if you pack more gates onto the chip, you hit thermal ceilings, so clocks speed must go down.
Again, not really...7980xe will run fully stable up to 500w with a noctua hsf. You won't see this in a stock computer of course.

Also some plugins are just starting to take advantage of AVX-512 (eg 2c audio breeze) which is another big reduction in CPU usage...
Old 2nd January 2019
  #3232
Lives for gear
 
Fernand's Avatar
Well, Apple aside, and affordable machines aside.

I know the Xeons in a 5,1 classic once sold for a fortune
back when, but I have this thing about spending over
2k on a computer. Paradox, maybe, since Apple has
traditionally been high end, but for me and a lot of
people in music, if we don't do video, a CPU chip
over 2K is not good old PC territory, and the whole
Moore's law idea was more or less "at the same price"
and not "if you throw enough money at". It's maybe
something like, with newer technology we can go land
on Mars, but it's not in the same line of evolution.

But it's great to hear you've got screaming performance.
How many tracks can you run in the two benchmarks?

And how's the single core performance if you are politically
(and otherwise) incorrect and stack a crapload of effects
on a VI track? I have some Alchemy and Sculpture stacks
that bring Godzilla to his knees. Oh, and Diva.

Last edited by Fernand; 2nd January 2019 at 08:40 AM..
Old 2nd January 2019
  #3233
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fernand View Post
But it's great to hear you've got screaming performance.
How many tracks can you run in the two benchmarks?
I haven't tried the new one, but on the Evan bench I can run all 255 tracks at 192k with room to spare. I'll try the new one when I get a chance.

Single core performance is very good as the systems are OC'd to 4.5ghz.
Old 4th January 2019
  #3234
Here for the gear
 
LogicBenchmarks's Avatar
 

I uploaded Evan's one here by the way. It is a slightly updated version: Some users had messages that told them files were missing, etc. So I re-saved the original Logic 9 project as a Logic Pro X project and checked all the options to include the necessary files into the project file. So even those that downloaded Logic Pro X only recently should have the needed files included in the project without having to download additional content. I think that was the problem. (correct me if I'm wrong)
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3235
Here for the gear
 

Mac Pro (Mid 2012) 3.33Ghz 6-Core Xeon 8GB 1333MHz DDR3 ECC
Yosemite 10.10.5 Logic Pro X 10.2.4

I picked up this used Mac Pro at the college surplus for cheap and it's in great shape.
I haven't upgraded anything on it. It looked new....

On the original test I got over 100 tracks,
I just downloaded this sculpture version of the new test and got it to 56 tracks before it over-loaded.
Way more than anything I need. I'll never run that many tracks. For $449, a steal!

I like this new test, more real world load.... thanks!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3236
Lives for gear
 
Fernand's Avatar
Way to go. Great deal, great machine. But with samplers 8GB isn't much.
You can get decommissioned top notch HP Server RAM for it on e-bay.
First look for "mac Pro RAM", they usually hit you with a "mac brand
surcharge". Look at the exact type, and search again for them without
mentioning "mac". You can usually find 32GB for ~ $50.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3237
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gdcrook View Post
Mac Pro (Mid 2012) 3.33Ghz 6-Core Xeon 8GB 1333MHz DDR3 ECC
Yosemite 10.10.5 Logic Pro X 10.2.4

I picked up this used Mac Pro at the college surplus for cheap and it's in great shape.
I haven't upgraded anything on it. It looked new....

On the original test I got over 100 tracks,
I just downloaded this sculpture version of the new test and got it to 56 tracks before it over-loaded.
Way more than anything I need. I'll never run that many tracks. For $449, a steal!

I like this new test, more real world load.... thanks!
Fwiw, with the new test I've got 92 tracks playing stable at 32 samples (4.5ms RTL) on a 2010 dual 2.66GHz machine.

As has been said before, the cheesegraters are quite likely the best computers Apple has ever built.

Personally, all I'm missing here and there is more single core/thread juice for live-tracks. But that's only because at the moment I'm mainly using software amp sims for my guitar duties and hence don't want to raise the buffersize (for virtual instrument playing I'm fine with 64 samples which give me plenty of more power on live-tracks). So I may even take the plunge and update the CPU to a dual 3.46GHz somewhen this year.

And I may as well look for a used RME PCIe card of some sorts, which will allow me to get to the same latency figures at higher buffersizes.

Add to this that I might as well switch to using whatever hardware based forms of guitar modeling (I partially am already, but software is just so comfortable...) and this puppy should serve me for quite some years to come.
Would like to celebrate the end of its adolescence.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #3238
Lives for gear
 
Fernand's Avatar
FWIW, the dual 6 core 3.33 and 3.47 don't really differ noticeably in performance, and the 3.33 is cheaper. As Apple notes, with 6 memory sticks (48 GB) they run a little faster than with 8 sticks (64 gb).
Old 1 week ago
  #3239
Here for the gear
 

Thanks, Fernand for the info!
Old 1 week ago
  #3240
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fernand View Post
FWIW, the dual 6 core 3.33 and 3.47 don't really differ noticeably in performance, and the 3.33 is cheaper. As Apple notes, with 6 memory sticks (48 GB) they run a little faster than with 8 sticks (64 gb).
Do you have a source for the memory issue?
I mean, you can even update those 5.1 Mac Pros to 128 GB...
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
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
Forum Jump