Logic Pro X is 11% more CPU efficient than LP9

[lagerfeldt]

First Logic Pro X vs. Logic Pro 9 test I've done shows an increase of 11% in CPU efficiency. Also multicore spreading takes place much faster. Tested on a MacBook Pro 2.4 Core 2 Duo with 4 GB RAM running OS 10.8.4 at home.

 

I'm not going to install in the studio until later this year.

 

I used the Evan Multicore Benchmark test which uses a combination of bundled Logic plug-ins and samples. A test using 3rd party plug-ins should be performed as well to confirm the result.

[claesbjo]

That is great, i´ve noticed similar performance enhancement for non live tracks.

 

Have anyone tested the performance with low latency live input enabled? Have seen some worrying reports that LPX is less good than LP9 in this area, but I haven´t been able to test it myself yet..

[nev17]

First Logic Pro X vs. Logic Pro 9 test I've done shows an increase of 11% in CPU efficiency.

 

Will this gain in efficiency apply equally to my iMac 2GHz, Intel Core2Duo, 4GB RAM if I upgrade LP9 to LPX and the OS from SL to ML?

[a-stream]

On my Mac Pro Logic X performs a little worse than 9 on Evan's Benchmark test. I can get about 5-10 more tracks in 9 compared to X. I'm using 9.1.6 which I think is a bit more CPU efficient than the later 9.1.8.

 

It seems to be different on different systems, some people get better performance with X and for most it seems to be about the same. I think Logic X might be utilizing OpenGL for graphics now which is great if it's true.

[lagerfeldt]

First Logic Pro X vs. Logic Pro 9 test I've done shows an increase of 11% in CPU efficiency.

 

Will this gain in efficiency apply equally to my iMac 2GHz, Intel Core2Duo, 4GB RAM if I upgrade LP9 to LPX and the OS from SL to ML?

I would expect so, but as one post in this thread indicates, several factors are in play.

 

Also, to make such a comparison you need to use the exact same settings (processing buffer, PDC, etc.).

[kongwee]

I turn off advance setting like score and surround, I think it help a little.

[lagerfeldt]

i haven't tested that, but I assume it will mostly affect RAM, if anything. Thanks for the tip.

[PRPS]

interesting stat

 

once i get my macbook pro fixed...the logic board fried again (early 2008 model, 2.4ghz, 4GB) that those specs would be sufficient to work with Logic X

[ChrisByrd]

I've just tried the Evan test (thanks for posting this) and have got similar results - about a 10% improvement in CPU usage judging by the Activity Monitor. The meters in Logic are interesting though - for L9, 90% on the LH meter and red on the RH; for LX, 70% on the LH meter, no red on the right but it seemed close to, or at, maximum.

 

I also checked two of my own projects (using the Activity monitor). The first one with 10 tracks of the Garritan Aria player (GPO4), plus Space Designer reverb used about 30% more CPU in L9 compared to LX. The second project has 21 tracks of mostly EXS24 Kirk Hunter instruments with some Aria tracks plus reverb - here the difference was only a few percent in favour of LX. Overall gut feeling is that LX is running better on my ageing iMac than L9, but I've only had it a few days.