Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Lukasrico

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 16, 2018
2
0
Im debating on whether to get the new 15 inch MacPro or the 13 inch. 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. Any ideas?

Thanks :)
 

keysofanxiety

macrumors G3
Nov 23, 2011
9,534
25,271
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".
 
Comment

0009827

Suspended
Jul 15, 2018
111
114
You want more cores, but both new machines are powerful enough for most use cases in all honesty. Let the wallet decide.
 
Comment

Lukasrico

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 16, 2018
2
0
To be a bit more specific the debate is between 2.7 quad i7 and 2.2 6 core i7.

Thanks again :)
 
Comment

mva68

macrumors newbie
Jan 16, 2016
25
18
For music production you need as much processing power as possible as well as RAM. Look at the G benchmarks, 6 core approaching 22.000 which should be fine for 96khz/24bits processing.
 
Comment

0009827

Suspended
Jul 15, 2018
111
114
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.
 
Comment

limo79

macrumors 6502
Jan 9, 2009
279
129
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.gearslutz.com/board/mus...ssors-faster-cores-v-s-higher-core-count.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: DQ11 and 0009827
Comment

qawes

macrumors 6502
Jun 27, 2010
263
131
Don't worry about the GPU when producing music, get as much storage and RAM as you can as you'll be needing it. The new 13" is more than capable to be a LPX machine with 16GB of RAM installed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0009827
Comment

0009827

Suspended
Jul 15, 2018
111
114
Don't worry about the GPU when producing music, get as much storage and RAM as you can as you'll be needing it. The new 13" is more than capable to be a LPX machine with 16GB of RAM installed.
I agree, I have never needed a dgpu in my editing. Modern integrated gpu is more than capable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vemac575
Comment

Ploki

macrumors 601
Jan 21, 2008
4,154
1,427
more cores will give you more tracks before you run into overloads. simple as that

i upgraded from 15" retina 2012 2.7GHz i7 to 2018 i9, and i can get double amount of tracks in logic. (and geekbench benchmarks are also exactly double)
 
Comment

Cayden

macrumors 6502a
Jul 10, 2014
819
401
Utah
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikehalloran
Comment

niploteksi

macrumors regular
Dec 11, 2016
200
1,054
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.
 
Comment

mikehalloran

macrumors 68000
Oct 14, 2018
1,965
532
The Sillie Con Valley
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.
 
Comment

vemac575

macrumors 6502
Feb 18, 2018
309
133
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".

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]
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.

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]
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.gearslutz.com/board/mus...ssors-faster-cores-v-s-higher-core-count.html

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.
 
Comment

mikehalloran

macrumors 68000
Oct 14, 2018
1,965
532
The Sillie Con Valley
LPX/FCPX uses Metal ....
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0009827 and dmsea1
Comment

keysofanxiety

macrumors G3
Nov 23, 2011
9,534
25,271
As does every Mac from 2012 on. Mojave requires this.


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.
 
Comment

0009827

Suspended
Jul 15, 2018
111
114
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ploki
Comment

ChrisA

macrumors G4
Jan 5, 2006
11,790
571
Redondo Beach, California
[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.
 
Comment

Ploki

macrumors 601
Jan 21, 2008
4,154
1,427
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".
"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.)
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.
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...
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.