Jump to content

New Logic Multitrack Benchmark Test


TTOZ
 Share

Recommended Posts

am seriously happy with my 2019 imac, and have been able to do everything i need to, without issue. so yes, business as usual...

 

Well, I was seriously happy with my Windows workstation in 2002, have been able to do everything I needed to as well.

But I thought this thread was about Logich benchmarks in 2019 - I might be wrong, though...

2010 MP 2x2.66GHz, 16GB, 500GB SSD System/Logic drive, Zoom UAC-2, LPX 4.2, OSX 13.6.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

am seriously happy with my 2019 imac, and have been able to do everything i need to, without issue. so yes, business as usual...

 

Well, I was seriously happy with my Windows workstation in 2002, have been able to do everything I needed to as well.

But I thought this thread was about Logich benchmarks in 2019 - I might be wrong, though...

 

exactly, this is about logic benchmarks in 2019; as i reported earlier in this thread, my 2019 imac can play the entire test file; in the real world, that translates to the mac handling (so far) everything i've thrown at it (and i sometimes throw a lot).

LP10.7.4 • os12.5b • 3.2GHz i7 imac • one plugin short of perfection  upstatebrooklyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to upgrade my hack when I tested an iMac i9 for a client. That iMac is really powerful, and fan noise was under control even with extended heavy CPU load.

Laptops will always get noisy when under load. or throttle heavily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it's hacks to put all current Macs to shame. Business as usual...

 

i mean, if you need 1000 tracks you can always splurge for the 28-core Mac Pro.

 

i dont tho, will probably update to an 8 or 12-core mini when it comes out.

 

I love it. :)

| 13" M1 Pro | Big Sur 11.1 | Logic 10.6.1

RME FireFace 800 / UFX+ | ROLI Seaboard RISE 25 | ROLI Blocks | nOb Control | StreamDeck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D

I think logic is already pretty efficient, at least compared to other DAWs i worked with.

 

 

Agreed! I've done comparisons with Cubase and Studio One and Logic is best.

27in iMac i5 2011

High Sierra

16 gig ram

UR28M audio interface

Logic Pro X 10.4.8

Cubase 10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First time poster here. Wanted to thank the OP for the new stress test and report my findings with a new 2018 Mac Mini I received a few days ago. I was able to get up to 81-82 tracks before I got the system overload message at 128 buffer. The only thing I had running in the background was the Intel Power Gadget so I could see where the temp and processor capped out. I made sure to run the test after restarting the Mac Mini. Running the latest version of LPX.

 

Minus the flash storage, I have everything maxed out on my Mini - 3.2 6 core i7, 64GB ram, 1TB Flash. At the 80 track range the temp sits between 95-98 and the processor stayed between 3.4-3.7GHz consistently. In the 50-60 track range the processor was jumping about 4.0GHz, but I guess due to the thermal throttling it appears to rarely hit that number when I'm close to overloading. I did max the buffer size out to 1024, but I didn't see an improvement in track count. That normal?

 

That being said, the fans are loud, but not as loud as my 2015 MBP 15'' (also maxed out, but with a 1TB flash storage). I have the computer right in front of me though since I'm keeping my eyes and ears open for any weird stuff while I'm in the return period. Once I know it's good it will sit on a ventilated riser on a rack shelf away from my desk and I doubt I'll hear the fan.

2018 Mac Mini 3.2GHz i7, 1TB Flash, 64GB ram | Catalina | LPX 10.6.3

MacBook Pro (Retina, 15", Mid 2015), 2.8 GHz i7, 16GB ram, 1TB Flash, M370X | Catalina | LPX 10.6.3

Focusrite Clarett 8PreX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing how people keep recommending me a Mac Mini as a replacment for my old cheesegrater should I not be able to update it anymore - when even the maxed out Mini is beaten by my machine in this test. And mind you, I could still upgrade the CPU to 3.46GHz.
2010 MP 2x2.66GHz, 16GB, 500GB SSD System/Logic drive, Zoom UAC-2, LPX 4.2, OSX 13.6.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did max the buffer size out to 1024, but I didn't see an improvement in track count. That normal?

 

Yes, the buffer size you set in the audio driver dialog is only affecting "live tracks" (those selected or set to be record enabled), everything only needed for playback is automatically using a higher buffer size.

2010 MP 2x2.66GHz, 16GB, 500GB SSD System/Logic drive, Zoom UAC-2, LPX 4.2, OSX 13.6.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did max the buffer size out to 1024, but I didn't see an improvement in track count. That normal?

 

Yes, the buffer size you set in the audio driver dialog is only affecting "live tracks" (those selected or set to be record enabled), everything only needed for playback is automatically using a higher buffer size.

 

Oh ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the breakdown.

 

That's pretty crazy that your older mac pro still slays my mini lol. I'm debating if I should return mine and get something more powerful. I wonder what the results would be if I were running this many tracks with something like Kontakt for orchestral stuff.

2018 Mac Mini 3.2GHz i7, 1TB Flash, 64GB ram | Catalina | LPX 10.6.3

MacBook Pro (Retina, 15", Mid 2015), 2.8 GHz i7, 16GB ram, 1TB Flash, M370X | Catalina | LPX 10.6.3

Focusrite Clarett 8PreX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might get a better performance with Kontakt than on my machine as data throughput between drives and RAM seems to be a crucial affair which is also affecting CPU load (at least to a certain extent).

You will as well get better results for singlethreaded tasks, such as running those luxurious Alchemy patches. And fwiw, some elaborated Kontakt patches are really tough on the CPU, too, I suspect the intense use of grouping and especially scripting to be the culprit.

In other words: In whatever real life scenarios, your Mini will likely outperform my MP, but possibly not as much as the money one has to spend for that very Mini might suggest.

2010 MP 2x2.66GHz, 16GB, 500GB SSD System/Logic drive, Zoom UAC-2, LPX 4.2, OSX 13.6.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes me feel a little better then. It definitely wasn't cheap, but I went the apple certified refurb route and saved $800 so there's that. The only thing that's a drag is the need for an external eGPU if I ever want to do video editing. Going to hold off on that though since my 2015 MBP should be just fine for that purpose.

2018 Mac Mini 3.2GHz i7, 1TB Flash, 64GB ram | Catalina | LPX 10.6.3

MacBook Pro (Retina, 15", Mid 2015), 2.8 GHz i7, 16GB ram, 1TB Flash, M370X | Catalina | LPX 10.6.3

Focusrite Clarett 8PreX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing how people keep recommending me a Mac Mini as a replacment for my old cheesegrater should I not be able to update it anymore - when even the maxed out Mini is beaten by my machine in this test. And mind you, I could still upgrade the CPU to 3.46GHz.

 

it's about 5% the size and takes about 10% of the electricity and is about 10% as loud while doing it.

 

Obviously, if you need more, i can recommend the new Mac Pro with 28 cores.

 

Piss-ass cynicism aside, definitely wait for the 8/12-core mini.

| 13" M1 Pro | Big Sur 11.1 | Logic 10.6.1

RME FireFace 800 / UFX+ | ROLI Seaboard RISE 25 | ROLI Blocks | nOb Control | StreamDeck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D

I think logic is already pretty efficient, at least compared to other DAWs i worked with.

 

 

Agreed! I've done comparisons with Cubase and Studio One and Logic is best.

Can you be more specific about the tests you've run and the results? I've always wondered if Cubase or Studio One or even Bitwig had anything over Logic since they're all more incentivized to improve their DAWs than Apple is.

 

Thanks.

http://www.paulcristo.com
Logic 10.4.8 / Mac OS 10.13.6 / Mac Pro (4,1) 2 x 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon / 32 GB RAM / Apogee Duet (Firewire)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Agreed! I've done comparisons with Cubase and Studio One and Logic is best.

Can you be more specific about the tests you've run and the results? I've always wondered if Cubase or Studio One or even Bitwig had anything over Logic since they're all more incentivized to improve their DAWs than Apple is.

 

Thanks.

 

"they're all more incentivized to improve their DAWs than Apple is." where did you get this information? ......

LP10.7.4 • os12.5b • 3.2GHz i7 imac • one plugin short of perfection  upstatebrooklyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you be more specific about the tests you've run and the results? I've always wondered if Cubase or Studio One or even Bitwig had anything over Logic since they're all more incentivized to improve their DAWs than Apple is.

 

Thanks.

 

"they're all more incentivized to improve their DAWs than Apple is." where did you get this information? ......

Logic contributes to a relatively nominal share of Apple's total revenue. Therefore, I'd argue Apple is less incentivized to keep Logic as modernized, innovative, and bug-free as a company like Steinberg or PreSonus is for their respective DAWs, which are their bread and butter.

 

I understand Apple makes software to sell hardware. But I'd also argue even if they stopped selling Logic today, it wouldn't affect hardware sales by any significant measure. Imagine if Apple's business depended on keeping Logic users happy? Of course, it's unfair to say Apple has neglected Logic, but it could be much better with some more attention.

http://www.paulcristo.com
Logic 10.4.8 / Mac OS 10.13.6 / Mac Pro (4,1) 2 x 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon / 32 GB RAM / Apogee Duet (Firewire)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand Apple makes software to sell hardware. But I'd also argue even if they stopped selling Logic today, it wouldn't affect hardware sales by any significant measure. Imagine if Apple's business depended on keeping Logic users happy? Of course, it's unfair to say Apple has neglected Logic, but it could be much better with some more attention.

 

While I can understand that school of thought, there's also something else, namely prestige. Apple wants high profile acts to use their computers *and* software. They certainly love the fact that the groove of Rihannas "Umbrella" is based on a stock Apple Loop coming with GB.

So, it might not be the software itself selling much Macs - but celebrities using that very software. And for those to continue doing so, Logic needs to be competitive.

Edited by Sascha Franck
2010 MP 2x2.66GHz, 16GB, 500GB SSD System/Logic drive, Zoom UAC-2, LPX 4.2, OSX 13.6.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"they're all more incentivized to improve their DAWs than Apple is." where did you get this information? ......

Logic contributes to a relatively nominal share of Apple's total revenue. Therefore, I'd argue Apple is less incentivized to keep Logic as modernized, innovative, and bug-free as a company like Steinberg or PreSonus is for their respective DAWs, which are their bread and butter.

 

I understand Apple makes software to sell hardware. But I'd also argue even if they stopped selling Logic today, it wouldn't affect hardware sales by any significant measure. Imagine if Apple's business depended on keeping Logic users happy? Of course, it's unfair to say Apple has neglected Logic, but it could be much better with some more attention.

 

ok, so you're voicing your opinion, not stating a fact. got it. will let the logic team know.... :mrgreen:

LP10.7.4 • os12.5b • 3.2GHz i7 imac • one plugin short of perfection  upstatebrooklyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, so you're voicing your opinion, not stating a fact. got it. will let the logic team know.... :mrgreen:

Snark aside, are you of the opinion Apple is equally incentivized to produce a better DAW as the other companies I mentioned?

 

I believe if that were the case, Logic would suffer from far fewer bugs especially the lingering legacy bugs, a quicker maintenance update schedule, and a greater marketing presence to name a few deficits in Logic's current development. A comparison is Apple's incentive to keep the iPhone competitive. They essentially release major hardware and software updates every year and have since the iPhone's release. That's what a company looks like when it's incentivized to improve their product.

http://www.paulcristo.com
Logic 10.4.8 / Mac OS 10.13.6 / Mac Pro (4,1) 2 x 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon / 32 GB RAM / Apogee Duet (Firewire)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, while I'm having my fair share of problems regarding some Logic issues (and probably also lack of "big" improvements), I don't think that Apples support for Logic is particularly bad in general. They may however not be as strongly "incentivized" (that's a new word for me) as in the old days when they had to rely on software sales. But due to all the Apple secrecy, that's pure speculation.

 

I do obviously as well notice that there's some other companies showing a quite different approach and update/innovation pace. Right now, the Bitwig guys seem to be pretty much at the forefront - it's supported on 3 platforms (Win, OSX and even - wohoo! - Linux), it's the first full sequencer with built in "native" touch screen support (which is really awsome if you work on one of those cute convertibles) and it will soon have a modular environment (working with both MIDI and audio) which, given the currently available information, seems to be pretty badass.

 

It's that kind of innovation that Logic is lacking off. And let's face it, it pretty much always did. Traditionally it has always been Steinberg to come up with the innovations and Emagic/Apple would follow. The typical arrange view was at least established by Steinberg. VST and later VSTi was established by Steinberg, along with a low latency driver model (ASIO). All these things are now broadened up - but there's really not much innovation coming from Logic. Drummer? Well, there's been Jamstix way before. Flex time/pitch? Available in Cubase way before. ARA? Studio One was the first to really seamlessly integrate it. Even the nice "dynamic plugin handling" we just got with 4.5 is already existing in Studio One (and apparently Cubase as well).

Now, I'm not saying that this lack of being the first in the innovation "race" is a bad thing in itself - it has often been the case that the things that took a while for Logic to get "adopted" have been thought out a bit better. For example, you could automate VST plugin paramters (at least to a certain extent) in Logic when it was not even possible at all in Cubase. And Drummer being an integrated part of Logic makes working with it a much more pleasant experience than working with Jamstix.

Yet, there's a certain lack of innovation - which one may or may not like. And there's also some stuff that really never seems to get adressed, be it the old plugins that they don't manage to bring to a new, 21st century worthy level (such as the EXS and Ultrabeat) or, say, things such as audio timestretching, which is still miles behind the Steinberg offerings.

 

Anyway, in general, I still think of Logic as an incredibly great laid out sequencer - but there's several things that start to get long in the teeth.

2010 MP 2x2.66GHz, 16GB, 500GB SSD System/Logic drive, Zoom UAC-2, LPX 4.2, OSX 13.6.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, while I'm having my fair share of problems regarding some Logic issues (and probably also lack of "big" improvements), I don't think that Apples support for Logic is particularly bad in general. They may however not be as strongly "incentivized" (that's a new word for me) as in the old days when they had to rely on software sales. But due to all the Apple secrecy, that's pure speculation.

 

I do obviously as well notice that there's some other companies showing a quite different approach and update/innovation pace. Right now, the Bitwig guys seem to be pretty much at the forefront - it's supported on 3 platforms (Win, OSX and even - wohoo! - Linux), it's the first full sequencer with built in "native" touch screen support (which is really awsome if you work on one of those cute convertibles) and it will soon have a modular environment (working with both MIDI and audio) which, given the currently available information, seems to be pretty badass.

 

It's that kind of innovation that Logic is lacking off. And let's face it, it pretty much always did. Traditionally it has always been Steinberg to come up with the innovations and Emagic/Apple would follow. The typical arrange view was at least established by Steinberg. VST and later VSTi was established by Steinberg, along with a low latency driver model (ASIO). All these things are now broadened up - but there's really not much innovation coming from Logic. Drummer? Well, there's been Jamstix way before. Flex time/pitch? Available in Cubase way before. ARA? Studio One was the first to really seamlessly integrate it. Even the nice "dynamic plugin handling" we just got with 4.5 is already existing in Studio One (and apparently Cubase as well).

Now, I'm not saying that this lack of being the first in the innovation "race" is a bad thing in itself - it has often been the case that the things that took a while for Logic to get "adopted" have been thought out a bit better. For example, you could automate VST plugin paramters (at least to a certain extent) in Logic when it was not even possible at all in Cubase. And Drummer being an integrated part of Logic makes working with it a much more pleasant experience than working with Jamstix.

Yet, there's a certain lack of innovation - which one may or may not like. And there's also some stuff that really never seems to get adressed, be it the old plugins that they don't manage to bring to a new, 21st century worthy level (such as the EXS and Ultrabeat) or, say, things such as audio timestretching, which is still miles behind the Steinberg offerings.

 

Anyway, in general, I still think of Logic as an incredibly great laid out sequencer - but there's several things that start to get long in the teeth.

I agree with your thoughts. Logic is beginning to feel a little like comfortable, threadbare shoes relaced with state-of-the-art, well-designed laces.

http://www.paulcristo.com
Logic 10.4.8 / Mac OS 10.13.6 / Mac Pro (4,1) 2 x 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon / 32 GB RAM / Apogee Duet (Firewire)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

everything is working well for me here. either way, there is a HUGE GAP between speculation and fact... just worth remembering...

 

I agree - but there's a number of facts that are pretty good to make one thing there'd be a lack of that incentiveness (is that a word?). And that's got nothing to do with Logic working well or not.

2010 MP 2x2.66GHz, 16GB, 500GB SSD System/Logic drive, Zoom UAC-2, LPX 4.2, OSX 13.6.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge a DAW by your final Mixdown is my golden rule.

 

People who spend so much time analysing and comparing DAWs and different setups know that they’re procrastinating, put that critical eye on yourself and improve as a musician/engineer and you’ll feel vastly better.

 

99% of that Mixdown will be changes ‘i’ can make, not what a DAW can change.

Edited by skijumptoes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...