2019 Mac Pro with Logic

Hi all, am considering buying the new mac pro and wonder how many cores I should get.

 

I know in the past Logic had issues with utilizing multiple cores with programs like Kontakt. Is this still the case and are there are recommended specs for Logic X?

 

thanks!

Lots of people seem to be saying the 12 core would be the best option for logic but I would suggest waiting for more comprehensive tests to be available.

with pretty much all DAW's, its the clock speed that matters more then the number of cores. More cores are always good, but the truth is you won't benefit much from many cores. And the new macPro has slightly disappointing clock speeds. Other Apple offers are better for DAW use, the iMacPro and top level Mac Mini both out perform the new MacPro in terms of single core performance which is what matters.

If it were me and I absolutely needed to get a new mac Pro because of PCI slots or something I'd honestly not pay extra for more cores. But I would pay extra for more ram, faster ram, bigger SSD, etc.

http://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/6/13/18677891/apple-logic-mac-pro-x-update-new-music-production

yea but I can play hundreds of tracks on my 2010 cheese grater. That demo they did over the summer was misleading.

The pricing is such a wide band, what models are you considering? And of course, if you use many lower overhead plugins multi core is best, if you use heavy hitting plugins single core speed should be priority over number of cores.

 

The benchmarks should be the best indicator once they’re all compiled.

the benchmarks have been coming in. The new MacPro with 16 cores is 10% slower then other models from Apple (mbp, iMac Pro and top end mac mini)

 

But in DAW work you rarely gain much advantage from cores. The multiple cores mostly only come into play for mixing lots of tracks together.. When you do that in your DAW you can always just turn up the sample buffer and mix hundreds of tracks no problem, even on a fairly old mac. Adding more cores doesn't change that really.

 

But where the hardware bottlenecks in DAW work is when trying to track record enabled tracks in live mode. Then the instruments, and all the FX in the signal path, including sometimes multiple instruments in a Track Stack, for example....all funnel through a single core. So then if you're single-core performance can't keep up you basically will have to bump up the sample buffer until it can. Eventually if you bump it up big enough, even a 2010 mac can pretty much handle everything you throw at it, even in live mode...albiet perhaps with some big latency. But if you want to improve low latency performance while tracking...its the single core score you want to pay attention to....having 16 or 24 cores won't make any difference for that whatsoever.

 

Don't get me wrong the new MacPro is a huge step up from the old cheese grater, in both single and multi core performance, so there is that. But its just that its still not an ideal machine for DAW work, because they used Xeons which have relatively mediocre single core performance and are better suited to tasks that can be parallelized more across cores, more so than can be done in a DAW when it matters.

 

Hey once you have a lot of tracks, you'll be using all the cores...and if you're tracking a new part along side 100 other tracks playing back, its possible that all the cores will help with those other tracks to use a little lower latency settings, but ultimately, even my 2010 cheese grater can mix quite a lot of orchestra instruments...truthfully any modern computer can mix hundreds of tracks without a problem. Where some do better then others is related to getting low latency performance while tracking and that's where single-core performance matters more.

 

That is why Steinberg literally made a statement somewhere, I forget where, that if you have to choose, choose less cores with higher clock speed, then the other way around. But obviously, in this case if you want a nMP, there is no option to get faster clock speed Xeon, there is only mediocre clock speed with small, medium and large core counts. More cores doesn't hurt if you have unlimited budget then why not, go for it, but people need to realize they are not going to gain much by paying a lot extra for extra cores.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Dewdman42

Why wouldn't Apple have Logic make use of all the cores available?

this is a complicated topic.

 

First of all Logic is making use of all the cores, but not in a way that you will see much benefit in DAW work.

 

you can only spread threads around on cores when things can be done in parallel. Live audio can't be done in parallel. It has to be done in series. So there is no benefit to the live channel going across multiple cores. Its basically going to be on a single thread, on a single core. Meanwhile, other tracks that are playing back, LogicPro can do all sorts of non-realtime stuff behind the scenes using all the cores... We don't know all the internals of how its designed, but its documented by Apple that live channels use a single dedicated core, and that is to provide the means to have the lowest possible latency on that live channel without audio drop outs. The capability will depend entirely on single core performance for that.

 

The multi-core stuff that happens under the covers, that is great and more cores certainly doesn't hurt, but what I'm saying is that my 2010 cheese grater with multiple cores can mix down hundreds of tracks without problems, as Logic optimizes everything for those tracks to play them back and uses the cores on multiple threads in the best way it can, but sometimes it struggles to get low latency with cpu-heavy plugins on the live track.

 

So if you get a new nMP, basically it will do a lot better then my 2010 cheese grater with single core, so there is that. But it will not do quite as well as iMacPro or top level MacMini because they have 10% better single core performance due to being on i9 instead of Xeon.

 

With all the multiple cores it will handle all that background processing even more efficiently then my 2010 cheese grater, but I wouldn't notice much difference it won't really matter to the bottom line much because Logic is already doing smart stuff in the background across 12 cores, so with 16 cores it can do all the background stuff more efficiently, but basically with more cores maybe you can have 500 tracks playing back instead of 400 tracks playing back. Do you need to playback 500 tracks all at the same time? I doubt it.

 

But getting lower latency from your live tracks...that is what pretty much everyone wants improvement on. more cores will not help one iota with that.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Dewdman42

Aside from that explanation I recommend you wait until some DAW benchmarks are done using nMP in comparison to iMacPro and top end Mac Mini. Pay attention to the sample buffer size used in each test (which will tell you low the latency you can get, and how many tracks. I expect someone will say they can mix down 1000 tracks at a time on the nMP..but who cares? Nobody needs to have 1000 tracks all playing at the same time. Its a pointless capability. But lower latency live...that is what we all need improvement on. More cores won't help you there.. much.

 

There is one other thing which is that if you are trying to track a live track while also playing back say 100-200 other tracks. Those 100-200 other tracks would be going across all the cores..and if you're also running a small sample buffer in order to get low latency on the live channel...its possible that having more cores will help those other 100-200 channels to play without problems... More is always better hey, if you have unlimited funds, then why not...but that is just not an area I expect to see meaningful improvement for DAW work. If its not much more money for it, then why not...get it. if its thousands of dollars, then I personally would not spend the money. But the nMP is so much money to begin with maybe its worth it to get 16 cores just for some breathing room. Ok. But in realistic terms I don't think most people need 16 cores for their DAW and will not notice any difference between the 12 core nMP and the 16core nMP. But... if you're nervous, wait for others to make the purchases and hear from them first.

Noticed the OP includes VEP in the setup, maybe the plan is to get rid of VEP slaves and run in the same box ? I guess multiple cores would be a benefit then ?

same issue with vep. It’s not that multi cores aren't useful. It’s just that for daw work we don’t need a buzzillion Corea and we won’t see any advantage to justify the cost of many cores.

 

Vep has many workflow advantages but it cannot magically make multi cores replace a faster single core. It manages multiple cores very well but your low latency performance will always be a factor of single core performance.

So when Apple touted that Logic would be optimized to make use of the cores in the new Mac Pro, that was a lie?

Whoosh relax folks. I’m sure it is optimized in some way, I think before it has capped as not being able to use AT ALL cores above a certain count. Now it’s optimized to use more cores if you have them but that will not make up for faster single core performance in daw work because of the reasons I have already explained. Why don’t you go ahead and buy one and let’s us know!

It does make use of multi core perfectly well, dewdman is thinking deeper and including the function of using Logic for low latency live recordings too which will bottleneck a lower single core machine... But the Mac Pro’s aren’t going to suffer there in truth and once you’re on the ladder upgrades will always exist.

 

The wider picture is that these will be very powerful machines... BUT there’s always a bottleneck somewhere, it’s not something that would ever concern me.

 

Anyone using a Mac Pro for audio is likely to have a UAD/Equivalent DSP equipped card to accompany it anyway, so this whole concept of them crumbling for live enabled tracks really ain’t gonna be true as many people are recording on 2012 setups and these new models are far more impressive architecture and the pro apps will make use of them you can guarantee that.

Uhmm yes the new Mac pros will suffer from relatively mediocre single core performance and thus will not be able to get quite as low latency performance compared to iMacPro and top end Mac mini. Adding more cores will not change that.

 

New Mac pros would be able to mix down 1000 tracks at once if that’s your thing

 

New macpros are still a huge improvement over cheese graters. As are the Mac mini’s and imacpros.

 

The question here is whether it’s worth it to get 16 or more core macpro for daw work. Will be it make any difference over the 12 core? I say probably not unless you need to mix 1000 tracks at once

 

I agree with you that pci slots can be used to achieve lower latency then other means which by the way is the main reason I’m still using my cheese grater instead of a Mac mini. But single core performance on my cheese grater definitely poops out way before multicore and constrains what I can do with low latency recording. The same will be the case with the nmp compared to i9 machines. Adding more cores will not change that

Edited December 22, 2019 by Dewdman42

When in doubt wait for others to report daw benchmarks

This video sheds some light:

 

 

“I'd honestly not pay extra for more cores. But I would pay extra for more ram, faster ram....”

 

Note: the 8-core nMP will only run 2666 MHz memory, and any of the faster 2933 MHz RAM will be down-clocked to 2666. 12 cores and up take the faster RAM. So the 8-core entry model has bearing on RAM speed. But I will leave it to Dewdman42 and others to tell me if that is at all significant in a real world VEP set up.

 

And on this topic, does LR-DIMM vs. R-DIMM make any difference, again in a sample-heavy DAW?

 

Thanks for this discussion. I’m reading it carefully.

If it were me I would get the 12 core. But then a reasonable spec 12 core will be $8-10k. An extra $1k for 16 cores may not be such a bad idea at that point. But I don’t expect to see significant performance advantage to 16 over 12. But we need to see daw benchmarks to quantify that. It might turn out the 8 core is fine for daw work. We shall see.

 

It may go without saying, I don’t intend to spend more then $5k on my next computer. If I were considering an 8 core nMP then I’d probably rather look at an iMac Pro or top end MBP with i9 inside. For the record I am waiting a few more years before trading in my cheesegrater. I might end up on a hackintosh in the end, but its a few years away for me.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Dewdman42

Also note that the nmp ships with expensive ecc ram which is a tad slower then non-ecc and more expensive. I would buy the nmp with minimal ram and buy non-ecc ram from third party to fill it up.

 

The ssd’s are also expensive. The boot drive has to be Apple branded it looks like. It goes through the t2 chip somehow. I’d get 1tb there myself and then I’d mount 4tb ssd’s internally though pci for all my sample and recording space

Regarding RAM: how the hell could you even tell a difference???

in what? The speed?

 

In a simplified explanation, the speed of your RAM is one of the bottlenecks that prevents your CPU from running full tilt at 100% all the time. Not including thermal throttling, a CPU doesn't really run at different speeds. It either runs full blast, or its sitting there waiting on other components. When your CPU meter says 30%, it doesn't mean its running at 30% speed. It mean it is sitting around waiting for 70% of the time.

 

One of the things its sitting around waiting for is your RAM. So speedier ram will enable your CPU to get closer to full utilization. Full utilization would mean the full power and potential of the CPU is being utilized, maximizing track counts, lowering latency, etc. so faster RAM helps you get there.

 

Now how much difference will there be between the nMP 8 core and a 12 core with faster ram? That's anyone's guess right now, wait for deeper benchmarks and technical discussions to find out more.

Why wouldn't Apple have Logic make use of all the cores available?

There are issues in the past regarding Kontakt overloading one core while the others were dormant. Maybe it's fixed by now.

Well I pulled the trigger on the 16 core, will report performance once I get it rocking.

here's some comparison data from Geekbench5. I am using my own 2010-12 5,1 MacPro as a baseline with the scores I benchmarked it at. So the spreadsheet shows how much improvement in single-core and multi-core benchmarked performance I could expect to see if I were to upgrade to various different possible current mac and hackintosh solutions.

 

See Summary at the bottom

 

Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nP3OV0THq0wg12JrZTpRWMBSz-Ys6Qu8tPXOGz-noz4/edit?usp=sharing

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

My 2010 MacPro does surprisingly well at multi-core compared to other current offerings, but not compared to the new 12 and 16 core nMP. On the other hand it fairs poorly against everything else for single-core, which is what matters perhaps more for DAW work. But notice that the new MacPro in all core counts is mediocre single-core performance compared to other current offerings. What i gather is this, If you want multi-core benefits..then the new MacPro with at least 12 cores is obviously the way to go as it creams all other macs. For single-core, the other offerings from Apple and/or a hackintosh do better then the new MacPro.

 

Which is more beneficial for DAW work?

 

This:

 

 

or this:

 

 

As to whether its time to upgrade a 5,1 cheese grater or not, that is a factor mostly of cost. I would say that in terms of multi-core, the aging cheese grater does not do that terribly compared to current macs. it is actually better then a MacMini. Even the new 8 core MacPro is only 20% better then my 2010 MacPro for multi-core performance! But my multi-core performance is not actually that terrible. I can play a lot of tracks. Its hardly worth the cost to upgrade my computer based on multi-core performance, unless I have a need to really get 1000 tracks mixing, and the only one that would make sense would be the 12 or 16 core MacPros, aproximate cost $8-10k.

 

As far as single core improvement, the best value per dollar would be going to an i9 iMac or i7 Mini...or a hackintosh. I could get lower latency for sure and double the performance out of my live record enabled tracks with one of those. So is that worth the cost? Perhaps. In my case no because I still want PCI slots, so that leaves me only one option that makes sense...a hackintosh @ around $3k.

 

I do have to say also that the new MacPro, even though its not improving the single-core performance as much as the other less expensive alternatives, it is still improving it pretty substantially, even in the 8 core model; compared to my 2010 cheese grater. However, when I compare the 8 core MacPro to the hackintosh, its no contest, the hackintosh wins in spades since the multi-core improvement with that 8 core macpro is simply not very good. And the hackintosh comparison machine would be less than 1/2 the price of 8 core macpro.

 

So my final advice, do not buy the new MacPro in 8 core model under any circumstances. At least 12 core if you must have a new MacPro. Then it becomes a question of whether its worth $8-10k for that. The i9 iMac is also a worthy contender or an i9 hackintosh, both of which will have somewhat better single-core performance and lower cost then a 12+ core MacPro. Pros and Cons all the way around on all of those.

Edited December 24, 2019 by Dewdman42

Very interesting thanks so much!

Why wouldn't Apple have Logic make use of all the cores available?

There are issues in the past regarding Kontakt overloading one core while the others were dormant. Maybe it's fixed by now.

Well I pulled the trigger on the 16 core, will report performance once I get it rocking.

 

 

Did you buy the new monitor?

One other point worth mentioning. The Hackintosh score above, its not clear whether that particular machine was overclocked or not. For Windows and hackintosh, you can overclock the i9 9900k to 5ghz with proper cooling in place, whereas the iMac has a much lower base frequency and then uses turbo mode under load to ramp up the CPU speed to 4.x ghz. So that is possibly why that hackintosh is scoring higher then the iMac on geekbench. but that is a good thing and part of the reason why a hackintosh is a good solution for someone willing to deal with the admin of it. Turbo mode on CPU's as as far as i'm concerned, I don't like that for audio work. I mean if you're sitting there idle and its not in turbo mode and you start playing your keyboard, do you want it to have to drop out some audio until it can ramp up the CPU? See what I mean?

 

That has always been one disadvantage of Apple products though, they are never overclocked, when they could have been, they are allowing the thermal throttling capability through the "Turbo" feature. Some people would say they prefer to have their DAW machine fixed at the higher CPU speed and not throttling at all, but opinions may differ. On the macs such as iMac that would absolutely result in thermal problems, so they can't. On a liquid cooled hackintosh, not a problem. And in fact the score above might not even be a fully overclocked i9 9900k, we don't really know...so there is potential for even higher scores, but who knows.

Dewdman42, in defence of Apple I think it's safe to say you are reading too much into this and hypothesising. My new 16 core 2019 MP runs in real terms, 100% faster than my 2010 MP. It's not significantly faster than our new iMac Pro in our studios but still faster. There is never a spinny ball. Logic uses the multi cores perfectly well. Creating music is not just about low latency live play. There's a live mode for that in Logic which helps. But I can load 30 sonokintetik Kontakt libraries and track stack them so they are all armed and get perfect playback. I can have 5 on my MP 2010 and we can run 16 on our iMac Pro. We can also mix 100 tracks each with 5 very heavy CPU plugs on each channel (Zynaptiq anyone!). We can't do this or anywhere near this on our other machines. I guess what I am saying is that you can look into numbers as much as you want, but in day to day use the nMP is an absolute dream. My config is 16 core, 96GB, 8TB SSD