What processor will work best with Logic Pro X, specifically Software Instruments?

Yes I am using a 2.3 GHz processor with 6 MB of L3 Cache.... and Logic runs great.

I would get 16GB of RAM and the SSD is more important in my opinion if you are going to throw your money at something......

Generally speaking, processor speed is more important for running a lot of software instruments so you should be fine with 3.7gHz.

Agreed on the 16GB RAM and SSD

I got the 4.0 G i7 Skylake in an iMac. It runs fine with 8 GB of RAM and the 2TB Fusion drive. I have twice as many tracks, but I use a lot fewer 3rd-party plugs than you.

I think I would not trust all the 3rd-parties to be designed to work efficiently within the Mac OS, either, so headroom on the CPU is probably important. Not sure if LPX uses the hyper threading, but I would say go big on the CPU, get the 2 TB Fusion drive (not the 1TB which is slower), and if RAM is expandable, start with 8, which works fine in a fast computer with an SSD. If not expandable, get 16G, so you're futured.

So get the biggest Skylake i7 you can afford, with a 2 TB Fusion (you can cheap out on the GPU). And if portability is not an issue, realize that the bang for the buck is much better on an iMac than on a MacBook Pro.

If you are speaking about the Mac Pro (which comes with Xeons instead of garden-variety quads), all bets are off. The base model will run rings around the fastest laptop or iMac, but it starts at 3 grand.

I'll go along with 8GB of Ram being functional but I would not cheap out on the GPU, Logic's graphic routines are not the most efficient and a mediocre GPU really starts to drag on even medium sized projects.

Just an FYI.

I also have Universal Audio's Apollo Twin. The UA hardware is really great for my iMac. It handles the heavy lifting of effect processing. They even have something called Satellite boxes that are sold for processing, less all of the inputs and outputs. (if you already have something handling your in and outs) You just thunderbolt them to your machine and they act like an external cpu. The UA console software is a plus too. Great for all your front end monitoring and bussing for additional effects. The UA hardware processes quite a bit discretely. It definitely lightens the load on my iMac. I would love to get a satellite, but the Twin Solo is great for my needs.

-dave

I'm not sure I understand. Is there heavy lifting going on that I am unaware of? In my case all LPX is doing graphically is redrawing three monitors from static images in real time, which my best guess would be takes minimum HP to do, and shouldn't be any more time or task-intensive than a simple web surf. So what am I missing here? Activity Monitor and my CPU meter seem to be saying not much is happening.

I basically answered this in the Magic Mouse topic.

thomas192 wrote:

my best guess would be takes minimum HP to do, and shouldn't be any more time or task-intensive than a simple web surf.

Except for a couple of million calculations going on for DSP effects, synchronization, native software instruments, screen redraws keeping graphic representation accurate and lined up over a moving timeline.

Web surfing is not something that requires real-time accuracy.

I love your contributions here, and you have helped me a lot, so thank you. But it appears you actually do not have an answer for us here.

I apologize, but the two words I have requested to be put on my tombstone are 'Question Authority'.

iMacs have both integrated graphics and a graphic card, and all either does is redraw the monitor. The GPU is there for tasks that can really benefit from it, such as video editing and 3D gaming. The iMac uses the GPU for some things, including LPX, but not because LPX needs it, it does it to take the load off of integrated graphics (which is doing a lot of other tasks at the same time) but mostly to take advantage of that discrete RAM instead of using system RAM.

Sometimes there are computational tasks offloaded to the GPU through OpenGL, but that is not very efficient, even if the software is OpenGL friendly, because the bus traffic alone eats up much of the theoretical advantage.

All that the GPU needs to do is redraw the screen, which is a fairly static 2D affair. If it were 3D rendering for a FPS, then a powerful GPU might be critical, but redrawing a static screen is pretty small potatoes by comparison.

Theoretically what LPX needs in the graphics department probably could be handled by the Intel HD 530 on-board graphics, which is comparable to some GeForce cards out there. Gamers would scoff at this, but we are not gamers, we are operating DAWs (doin' important stuff).

When we are talking about CPUs that are approaching a couple hundred gigaflops in performance, a 'couple million' is actually a very small number in this arena since the CPU clocks in at a factor of 2000 times faster than that. Turbo boost alone on the i7 runs 100 times faster than a 'couple million'.

And sync, DSP, and native software instruments are not handled by the GPU, are they? Since they have nothing to do with drawing the screen I am going to have to guess 'no'.

LPX also does not require real-time accuracy in the tasks (essentially just screen redraws) performed by the GPU, only in the record/playback/MIDI tasks, which again, are not handled by the GPU. I see the rare stutter in LPX when playback gets out of sync for a brief moment (a CPU or software issue), but I have never seen a screen stutter (a GPU issue), and even if I did, I don't see that as being an issue to recording or playback.

But another question does occur, which is, could a better GPU offload CPU tasks through OpenGL, meaning possibly a better GPU could marginally decrease CPU load. Many video edit platforms, Avid and Adobe Premiere for sure, can harness the GPU to do more than typical graphics tasks. Not sure that is even implemented on LPX, because it doesn't seem to be practically advantageous to LPX.

Still, my best guess is that moving from a 3.2 i5 to a 4.0 i7 is a much more effective choice for increasing HP performance and headroom than going from a Radeon 390 to a Radeon 395x, unless you are playing a first-person-shooter game at the same time you are mastering your tracks.

It seems that for what LPX requires in the graphics department, whether it uses a 390 or a 395x or even the onboard HD Graphics 530, is sort of a moot point. Your Ferrari might get you to the bowling alley faster than my BMW, but if we're stuck in traffic that kind of doesn't seem to matter all that much. A faster GPU than the lowly 390, at least for LPX, seems to be a difference without a distinction.

But maybe $550 extra clams to potentially not improve performance is a risk worth taking (you must opt for the top iMac to even get a shot at the 395x). Except that I can say with confidence that the combination of a 4.0 i7 and the 395 (no x) runs like a top with 50 tracks, so I honestly don't see how the 395x would be worth it. And the 395x is no faster, because it is essentially the same 395 hardware with an extra 2 GB of RAM, which again is only useful for really graphic-intensive tasks.

So, quite honestly I don't have that answer, either. What we do have is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to the GPU not really being a factor in a DAW config. If there is evidence to the contrary, even circumstantial, let's see it.

Full respect, and thanks again.

Certainly no authority, just years of experience using Logic and speaking with developers. Logic performs better and causes less hiccups using a top end graphics card. Going cheap on graphics has, (as far as I know) has never been advised when using Logic. Logic's development has for the past few years had trouble keeping up with OSX development, every new release of the OS, tweaks have to be made for Logic to run up to par. often the tweaks are related to graphics performance. There's a lot of related info on this board. Did you try a USB mouse to see if the audio glitches are still present when scrolling?