i5 / i7 MBP / Logic Pro benchmark test

Vince 🙂 - let me know as soon as you get done doing the testing. I am now very likely to go this way also with the same 2.8 i7 iMac with 8 gigs of ram.

Saw someone say earlier in this thread they were getting around 50 tracks. Makes sense - quad core (double the cores and a little faster CPU) means a little more than double 22 tracks possible on 2,2, 2.33 C2D and 2.4 MBP i5 / i7 chips

Thanks to everyone in this thread for saving me a lot of wasted $$$ and frustration as to why....if I had gone and bought a new MBP!

Just FYI, the core series used in the iMacs is not exactly the same as in the MBPs. The desktop core i5 used in the midrange iMac is a quad core, but does not support Hyper Threading. So you will see 4 CPU bars in Logic, and Logic will use its own multithreading approach to take as much advantage of this as it can. The desktop core i7 in the iMac does support HT, and Logic is aware of it and able to use it. So on this machine, Logic will display 8 CPU bars and you'll see it making use of them as it can.

So, even the i5 iMac is a pretty decent performer and is certainly superior to the i5 used in the MBP. This is particularly so given that Logic currently doesn't seem to make any attempt to use HT on the mobile version of the core series CPUs.

But be careful with vague stats like "50 tracks". I've very easily worked on projects on my Core 2 Duo (2.33Ghz) MBP with more than 50 audio tracks. The new MBPs can at least do the same. Very different story for audio instrument tracks.. both the i5 and i7 iMac will easily handle a lot more of these tracks, and this goes for regular plug in effects too.

FWIW, what I think is happening is that Logic's audio engine is probably undergoing a big rebuild. Open CL may be of limited use to audio processing (because GPUs, even though very impressive at number crunching in many ways, only are capable of certain kinds of calculations), but I expect that Logic may be able to use it for some things. Grand Central is another story. Logic's audio engine has been doing its own thing for a while now in terms of how it accesses the CPU power available. It seems to make sense that a little time is needed for the devs to readdress the way it works such that it can, once and for all, make use of all the newest CPU designs that Apple machines now use. I very much doubt that they'll say a word on this, nor will they put out little patches here and there, until the whole shebang is ready for release. There are so many issues (such as the infamous "blast of white noise" when recording), that I'm certain the audio engine is being seriously looked into as a whole. It would make more sense for them to address the fundamentals, and thus take out many birds with one stone, rather than going patch-tastic with little fixes here and there.

Will do Gandi. Got the email conf today that it ships out on monday. I also ordered xtra ram so my setup will be 2.8 quad core imac w/ 10G of ram (lol) I should never have a problem for a long time. So give me a couple weeks to get it and get setup and experiment


So right now i have a project thats almost done on a Powermac G5 1.6 single w/ 2G of ram. Its 3 audio tracks (one with some heavy efx) and 10 intstruments w/ heavy efx and automation and i am maxxed out.

Will i be able to transfer this project i'm currently working on in 7.1.1 into the new logic studio with no problems ? I am all "in the box" and so is this project

tbirdparis wrote:
But be careful with vague stats like "50 tracks"....

I assume he means 50 tracks of the benchmark session linked in the first post of this thread.

I'm running an i7 at a higher clock speed and get more than 50 tracks of it - the 2.8 may not get 50 but it at least should get close, at least somewhere in the 40s (and much more than the imac with i5).

hi, i am about to jump into a MBP, so should i go the i7 to run logic pro
updating from an old powermac running original emagic program, so this is interesting discussion, would appreciate help to choose right maching to get
thanks
Wesbarr

It's hard to say right now. Once apple updates Logic to fully use cpu cores, the i7 will be a killer portable machine. Until that happens (or if apple never makes the update), the i7 is more money for not much better Logic performance. If it were me, I'd probably wait if I could.

Mike Connelly wrote:
It's hard to say right now. Once apple updates Logic to fully use cpu cores, the i7 will be a killer portable machine. Until that happens (or if apple never makes the update), the i7 is more money for not much better Logic performance. If it were me, I'd probably wait if I could.

Yep but hang on a sec.. The guy is coming from an old Powerbook running an old version of Logic from the Emagic days. So, while I agree with what you're saying re the i7 (as you know I do), let's not forget to mention that going from a Powerbook to an i7 MacBook Pro is an enormous, almost unimaginable leap in performance. On this level, then absolutely yes, there's no doubt whatsoever that going from the Powerbook you have now to the latest portable Mac available will be out of this world. Even the very fastest Powerbooks were completely lame at running Logic, very low track counts, the CPU power could barely manage a single instance of Sculpture. I'd be more than happy to move on from that if I were still using a Powerbook.

Yes, any current laptop is going to be a big improvement over an old powerbook. But if the question is whether i7 gives much more power than i5 or even core duo, the answer is not really, at least not with the current version of Logic.

True dat. A wise purchase at this time (for Logic anyway) might be a recent 2nd hand Core 2 Duo machine, if you can find one at a reasonable price. It should cost a lot less than getting a new machine, and the performance (specifically of Logic) is pretty close at this time. The only catch is obviously needing to be more careful going that route in terms of remaining warranty or Apple Care (if there is any), because you won't necessarily have the after sales security that you get with a new computer.

So I ran this test using Logic Express and was able to run all fifty tracks with no sweat. Obviously, space designer was not present, and I suspect it's the culprit that everyone is up against.

I'm running an i5 iMac.

Maybe I'm missing something here, because I don't normally run benchmark tests, but it seems to me that this test is designed to overload your machine. Why on earth would anyone in the real world have space designer on fifty freaking tracks?

To my mind, if I can run fifty tracks without space designer, that's probably a lot more than I'd ever need. And if I WERE to use a heavy duty convolution reverb on my tracks, I'd more likely drop it in a send bus and dial it into the tracks as needed.

But again, I don't know anything about benchmarks. All I know is that this i5 runs like a champ and has yet to cough when using Logic Express, and I hammer it pretty hard with effects, etc. Comparing it to another machine doesn't mean much to me. All I care about is, does it work for me?

Compare this to the XP machine running Nuendo that I used to use, it's like night and day.

By the way, if you're only using Logic, why does anyone ever buy Logic Pro? I've used both, and to my mind, Express does 99.99% of what Pro can do. So unless you just have to have Space Designer and a few of the other plugs, why would you go Pro and spend all that extra money?

Anyway, that's just me.

This test definitely is intended to overload your machine, it's not a real world situation. That's why it uses space designer, because that is one of the plugins that uses the most CPU. If you run it without space designer, that defeats the whole purpose and any result will be meaningless.

The point of it is to get a direct comparison so users can know how various machines compare in how much CPU power they'll have running Logic. While a user would never run fifty space designers, there are plenty of plugins that use lots of CPU power.

robgb wrote:
All I know is that this i5 runs like a champ and has yet to cough when using Logic Express, and I hammer it pretty hard with effects, etc.

That's great for you. Other people are using space designer and other plugs that require more CPU than the ones you have, so they're hammering the machine much harder.

robgb wrote:
So I ran this test using Logic Express and was able to run all fifty tracks with no sweat. Obviously, space designer was not present, and I suspect it's the culprit that everyone is up against.

I'm running an i5 iMac.

Maybe I'm missing something here, because I don't normally run benchmark tests, but it seems to me that this test is designed to overload your machine. Why on earth would anyone in the real world have space designer on fifty freaking tracks?

Hello, it is a TEST! Not a musical production. It is a simple way of standardizing. You unmute tracks until the edge (overload, indeed by design - again, it is a test) and voila, you have a number of tracks that represents what your Mac can handle with Logic.

To my mind, if I can run fifty tracks without space designer, that's probably a lot more than I'd ever need.

There are lots of different ways in which people work with Logic, and you also shouldn't underestimate the CPU hunger of some 3rd party effects & instruments. People composing for movies or tv or games tend to need quite a lot of tracks, and therefore often like to know the power of their Mac, in Logic performance terms. This SpDes-laden templatetestsongproject does just that, provide a standardized way of comparison, aka a benchmark.

And if I WERE to use a heavy duty convolution reverb on my tracks, I'd more likely drop it in a send bus and dial it into the the tracks as needed.

Yes, that's how we all do it when making music. But here we're just benchmarking. 🙂

But again, I don't know anything about benchmarks. All I know is that this i5 runs like a champ and has yet to cough when using Logic Express, and I hammer it pretty hard with effects, etc. Comparing it to another machine doesn't mean much to me. All I care about is, does it work for me?

Thanks for sharing.

Compare this to the XP machine running Nuendo that I used to use, it's like night and day.

By the way, if you're only using Logic, why does anyone ever buy Logic Pro? I've used both, and to my mind, Express does 99.99% of what Pro can do. So unless you just have to have Space Designer and a few of the other plugs, why would you go Pro and spend all that extra money?

*- Bigger size library* (no Jam Packs with Express)
*- Surround support*
- Hardware and System protocols:
• TDM support
*• Distributed Audio Processing*
*• Support for high-end professional control surfaces (Euphonix and SmartAV consoles)*
- Instrument Plug-Ins:
*• Sculpture*
*• Vintage Series: EVP88, EVB3, EVD6*
- Effect Plug-Ins:
*• Space Designer*
*• Delay Designer*
• Mastering Series: *Linear Phase EQ, Match EQ, Multipressor, AdLimiter, Multimeter*
(from: http://www.logicprohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=14183 )

To get just the effects and SW instruments as add ons, you would probably pay double, triple, quadruple the price of LS 2.0

Wow, dude, didn't mean to get you all riled up. I'm just making honest comments.

But, really, what's the point of all this benchmarking? It really has nothing to do with music. It's something for you guys to obsess over, hoping you've got the BEST machine, when the truth is, the difference between one or the other is so minor it doesn't really mean squat. They're ALL screaming fast machines at this point and will handle just about any project you throw at them.

Why waste valuable tracking time being bummed that your machine can't handle 50 instances of Space Designer? In the end, it really tells you NOTHING.

As for Logic Express vs. Pro -- Your list doesn't negate my comment about Express having 99.99% of what Pro has. In fact, it pretty much proves it.

Bottom line, it ain't about the toys, but about the talent, and having those extra toys is nice but it won't make much difference if your music *****. And if you can't do it with Express for about $160, you can't do it anyway.

That said, I'm NOT trying to get you riled up. It was just an observation, and a personal one at that.

No need to go haywire over it.

If you don't think the benchmarking is useful, then don't bother with it. The rest of us find a lot of value in it. And yes, many of us are running sessions that require one of the faster machines and can't possibly run on other models - knowing which machines may or may not meet our needs is essential.

And if you don't need the features in Logic Pro, stick with Express. Other people do need those features, and for someone doing professional work with Logic, it would be foolish not to get the full version considering how fast the app pays for itself.

I'm glad you're happy with what you have. I just don't get the notion that nobody should need more than what you need, or why you're getting so worked up over it.

robgb wrote:
Wow, dude, didn't mean to get you all riled up. I'm just making honest comments.

Your comments have little to do with honesty. You are trying to profile yourself. I see much ego, and little honesty.

But, really, what's the point of all this benchmarking?

What is the point of your reply? Showing off your narrowmindedness? You succeeded!

It really has nothing to do with music.

Wow, really? nobody had noticed that before, that this thread is not about music but about computing power.

It's something for you guys to obsess over, hoping you've got the BEST machine, when the truth is,

Wow, and you also know "the truth". Amazing! We're sorry that we are "so obsessed" - I can't think of anything but benchmarking, benchmarking, benchmarking - without any melody, too! Too bad really. But the truth is: we hate music.

the difference between one or the other is so minor

And how do you know this when you just professed to not being familiar with benchmarking? You are getting sillier by the sentence...

it doesn't really mean squat.
They're ALL screaming fast machines at this point and will handle just about any project you throw at them.

You grossly underestimate the kind of projects some of these pro's can "throw at it". You don't know what you are talking about.

Why waste valuable tracking time being bummed that your machine can't handle 50 instances of Space Designer? In the end, it really tells you NOTHING.

Yes, master.

As for Logic Express vs. Pro -- Your list doesn't negate my comment about Express having 99.99% of what Pro has. In fact, it pretty much proves it.

The "geting sillier by the sentence" continues.

Bottom line, it ain't about the toys, but about the talent, and having those extra toys is nice but it won't make much difference if your music *****. And if you can't do it with Express for about $160, you can't do it anyway.

Well, well, well, what a lecture, what an epiphany for all of us! We never ever ever thought of that. So you are saying we need talent?
We're doomed. Doomed I tell you!

That said, I'm NOT trying to get you riled up. It was just an observation, and a personal one at that.

It was not an observation, it was a badly thought through musing, at best. And if you don't want to rile people up, you should choose your words with a bit more care.

No need to go haywire over it.

I will decide for myself what I need, thank you.