TTOZ Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 (edited) well this is it: NewLogicBenchmarkTest.zip I really think I have created the perfect new benchmark test.. and props to Evan, didn't realise how long it would take to get the balance right. On my 2015 macbook pro 2.8hghz quad, i get 37 tracks with turbo disabled or 38 with turbo enabled.. Their really is something to this turbo boost switch software.. difference is.. CPU is at 74 degrees instead of 95! Turbo boost enabled will initially get 45 or even 50 tracks for about 8 or so bars but then overheats and drops the cpu frequency.. the macbook pro just can't maintain it. And then, "audio overload" message. I will inform the logic test topic as well as other forums. Space Designer just took up too much ram for so many tracks so i replaced with platinum verb, which WILL still load just fine for everyone even though it's "hidden" in Logic 10.4 Details of test: 44K Tracks on load : 128 instrument tracks each with sculpture, EQ, multipressor, Chorus, Auto Filter and Platinum Verb, playing pleasant 4 note chord Tracks with their midi enabled by default: 50 (i came to this figure for people with new hex core macbook, hex core mac pro users and so on, it's very easy to enable more just like with Evan, mute tool will load with project so just click the midi clips to enable or disable one by one!) Logic total ram use from Fresh Launch and project load : 1.1 GB Project Length: 32 bars looping at 130 BPM (just what my default is.. if you don't like this let me know and i'll change it) Audio track selected on Load so you can just play away and all cores will be distributed correctly. You literally don't need to do anything other than mute and unmute clips on a track by track basis. My idea is that it has to successfully play the 32 bars AND make the loop point without the overload message appearing, for it to be considered a valid result. My results: Crystal well 2.8ghz macbook Pro i7 Quad, 16GB ram, 1TB SSD, Nvidia 750M Internal macbook audio. Buffer: 128, Process Buffer Range: Medium. Turbo Disabled: 37 tracks Turbo Enabled: 38 tracks This is obviously a much more intense test and much more suitable for modern machines. If a machine out there really CAN play the whole included 128 tracks, it's very simple, just highlight the last track and press command D to duplicate it and copy the midi clip over till you reach your maximum tracks. Cpu load is spread perfectly across the test, real cpu is low 80's % per core.. Logic is hammering away... I'll test my imac pro this week, but I am guessing it will be 100 tracks... I am happy to make it 255 tracks default if that's what you all prefer, and anything else you want changed, just let me know, so we can get it to be the new default test.. it makes so much more sense with computers being as powerful as they are today. Cheers Ps have posted this at gearslutz as well so will take any input from both forums on board and notify both accordingly PPS it was suggested i use chromaverb and sculpture hi res mode, which of course was my first thought, but i wanted to maintain backwards compatibility with older logic versions. Now someone has told me that 10.4 songs can only be opened in 10.4.. is this true? Can anyone confirm? I no longer have access to any previous X version. If it's true, the test is still relevant, as someone kind that has kept an older version around could possibly transfer it and upload it for any 10.x user. And regardless, as has been shown with first i9 result below, the test is very intense as is. Edited August 25, 2018 by TTOZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ploki Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 i really want someone to do this on the new i9 macbook. my macbook can pull off 29 tracks stable, 30 it doesnt chew through the cycle. CPU is not maxed out... and one core is not even used at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTOZ Posted August 25, 2018 Author Share Posted August 25, 2018 i really want someone to do this on the new i9 macbook. my macbook can pull off 29 tracks stable, 30 it doesnt chew through the cycle. CPU is not maxed out... and one core is not even used at all. Screen Shot 2018-08-25 at 15.09.38.png Are you sure you are at 44.1 khz? I will tell you, in istat, i have 8 threads, and Logic is using 650% here.. (max possible is 800%). With you and the i9, the theoretical max is 1200%. I presumed logic would get close to 1000% 30 tracks is way too low.. No way that makes sense.. Ok, here are the questions to get to the bottom of it 1) Have you applied Apple's thermal patch for the new macbooks? 2) Running at 44k? 3) what is your buffer and process buffer set at? 4) In Logic preferences, are all 12 threads enabled? Does logic performance meter show 12 bars? There really is a problem with overheating and the new macbooks, unfortunately the macbook chassis can not even come close to dealing with the heat of the i9.. that's why after all the reviews, it's pretty much unanimous advice to just get the base cpu with top ram and graphics. The i9 will dip under base clock with full load, even with the thermal patch. My last advice is to try turbo boost switcher which is FREE https://www.rugarciap.com/turbo-boost-switcher-for-os-x/ This will keep your i9 at 2.9ghz It is very likely it will stop ALL overheating.. Considering when my turbo boost is disabled i get 37 tracks, I presume you will get 50 with 6 cores at 2.9ghz. Please give it a go.. as i showed above, because of heat and fluctuating clock speed, having turbo enabled for multi core tasks that use all cores in a macbook is a pointless waste of heat and shorter processor lifespan. My cpu has not gone above 80 degrees ever since i disabled turbo no matter what I am doing. I also now undervolt it 0.80 mv, and it never goes above 75. Interestingly, if i don't undervolt it, and turbo is enabled, mhx gets throttled at about 94 degrees. with undervolting, it allows the temp to go to 98 and maintain a higher turbo.. that is way too hot for comfort for me, so I have more or less permanently disabled turbo. Volta doesn't work on all macbooks but the watts power limiting feature should work as well as turbo enable/disable (yes, volta also allows control over turbo BUT it requires turning off a portion of SIPS and is only a one week trial. Cheap app though). By the way the one core not being used at all is normal for Logic X.. i have never seen the last core used unless I arm a track to be "live".. It reserves it for that and various tasks. You will notice if you click on a sculpture track and start playback again, suddenly the last core is used I think this is all to do with Logic's new "multi thread for record arm and playback tracks" option. Ok, so i changed Logic's setting to just multi thread for playback tracks. My test results are identical.. however, now all the "live" tracks are stacked onto one core.. I pressed the R button on three of the sculpture tracks and started playback.. as soon as i hit a midi key you see all three tracks go into live mode, and logic's final core almost full. So.. there you go:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ploki Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 i really want someone to do this on the new i9 macbook. my macbook can pull off 29 tracks stable, 30 it doesnt chew through the cycle. CPU is not maxed out... and one core is not even used at all. Screen Shot 2018-08-25 at 15.09.38.png Are you sure you are at 44.1 khz? I will tell you, in istat, i have 8 threads, and Logic is using 650% here.. (max possible is 800%). With you and the i9, the theoretical max is 1200%. I presumed logic would get close to 1000% 30 tracks is way too low.. No way that makes sense.. Ok, here are the questions to get to the bottom of it 1) Have you applied Apple's thermal patch for the new macbooks? 2) Running at 44k? 3) what is your buffer and process buffer set at? 4) In Logic preferences, are all 12 threads enabled? Does logic performance meter show 12 bars? No i meant i want someone to test the i9 because I'm opting for one. I tested on 2012 2,7GHz quad. buffer is 1024, and all 8 threads are enabled. Also using 32bit mixer (i wanted to see if it affects CPU on my last project and forgot to change it back) I have multithreads enabled only on playback threads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTOZ Posted August 25, 2018 Author Share Posted August 25, 2018 Are you sure you are at 44.1 khz? I will tell you, in istat, i have 8 threads, and Logic is using 650% here.. (max possible is 800%). With you and the i9, the theoretical max is 1200%. I presumed logic would get close to 1000% 30 tracks is way too low.. No way that makes sense.. Ok, here are the questions to get to the bottom of it 1) Have you applied Apple's thermal patch for the new macbooks? 2) Running at 44k? 3) what is your buffer and process buffer set at? 4) In Logic preferences, are all 12 threads enabled? Does logic performance meter show 12 bars? No i meant i want someone to test the i9 because I'm opting for one. I tested on 2012 2,7GHz quad. buffer is 1024, and all 8 threads are enabled. Also using 32bit mixer (i wanted to see if it affects CPU on my last project and forgot to change it back) I have multithreads enabled only on playback threads Ok, then I am pretty happy with my result for 2014 (2015 build) 2.8 quad macbook. Buffer is 128 but it makes no difference as an audio track is selected anyway.. only the process buffer size matters in this case... I am using 64 bit mixer.. so that sound about right.. my max "consistent" result is 38 so that's just over 20% more than yours.. architecture boost from sandy/ivy bridge, clock for clock, was the big one, which shows the difference here.. all the other changes have been less impressive since then, regarding clock for clock performance.. it's been more about die shrinks, temperatures and the big one, core count. Of course, i see you have an RME, so that could come into play too... I bet you if you set buffer at 128 your result doesn't change, as long as any of the sculpture tracks aren't selected. PS, i generally leave my process buffer at small, as it's good enough, and access music say to do that for virus TI.. so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ploki Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 changed processing buffer to Small and buffer size to 128, mixer to 64bit. and got to 33 tracks stable. wierd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTOZ Posted August 25, 2018 Author Share Posted August 25, 2018 changed processing buffer to Small and buffer size to 128, mixer to 64bit.and got to 33 tracks stable. wierd well it actually makes more sense.. cause i was always led to believe haswell was a 10% clock for clock increase.. and i have 100 mhz extra.. so that actually makes much more sense as I am 15% higher. Hope to hear from others trying this! Also can anyone with an older LPX version confirm whether it loads or not? Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTOZ Posted August 26, 2018 Author Share Posted August 26, 2018 ok, good news, it load in 10.2.4 So anyone on older logic X, feel free to try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakobP Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 Opens fine in 10.0.7 on 10.12.6 My mbp 2.4 i7 quad ivy bridge could handle 37 tracks with LPX at around 530% cpu, built-in audio at 128 samples i/o buffer. Wouldn't take the cycle all the way with 38 tracks and around 550%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakobP Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 Also tried my 2.5 i5 mac mini, it could handle 14 tracks after a couple of overloads.Same OS and LPX versions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakobP Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 ...my macbook can pull off 29 tracks stable, 30 it doesnt chew through the cycle. CPU is not maxed out... and one core is not even used at all. Screen Shot 2018-08-25 at 15.09.38.png Looking at your screenshot, it seems your mbp is using the intel graphics instead of the descrete gpu, I wonder if that could reduce your track count ? Here, the mbp switches to descrete gpu when Logic starts. Both your machine and the OP:s have considerably higher geekbench scores than mine, and I expected mine to perform worse, I now suspect the overhead of more advanced versions of OS and LPX could be the reason for my relatively high track count? Experts ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ploki Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 ...my macbook can pull off 29 tracks stable, 30 it doesnt chew through the cycle. CPU is not maxed out... and one core is not even used at all. Screen Shot 2018-08-25 at 15.09.38.png Looking at your screenshot, it seems your mbp is using the intel graphics instead of the descrete gpu, I wonder if that could reduce your track count ? Here, the mbp switches to descrete gpu when Logic starts. Both your machine and the OP:s have considerably higher geekbench scores than mine, and I expected mine to perform worse, I now suspect the overhead of more advanced versions of OS and LPX could be the reason for my relatively high track count? Experts ? i suspect my thermal paste is all but dried out on this machine so it cannot maintain turbo very long. With internal gpu i get 33, with discrete a track less, probably because it puts more stress on the cooling system. Might also be the OS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ploki Posted September 21, 2018 Share Posted September 21, 2018 oh wow, the i9 is rocking 67. this is pretty impressive gotta say... roughly twice as much as my old i7, which coincides with geekbench benchmarks. edit: make that 70. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ploki Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 Anyone has 2.2 or 2.6 2018 to test? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skijumptoes Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 Tried one of my old 2008 Mac Pro (2x Xeon 2.8ghz Quad) 18GB DDR, and it got to 41 tracks. I'm gonna cry the day i have to get rid of them, still plenty enough power there for me and what i do. OSX 10.13.6 LPX 10.4.2 Crazy thing is, i can run at 40 and use the internet etc. while it's playing, but once you add those extra tracks in it kills it lol. Seems like a good test also as i got no pops/crackles - it just bottles out as soon as i hit 42 yet 41 will run and run. Well done! Last core isn't being fully utilised though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ploki Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 10 years, and a super thin laptop packs nearly twice as much punch as a tower used to. wow. i used to have one of those dual quads 2008... it was one fine machine. so much fun taking it apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTOZ Posted October 8, 2018 Author Share Posted October 8, 2018 it's just the architecture of the chips are so much better now, clock for clock. I remember when I did full productions with VI's on the 2 core 2.93GHZ (windows) in 2008 ish, then went to an imac 3.33ghz dual core sometime in 2010 i think it was, no hyperthread, and i was wowed with power LOL. The thing is that as chips have gotten more powerful with multiple cores, VI's have come out that use an entire core for one instance, so we've never really gained that much power in the audio world. Every time processors are improved, it seems analog modelled plugins are as well, and the cycle goes on. The other thing I have noticed is that OSes are memory and cpu hogs now too.. For audio, if a modern snow leopard existed, it would do everything i could possibly need for my DAWs, and would run so quickly on a current CPU.. High Sierra does not feel all that fast even on my imac pro, and resizing retina apps causes skips and jumps.. My current imac pro feels slower navigating logic and the OS (probably due to 5k screen) than my 2011 27" imac with i7-2600 processor, SL 10.6.8 and Logic 9.1.8. That felt like lightning all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skijumptoes Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 Yeah definitely agree on the snappiness of apps and OS's nowadays, it's weird really, the performance from a user point of view seems to dip quite early in when you put a machine under load... But then the machine just keeps going and going after that. Must admit, i thought DSP or utilising the GPU would be a big thing now for audio users, but it still (As far as i'm aware for us Logic/Mac users?) comes purely down to CPU. Logic X has always felt a little bit like Logic 9 with extra bolted on though, certainly not the rewrite that Final Cut appeared to be. But i would love to see it updated to maybe run it's interface more in a hardware sense via GPU instructions which is separate from the CPU task at hand. Not sure how do-able that is though, but the screenset changes recently are nice to see. Also, in terms of 'snapiness' and UI performance, the amount of stuff going on in the background nowadays is ridiculous, i had setup a database for my clients to login and see where i am with stuff, which i host on this machine. As a precaution i placed a firewall on here too and boy was that an eye opener when i started opening different apps and plugins up, makes you paranoid when a plugin is contacting an amazon server (Why?!). I almost regretted installing it, cause i'm happy not knowing all that's going on or else i get OCD about it! While the firewall is waiting for you to yes/no the connection, the plugin or app will just sit like a dummy 'I wanna talk to someone, please say yes!', reminds me reading about a problem facebook had with their website plugin, it went offline a year or two back, causing thousands of sites to fail as they couldn't retrieve the little facebook 'follow' button and i don't think there was any timeout in there! So.. it's maybe possible all this has an affect on the experience somewhere? So much relies on so much nowadays, and i think that's true on an OS level too, and much of the 'planned' obsolescence that Apple get tarred with perhaps? i.e. we know they can progress stuff fast, but is it necessary when all you're doing is changing the window, if the view out of it is the same? I guess i'll be a better judge of that when moving to a newer machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KC Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 I ran this on my 2012 MP - got up to 92 tracks before an error. 128 i/o buffer Medium Process Buffer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ploki Posted October 8, 2018 Share Posted October 8, 2018 wow, nice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I've attached the Benchmark file to the original post of this thread for ease of use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skijumptoes Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 You not gonna tell us how the Macbook Air ran then David? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 You not gonna tell us how the Macbook Air ran then David? I'll try it when I get a chance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakobP Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 You not gonna tell us how the Macbook Air ran then David? I'm also curious about the airs, and how they compare to my mini (14 tracks on 10.0.7) David, do you also have 10.0.7 on your air ? It would be very interesting to see how 10.0.7 and 10.4.2 compares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ploki Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 My i9 got refunded because it was bollocks. Anyone has the new MC benchmark on the new 2018 i7 mac mini? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 Please give it a go. You not gonna tell us how the Macbook Air ran then David? David, do you also have 10.0.7 on your air ? It would be very interesting to see how 10.0.7 and 10.4.2 compares I don't have 10.0.7 handy but I'll give it a try as well. For now, I'm afraid I have to report that my MacBook Air can playback only 10 simultaneous tracks max in that benchmark file. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skijumptoes Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 Hey, that's 10 more than a G5 can do, and think of the great songs produced on those! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Nahmani Posted November 29, 2018 Share Posted November 29, 2018 Good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ploki Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 so the i7 mini pulls off roughly 84-88 tracks. which is about 30% better than the i9 macbook pro. also in the vicinity of 2012 tower 12-core. which is super good for a really affordable mac. i know what I'm buying next Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redgreenblue Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 I'll try to run the benchmark this weekend but I can tell you that the i7 Mac mini is very good. I'm running my projects that have been choking a 2015 MBP at lower latencies than I've ever run and it is handling it well. I haven't heard the fan yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.