Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ProgRocker

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 24, 2018
100
41
It seems certain DAWs perform better with the M1Pro as opposed to the M3Pro. The problem being these DAWs don't use all cores as opposed to others that do. If you're considering an M3 for music production this is an interesting video to watch.

For example Studio One (that doesn't use all cores) starts at 11.38.

 
It makes sense, why would you want to use efficiency cores?

If you have 1 super heavy plugin that causes CPU spikes but it got assigned to an efficiency core, you will get audio crackles.

I have seen that on my M1 Max where there was 1 core that got stressed to hell while the other ones where fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: streetfunk
It makes sense, why would you want to use efficiency cores?

I don''t believe that is correct. Reaper for example uses all cores including efficiency cores, has no problem with that and has gotten far better results than the DAWs that only use performance cores. I'd like to hear from the companies that don't utilize all cores as to why that is.


The comparison in this video isn't fair and objective. The author compares full version of M1 Pro with binned versions of M2 Pro and M3 Pro.


It's not a comparison between Mx chips, it's a comparison of different DAWs and how they utilize those chips. The point being if the M1 Pro has more performance cores than the M3 Pro, in this particular instance certain DAWs would perform better with the M1 Pro. At least in this type of scenario. That and a reduction in memory bandwidth seems to play an important role. This is an important point for music producers looking to upgrade from an M1 Pro to an M3 Pro for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: picpicmac
Not using more than one type of core likely has to do with preventing jittering / sync issues. As to why some DAW do not need to avoid that while the others do, only they can answer that question. But interestingly, Logic Pro is among those that can’t use E-Cores, despite Apple making the chips themselves…

The reduction of memory bandwidth almost certainly does not play a role here. In order to saturate the available bandwidth, you’d need all cores including graphic cores to be requesting data. In fact according to the video‘s test results, you can see the scaling is quite proportional to core count in most of the cases.
 
Screenshot 2023-12-04 at 19.07.40.png
There's a new Max Tech video comparing all new MBPs, this specific Logic Pro test result side gives us a clearer picture in how they scale. They match almost perfectly proportional to the number of P-Cores each config has:
4
4
5
6
10
12
 
  • Like
Reactions: picpicmac
View attachment 2320801
There's a new Max Tech video comparing all new MBPs, this specific Logic Pro test result side gives us a clearer picture in how they scale. They match almost perfectly proportional to the number of P-Cores each config has:
4
4
5
6
10
12
If you want to get the best out of the processors, Apple apps are best set up for this. Logic and FCP are good examples.
I noticed no improvement whatsoever in my apps [non music] from M1 Max to M3 Max. It's all in the software not hardware. Its basically the usual story from the usual suspects.
 
If you want to get the best out of the processors, Apple apps are best set up for this. Logic and FCP are good examples.
I noticed no improvement whatsoever in my apps [non music] from M1 Max to M3 Max. It's all in the software not hardware. Its basically the usual story from the usual suspects.

Actually Apple's Logic fared poorly compared to the others. It too, didn't fully utilize all cores.
 
I don''t believe that is correct. Reaper for example uses all cores including efficiency cores, has no problem with that and has gotten far better results than the DAWs that only use performance cores. I'd like to hear from the companies that don't utilize all cores as to why that is.





It's not a comparison between Mx chips, it's a comparison of different DAWs and how they utilize those chips. The point being if the M1 Pro has more performance cores than the M3 Pro, in this particular instance certain DAWs would perform better with the M1 Pro. At least in this type of scenario. That and a reduction in memory bandwidth seems to play an important role. This is an important point for music producers looking to upgrade from an M1 Pro to an M3 Pro for example.

In reality people don't use audio tracks like in those benchmarks, they use plugins. Those benchmarks do not represent the real world.

And in Reaper, there would be a risk that my project wouldn't have run if it would have overloaded an efficiency core (considering that one of the performance cores got maxed out).

Just 1 of those cores needs to get overloaded to start getting audio issues based on my experience. So when using plugins, efficiency cores can actually cause alot of headaches as they easier to overload.
 
And in Reaper, there would be a risk that my project wouldn't have run if it would have overloaded an efficiency core (considering that one of the performance cores got maxed out).

Just 1 of those cores needs to get overloaded to start getting audio issues based on my experience. So when using plugins, efficiency cores can actually cause alot of headaches as they easier to overload.

Interesting theory, but haven't heard this mentioned on music forums. If this were an actual problem I'm sure this would have been addressed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fibercut
Interesting theory, but haven't heard this mentioned on music forums. If this were an actual problem I'm sure this would have been addressed.

This has been discussed in pro audio forum also, I'm not the 1st person who has seen this that heavy plugins can overload a single core.

So you can understand why Apple prefers to use performance cores only.

Just buy the M3 Pro or M3 Max and start making music. It's powerful enough really.
 
Last edited:
The reduction of memory bandwidth almost certainly does not play a role here. In order to saturate the available bandwidth, you’d need all cores including graphic cores to be requesting data.
That´s an important point !
You don´t need to run on all cores to saturate the bandwith. The numbers, as told by apple.


"We" have to understand how the die is built, and how the CPU cores are bound to the RAM, the RAM controllers, and overall how the databus works. The build on the die is donne in packages.
( i allways forget the terms nowadays, so i´m not able to phrase it out correctly into detail)
here is the thread:

Point is, the full bandwith apple tells us is correct if we utilisize all cores.
If we utilisize less cores, will the bandwith -available for our audio work- change.
My main app runs for example singlethreaded only ( GP, a pluginhost).
So, that available Bandwidth number for my audio task changes for me vs. paper specs from apple.

On my M1 was i indeed running under certain circumstances ( Audio, realtime-play tasks) into: the bandwith becoming my new bottle neck for my audio system. This was by running just my one main app (plugin host) , which runs as sayed on just one core.

This is all quite usecase dependend.
Bandwith numbers have to be seen "per packaging" on the die from what i gather.
CPU clusters + RAM controllers + RAM clusters. Something like that.
( plase see the linked thread. There have been some good answers given by knowledgable people)
 
I personally would not want to have my audio apps running on any E-Cores !
Definitly not !
I agree, I have Reaper setup to only run on the P-cores, the E-cores should so background tasks!

Interesting theory, but haven't heard this mentioned on music forums. If this were an actual problem I'm sure this would have been addressed.
It's a very well known fact that the real time audio thread can overload the core it runs on depending on pliugins used, how you have structured the project etc. For example if you have a lot of heavy plugins on the masterbus, these need to wait until the tracks are finished processing and then they need to rush to compute their thing before the buffers run out. If not = crackles. This is why single core performance is important in DAW use.
 
Interesting theory, but haven't heard this mentioned on music forums. If this were an actual problem I'm sure this would have been addressed.
It has been addressed extensively for years, years and more years in many places. You missing this would simply seem to mean you haven't spent much time in music forums.
 
It's a very well known fact that the real time audio thread can overload the core it runs on depending on pliugins used, how you have structured the project etc.
Well known and established indeed. But as other info in this thread points at, various DAWs are differently suspect to this being a real problem. None can escape it completely of course, but they do handle things differently.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 2320801
There's a new Max Tech video comparing all new MBPs, this specific Logic Pro test result side gives us a clearer picture in how they scale. They match almost perfectly proportional to the number of P-Cores each config has:
4
4
5
6
10
12
This P-core count is why Max is indeed relevant for music producers. All knee jerk assumptions people use for buying strategies can safely be ignored and better the actual reality examined instead.
 
It has been addressed extensively for years, years and more years in many places. You missing this would simply seem to mean you haven't spent much time in music forums.

Then you must be totally unaware of those that successfully use DAWs that utilize efficiency cores with no problem. And believe somehow you are more knowledgeable than the software designers that make these products. The internet is full of 'experts' who think they know best for everyone.
You're welcome to your opinion, but it's just that... an opinion. Maybe you should get off the forums once in a while and make some music, as I do.
 
Then you must be totally unaware of those that successfully use DAWs that utilize efficiency cores with no problem. And believe somehow you are more knowledgeable than the software designers that make these products. The internet is full of 'experts' who think they know best for everyone.
You're welcome to your opinion, but it's just that... an opinion. Maybe you should get off the forums once in a while and make some music, as I do.

Logic Pro can utilise efficiency cores. This has been pointed out to this YouTuber in an other forum where he is active in. You just need to change some things.

However, Apple their default approach is to maintain a "good experience" based a dynamic approach to prevent system overloads and an unresponsive system. Apple prefers to use the efficiency cores for the UI and system to keep it 100% smooth and responsive under any circumstance. But it is possible to use both P + E cores.

But maybe you should take your own advice, do you believe somehow you are more knowledgable than software engineers at Apple?

Not only is Apple the most successful company in the world, Logic Pro is in the top 3 most popular DAW's in surveys despite being only available on Mac OS, beating Reaper. So the software engineers at Apple clearly know what they are doing.

Are you sure you are not talking about yourself by the way since you base everything on a social media video on YouTube?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MikB
Bumping this thread -- just ran a test today forcing logic to use all the cores on my M3 Pro -- and it did! has there been any updates to allow this feature? Using "automatic" it defaults to performance cores only, but going to 12 cores (I have the unbinned) it utilized all cores according to the performance meter.

Now I think Apple probably has good reason to avoid using efficiency cores for music production, but would these synthetic benchmark tests come out differently if logic pro is forced to use all cores?
 
Bumping this thread -- just ran a test today forcing logic to use all the cores on my M3 Pro -- and it did! has there been any updates to allow this feature? Using "automatic" it defaults to performance cores only, but going to 12 cores (I have the unbinned) it utilized all cores according to the performance meter.

Now I think Apple probably has good reason to avoid using efficiency cores for music production, but would these synthetic benchmark tests come out differently if logic pro is forced to use all cores?
But does forcing all cores create other issues? Otherwise it would be rather dumb to leave the E-cores unused by Logic's default?

The P-cores are of course stronger than the E-cores, so by having them all run at the same time should probably create a lowest denominator that leaves performance on the table I suppose?
 
But does forcing all cores create other issues? Otherwise it would be rather dumb to leave the E-cores unused by Logic's default?
I can't say for Apple Silicon, as I don't have it yet. However, this situation is somewhat similar to my Intel Mac, which has 8 hardware cores, but can run 16 threads using hyperthreading. And these additional 8 cores are disabled in Logic by default as well. Enabling them has no any bad consequences such as lower stability or higher latency. This is just a free performance, disabled by default for unknown reason.
 
Bumping this thread -- just ran a test today forcing logic to use all the cores on my M3 Pro -- and it did! has there been any updates to allow this feature? Using "automatic" it defaults to performance cores only, but going to 12 cores (I have the unbinned) it utilized all cores according to the performance meter.

Now I think Apple probably has good reason to avoid using efficiency cores for music production, but would these synthetic benchmark tests come out differently if logic pro is forced to use all cores?
Yea the benchmarks would come out differently. I use P-cores only on my M3 Max cause I want the system to stay snappy and I don’t need more power than the P-cores provide. There might also be an argument that staying on P reduces the risk of any realtime audio threads ending up on E-cores…
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.