Is this true? Logic and hyperthreading

Ravich wrote:
http://forum.cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=985828&sid=44790d950309ce2b49cdd4 d4d2b49270

But that's probably on windows, I'd be interested to know if it does the same on mac.

Ravich wrote:
for starters, I know that people are reporting cubase doing fine with 24 cores (dual hexacore + hyperthreading)

Sorry, isn't hexacore = 6 cores?

Dual hexacore would then be 2 x 6 = 12 cores. No?

Or is my Greek getting rusty?

Dual hexacore is 12 cores, add the twelve hyperthreading cores to that and you have 24 total.

At least one PU in the LUG says a Quad-Core at 3.2 would be better for Logic than an Eight-Core at 2.4 because Logic just doesn't use the additional CPU power. For a heavy VI-user, but not a heavy processor plugin user (me), would the Quad be a better investment? It would be tempting to get better performance at a lower cost, but I would be concerned about future-proofing my system. Of course, if Apple has made no progress on this front in 18 months, one has to wonder whether they're even concerned by it.

Message was edited by: Sean Mccoy

When it comes to computing there is no such thing as "future proof". It's a myth, and any manufacturer's claim of "future proof" is an outright lie, actually. See, Apple isn't going to stop making computers. And software developers are going to constantly play catch-up with the latest hardware. It's cat and mouse all the way.

Of course nothing is completely future proof. But going with the cutting edge can push your inevitable future (i.e., needing a new computer) a little further away. If six months from now Logic's internal engine was modified so that it took full advantage of eight or twelve cores with hyperthreading, I would regret having gone with the lower-end computer in spite of the savings and the temporary performance advantage.

Hey, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't buy the best computer you can get. And surely doing research to make the best educated decision is the right thing to do. But really, the best you can do is make an educated guess, and it's all because of the nature of the beast: it's extremely rare that news about an upcoming Logic version is ever leaked. New versions appear when they appear. And there's no guarantee that in the next version of Logic (whether it comes 6 months from now or 2 years from now) that the kinds of improvements you're hoping for will be implemented.

And if they are implemented, and you jump on board "version 1.0" of the latest/greatest, get ready for a bug fest. It always happens that way.

Seems to me you're trying to avoid "buyer's remorse". I'm the same way, probably all of us are. But there are no guarantees. So you can buy cutting edge (which is often very quite aptly referred to as "bleeding edge") and deal with all the instability, bugs, and incompatibilities (particularly with 3rd party stuff) that inevitably accompany it. Meanwhile, if you're a professional and need to work at a higher level right now, the best you can do is get the best computer you can afford that will sufficiently host the plugins you need and get to work. Otherwise you might find yourself waiting for a very long time to see the improvements you want.

Hey, just some friendly advice. 🙂

iSchwartz wrote:
Hey, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't buy the best computer you can get. And surely doing research to make the best educated decision is the right thing to do. But really, the best you can do is make an educated guess, and it's all because of the nature of the beast: it's extremely rare that news about an upcoming Logic version is ever leaked. New versions appear when they appear. And there's no guarantee that in the next version of Logic (whether it comes 6 months from now or 2 years from now) that the kinds of improvements you're hoping for will be implemented.

Read 'em & weep, that's exactly the way it is.

The only advanced info I've ever heard about a Logic release turned out to be wrong. Apple is tight lipped about this stuff, the Logic devs are mostly playing catch up to Apple's hardware at this point. Since Apple has jumped on the Intel/PC bandwagon hardware "improvements" are moving further and further ahead of software development. Even OSX has to play catch-up, (ie: Snow Leopard).

There's no guarantee how many cores are going to be supported, it was my contention a few months ago that only the base hardware cores would be supported (at least visually in Logic) and that hyper threading would be relegated to an invisible background task. Not invisible performance wise but as far as Logic monitoring the output.

But really... who knows? Apple isn't saying and those who do know can't say.

pancenter-

It's a shame that apple is so tight lipped about what is going on with the app, especially basic things like supporting all the cores on the hardware. If 8/12 core support is coming fairly soon, they could make an announcement and probably sell more of those machines. Otherwise some users will probably just buy quads in the meantime since that's all the app supports.

It's a bigger shame that apple takes so long to just up the number of cores supported by Logic, it's pretty baffling considering that better support would lead to sales of the more expensive hardware. It's not like it's a big surprise that in the future there will be machines with more cores. The eight core machines have been out almost a year and a half, and the 12 core chips have been publicly available since early this year so Apple certainly has had internal proto machines to develop on.

I'd still say that unless someone absolutely needs a machine now, it makes the most sense to wait on a purchase, at least until the machines are shipping and user reports come in.

Pancenter wrote:
There's no guarantee how many cores are going to be supported, it was my contention a few months ago that only the base hardware cores would be supported (at least visually in Logic) and that hyper threading would be relegated to an invisible background task. Not invisible performance wise but as far as Logic monitoring the output.

HT cores already are shown in Logic's CPU meter on the quad machines. It looks like the limitation isn't HT but a limit of supporting eight cores of any kind. It sure looks like Logic treats HT cores just like any other core.

On the other hand (there's always an on the other hand, isn't there?), I've also heard that the Westmere chips are proving to be about 1.3 times faster than the Nehalem, which means that a 2.4 is the equivalent of a 3.2. So aside from the cost difference, it would seem there might not be a good reason to go with a Quad 3.2 with a Nehalem CPU. Opinions?

It would be good if the newer chips are faster at the same clock speed. Hopefully people will post about how the new machines perform once they are shipping.

It looks like the reviews are claiming that single-threaded performance is about the same between the two chips, but the Westmore kicks butt with multi-threading. So whether or not the slower Westmore would cause a performance hit with Logic versus the faster Nehalem. would depend directly on how efficiently Logic is utilizing multi-threading.

In any event, I don't think I'm willing to take a chance, and will likely go with an 8-core, if for no other reason than its improved RAM options, and hope Apple gets its act together with regards to Logic efficiency. Of course, I'm coming from a G5 Dual 2.0, so anything is going to seem screaming fast to me. For awhile, at least.

Memory? Anybody?

Logic seems to love memory.

Performance maybe more dependent on memory then just the processors - possibly.

I have 6gigs (mostly for video and graphics stuff). I run big logic pro projects and the quad processors hardly wake up. In my case most everything seems to be sitting in memory.

Very efficient program...

Memory definitely is important, but there are things that are CPU heavy and once you have enough memory the CPU becomes the bottleneck.

And Logic is definitely going to be more efficient on a quad (with ht) than an eight core machine, on the former it will use all available cores while on the latter only half of them.

Mike Connelly wrote:
Memory definitely is important, but there are things that are CPU heavy and once you have enough memory the CPU becomes the bottleneck.

And Logic is definitely going to be more efficient on a quad (with ht) than an eight core machine, on the former it will use all available cores while on the latter only half of them.

Having just been talked into buying the westmere 8 core 2.4 by the mac guy (a video specialist) I can report that I am seeing 6 cores in action. Cores 1-5 tickle away sparingly when I play the project. 6 and 7 are dormant throughout. 8 seems to be half on all the time when this project is open, playing or not. Then when I hit play, it hits the roof and redlines.

Admittedly, one of the VIs is Hollywood Strings, and I do only have 8 gig installed so far (waiting on another four), but I can hear spitting in Hollywood Strings.

This is about the same performance I had from my trusty but deceased 2 x dual core 2.66 Xeon from 2006. To say I'm disappointed doesn't even come close.