Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Are more cores better for producing music?
- Thread starter Lukasrico
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
15". This isn't so much for the extra cores (which does help mind as LPX is optimised for multicore), but more so for the dGPU. LPX/FCPX uses Metal which utilises the GPU for extra performance. I'd definitely go for the 15".
I’ve never had ram issues on my systems with only 8gb on any of my projects. (Typically 50+ tracks, mostly virtual instruments with shed loads of fx plugins.... dual core MBP Haswell chokes pretty fast, however quad core desktop hackintosh Haswell i5 does remarkably well).
All depends on your use case. Laptops will always struggle more than desktop systems imo.
All depends on your use case. Laptops will always struggle more than desktop systems imo.
Remember that more is sometimes less due to thermal design power limit and throttling. Based on motebookcheck tests generally it is better to go with slower i5 than with theoretically faster i7 (same amount of cores). With faster CPU in thin notebook you have a sharp performance peaks up and down while CPU performance shall not fluctuate so much. Intel Xeon CPU have much lower base frequency than typical i7 consumer processors because the most important is to deliver good performance but stable like for server purpose or heavy rendering. In case of audio requirements there are special threads in internet: https://www.gearspace.com/board/mus...ssors-faster-cores-v-s-higher-core-count.html
I agree, I have never needed a dgpu in my editing. Modern integrated gpu is more than capable.
More cores can definitely increase mixing performance, especially if the projects have lots of audio files and fx. I’ve also found that when bouncing the project, more cores significantly decreases the bounce time. With that said, I’ve been getting along fine with my 2015 13” MacBook Pro with 2 i7 cores at 3.1 GHz and 16 GB of RAM
I'd say the performance is very dependent on how you compose and mix. Some effect plugins can be a real strain on your system if you use them live. You can get around this by sampling midi tracks into audio samples.
If you're starting to get chopped up audio, check your cpu and ram.
Basically... if you have a massive amount of different tracks with effect plugins running on each, you will benefit from several cores. If you have one track with loads of effect plugins running on just that track, you benefit from one fast core.
It's still possible to overload a multi-core system by applying too much effects in real time on a single instrument.
At least to my understanding.
Get as much power as you can afford within reason.
If you're starting to get chopped up audio, check your cpu and ram.
Basically... if you have a massive amount of different tracks with effect plugins running on each, you will benefit from several cores. If you have one track with loads of effect plugins running on just that track, you benefit from one fast core.
It's still possible to overload a multi-core system by applying too much effects in real time on a single instrument.
At least to my understanding.
Get as much power as you can afford within reason.
No or Yes. It depends and you gave us no information on which to base an answer.
Certain VI players including Kontakt inside Digital Performer assign each new instance its own core (you can assign multiple instruments per instance).
If i had an iMac Pro, using all 18 cores would be no problem for me. I don't have one so must be careful balancing my VIs when I only have 4 cores.
Certain VI players including Kontakt inside Digital Performer assign each new instance its own core (you can assign multiple instruments per instance).
If i had an iMac Pro, using all 18 cores would be no problem for me. I don't have one so must be careful balancing my VIs when I only have 4 cores.
No crap?! I did not know that.
[doublepost=1542452816][/doublepost]
To be a bit more specific the debate is between 2.7 quad i7 and 2.2 6 core i7.
Thanks again
PLEASE trust me when I tell you that either of these will be just fine. The issue is mostly the RAM. Because the quad core only allows 16gb RAM, go for the 2.2, and get 32gb.
[doublepost=1542452941][/doublepost]
Correct, but 4-6 cores, especially in recent macs, aren't as big of a difference as the difference between 16-32 RAM.
[doublepost=1542453061][/doublepost]
The benchmark tests that show throttling are longer duration tests like rendering 4K video. Playing a heavy project has nothing on those tests. The i9 would be just fine, especially after the update.
As does every Mac from 2012 on. Mojave requires this.
[doublepost=1542500433][/doublepost]Back to the question. If you use VI players such as Kontakt, most DAWs will assign each instance of the player to its own core—up to the maximum number of cores of course. You balance your VIs among the players for max efficiency.
The simple answer: More cores=More better.
i7 kicks butt over an i5 with most DAWs including Digital Performer. It's not theoretical. I have a test project that loads in 2 minutes on an i7 and 20 min on an i5 —same years, same amount of RAM, same storage. Disk intensive tasks are the same but wave form redraw, editing, bounce to disk all perform much better on an i7. Never tried out an i9 so that's unknown to me.
GPU doesn't seem to have much effect on DAWs and since wave forms etc. are involved, you think it would but that's not been my experience.
Well yes, but the point is that the better the GPU, the better the performance with Apple's Pro Apps as a result. Apple's apps are optimised for Metal whereas other Pro applications may use CPU processing only or OpenGL.
The question is about music. Your answer is not applicable, in this case, to Logic.
Exactly. Nothing but fud to suggest a dgpu increases performance of Logic Pro. It does not in any noticeable way. GUI of DAW and plugins are deliberately light on resources as audio performance is priority.
[QUOTE="Lukasrico, post: 26250143, member: 1137344"... Im looking for the best processor, for when I'm producing music, but im not sure whether quad core or 6 core is better for producing on Logic Pro....[/QUOTE]
If you already are using Logic on a Mac you can open up Apple's "Activity Monitor" app and look a the CPU usage, memory use and see if you are currently close to limits. Try different things in the mix and look to see how it effects the use of the cores you have.
Lots of people have good advice but in this case you can look for your self.
In general, A good rule of thumb is that in normal usage you never want to go over 50% usage of any resource. You need the "headroom". Look at RAM and CPU usage in Activity Monitor
Mac OS X will make use of all the RAM you give it. It can always find a use for it if nothing else then it is used as a buffer for the disk or SSD.
If you already are using Logic on a Mac you can open up Apple's "Activity Monitor" app and look a the CPU usage, memory use and see if you are currently close to limits. Try different things in the mix and look to see how it effects the use of the cores you have.
Lots of people have good advice but in this case you can look for your self.
In general, A good rule of thumb is that in normal usage you never want to go over 50% usage of any resource. You need the "headroom". Look at RAM and CPU usage in Activity Monitor
Mac OS X will make use of all the RAM you give it. It can always find a use for it if nothing else then it is used as a buffer for the disk or SSD.
"extra performance" being the graph in Chromaverb and nothing else (which works perfectly fine on UHD630, as Logic doesn't switch to dGPU by default.)
UHD630 and Iris Pro both support Metal.
Even HD4000 from 2012 supports Metal.
You don't need Metal to run logic, it works perfectly fine, the only thing that utilizes metal is ChromaVerb rainbow display. If you run a non-metal GPU that's the only thing disabled...