# 2019 Mac Pro DAW Benchmark Test Results



## BenHicks

I figured it would be easier to keep track of the different DAW benchmarks/stress tests for the new Mac Pro in one thread rather than randomly throwing them in other Mac Pro related topics, breaking up whatever the current conversation was. For anyone else who has decided to take the plunge and pick up one of the new machines, feel free to post your machine specs and performance results here as well. Also, feel free to suggest different tests and I'll do my best to accommodate. I'm hoping this will help some of you that are on the fence with the nMP make a decision.

I've already posted a couple different videos of tests I've run (first two videos - test conditions in the description), but here's another (third video).

::MAC PRO SPECS::
16 Core
128GB RAM
Radeon Pro 580X (baseline)

::TEST SETTINGS::
DAW: Cubase 10
Buffer: 256 (EDIT: originally thought it was 512) (ASIO buffer set to High)
Sample Rate: 44.1kHz
Bit Rate: 24
Library: Kontakt 6 - Metropolis Ark 1 "High Strings Spiccato Unison" with the default 2 mic positions

I'm curious as to why I'm not seeing the CPU turbo to anywhere near its max (4.4gHz). Might reach out to Apple about that. If I can find a way to get the machine to boost its base clock speed during heavier loads, that'd be absolutely HUGE. Even still, every older project of mine that used to bring my 8 core trashcan to its knees is basically nothing for this machine, so I'm pretty happy. I hope to see more results from you guys. Cheers.


----------



## BenHicks

Another quick test. Same settings as above, except with 850 instances of Absynth playing 16th notes. (bonus points if you know what score that little ostinato is from)

While there may appear to be a decent amount of CPU headroom left over, Cubase started getting angry when I got over 900 tracks, causing lots of stop and go hitches, even when idling.


----------



## SanderB

Hi Ben,

Thanks for these tests! I am looking to buy a new Mac Pro, probably the 12-core. It will give me more than enough power I think.

About the core speeds, I saw other forums who said the CPU can’t get to base clock speeds. I think I will wait and see what apple has to say about this.






Do not buy the new mac pro yet - Page 2 - Avid Pro Audio Community


Page 2- Do not buy the new mac pro yet General Discussion



duc.avid.com













At last: new Mac Pro! - Page 160 - Gearspace.com


Quote: Originally Posted by MichaelDroste ➡️ Mine is on the truck for delivery! Sweet!



www.gearslutz.com


----------



## BRVLN

This is super insightful!
I wonder why Absynth was able to push the CPU to 3.9 while Kontakt couldn’t reach 3.6...

And I’m also afraid of what that entails for the 28-core (since that is the machine I’m eyeing).

Please keep us updated with your findings.
Thank you!!!


----------



## michaelrohanek

Very keen to follow. I'm using an older iMac 27 and going to upgrade soon. I'm hoping the Mac Pro can be the answer I've been after for a while... heaps of CPU for intensive VI's, and RAM to load them in, and easily support a larger display. Does anyone else think this machine could be a 10 year purchase, just upgrade the components when you can?


----------



## SanderB

I think it does. I have a Mac Pro 5.1 for 8 years now and for the most part still going strong. What config are you looking to buy?


----------



## michaelrohanek

I have no idea! Waiting on the advice of others. I assumed a 16 core, 256GB RAM would do for some time, but after reading the stuff about the the clock speed being below base clock has me concerned, I'm sure apple will fix it but why is it like this at all? I also hope that 5 years from now a faster processor and more ram can be added to the same machine.


----------



## BRVLN

You probably couldn’t upgrade your CPU from Apple, but I bet OWC will sell upgrade kits or something like that.

I’m waiting to see the performance on the 28-core machine to make a decision on which spec to get... but please don’t buy you RAM from Apple. It’s just the same RAM you can get with 3rd party brands and SO overpriced!


----------



## michaelrohanek

BRVLN said:


> You probably couldn’t upgrade your CPU from Apple, but I bet OWC will sell upgrade kits or something like that.
> 
> I’m waiting to see the performance on the 28-core machine to make a decision on which spec to get... but please don’t buy you RAM from Apple. It’s just the same RAM you can get with 3rd party brands and SO overpriced!


Yes BRVLN I tend to buy my ram from crucial in the US. It works out to be a quality product and at the right price. I think the only products you buy apple RAM are the laptops and iMac Pro.


----------



## tmhuud

Keep your eye on these guys: https://www.sonnettech.com/product/sonnet-products.html
They should have some pretty innovative stuff coming out for the new machine.


----------



## -tm-

BenHicks said:


> I figured it would be easier to keep track of the different DAW benchmarks/stress tests for the new Mac Pro in one thread rather than randomly throwing them in other Mac Pro related topics, breaking up whatever the current conversation was. For anyone else who has decided to take the plunge and pick up one of the new machines, feel free to post your machine specs and performance results here as well. Also, feel free to suggest different tests and I'll do my best to accommodate. I'm hoping this will help some of you that are on the fence with the nMP make a decision.
> 
> I've already posted a couple different videos of tests I've run (first two videos - test conditions in the description), but here's another (third video).
> 
> ::MAC PRO SPECS::
> 16 Core
> 128GB RAM
> Radeon Pro 580X (baseline)
> 
> ::TEST SETTINGS::
> DAW: Cubase 10
> Buffer: 512 (ASIO buffer set to High)
> Sample Rate: 44.1kHz
> Bit Rate: 24
> Library: Kontakt 6 - Metropolis Ark 1 "High Strings Spiccato Unison" with the default 2 mic positions
> 
> I'm curious as to why I'm not seeing the CPU turbo to anywhere near its max (4.4gHz). Might reach out to Apple about that. If I can find a way to get the machine to boost its base clock speed during heavier loads, that'd be absolutely HUGE. Even still, every older project of mine that used to bring my 8 core trashcan to its knees is basically nothing for this machine, so I'm pretty happy. I hope to see more results from you guys. Cheers.




Very curious if Apple will release an update for the CPU speed issue you mentioned. 
I hope you'll file a bug report!


----------



## Olfirf

@BenHicks How many Kontakt voices do you count your last YT video with lots of Kontakt sustain patches? Depending on the sustain instrument, loaded mic positions, overlapping releases etc a sequence of notes can produce vastly different amounts of voices. So, it would be great to know that number for the sake of better comparison with scan pro audio tests on various CPUs from Intel and AMD.
512 samples buffer is pretty high. Only the latest tests from scan pro even include this setting. 256 is a pretty good average.


----------



## BenHicks

Olfirf said:


> @BenHicks How many Kontakt voices do you count your last YT video with lots of Kontakt sustain patches? Depending on the sustain instrument, loaded mic positions, overlapping releases etc a sequence of notes can produce vastly different amounts of voices. So, it would be great to know that number for the sake of better comparison with scan pro audio tests on various CPUs from Intel and AMD.
> 512 samples buffer is pretty high. Only the latest tests from scan pro even include this setting. 256 is a pretty good average.


The video with 530 instances of Metropolis Ark 1 High String Spiccato Unison fluctuated between 16-20 voices per instance. Also, I was in error. After re-opening that project, I realize that I was actually at 256 buffer during that test, not 512. I'll correct that in the video description as well as on my initial post. My apologies.

As far as the test with 50 instances of Minimal being recorded simultaneously, there were only 4 voices per instance. Does that answer your question? I hope I'm understanding you correctly. Let me know otherwise.


----------



## BenHicks

Here's a Logic Pro X test (Ver. 10.4.8) for you guys. I haven't used Logic for the last 3 years, so it took me a bit to remember how to set up the project and whatnot. lol

Test:
80 instances of Omnisphere ("agape warmth" patch) playing a 5 note chord with the following 5 plugins on each instance: 

FabFilter Pro-Q 3 
Soundtoys Tremolator 
Soundtoys Decapitator 
FabFilter Pro-C 2 (4x Oversampling enabled) 
2C Audio B2 (Duo Den Exp: Cinematic Long Hall preset) 

Buffer: 256

For reference, my 8 core trashcan could barely run a project with just 8 instances of the B2 loaded in as sends.


----------



## BRVLN

Crazy!!
How do you think the 28-core would compare to this test?
Would it be better or worse because of the lower clock speeds?

only reason I’m asking is because I’m considering both models. (16 and 28)


----------



## BenHicks

BRVLN said:


> Crazy!!
> How do you think the 28-core would compare to this test?
> Would it be better or worse because of the lower clock speeds?
> 
> only reason I’m asking is because I’m considering both models. (16 and 28)


I have no idea, tbh. However, I know that there was a similar debate back when the trashcan Mac Pro's were coming out. Is the 8 core the sweet spot? Are the clock speeds too slow on the 12 core? Etc.

From what I saw looking back, my friends who owned the 12 core trashcan were able to run larger projects with more plugins than I could with my 8 core, so I think it's safe to say that if you were to get the 28 core, you'd be more than fine. Some people like to run projects at a buffer of 64 or even 32, however, so in those instances, _maybe_ there would be a performance difference due to the lower clock speeds of the 28 core. I'm no expert when it comes to judging that sort of thing, though, so take that with a grain of salt.

Personally, I'll likely _never_ run a project with 80 instances of the 2C-B2 (let alone 80 instances of Omnisphere). If you require more horsepower than what I ran in this test, then you might want to consider either getting the 24/28 core, or just not buying the Mac Pro at all and instead going with a super-beast hackintosh/PC.

All that being said, after seeing how well this machine easily handles older projects of mine that used to absolutely choke my 8 core trashcan, I think it's safe to say that I'm probably good for at *least* 7 years, at which point I'll just upgrade my CPU. That's the beauty of them going back to the modular design.


----------



## BRVLN

BenHicks said:


> I have no idea, tbh. However, I know that there was a similar debate back when the trashcan Mac Pro's were coming out. Is the 8 core the sweet spot? Are the clock speeds too slow on the 12 core? Etc.
> 
> From what I saw looking back, my friends who owned the 12 core trashcan were able to run larger projects with more plugins than I could with my 8 core, so I think it's safe to say that if you were to get the 28 core, you'd be more than fine. Some people like to run projects at a buffer of 64 or even 32, however, so in those instances, _maybe_ there would be a performance difference due to the lower clock speeds of the 28 core. I'm no expert when it comes to judging that sort of thing, though, so take that with a grain of salt.
> 
> Personally, I'll likely _never_ run a project with 80 instances of the 2C-B2 (let alone 80 instances of Omnisphere). If you require more horsepower than what I ran in this test, then you might want to consider either getting the 24/28 core, or just not buying the Mac Pro at all and instead going with a super-beast hackintosh/PC.
> 
> Personally, after seeing how well this machine easily handles older projects of mine that used to absolutely choke my 8 core trashcan, I think it's safe to say that I'm probably good for at *least* 7 years, at which point I'll just upgrade my CPU. That's the beauty of them going back to the modular design.



Thank you for the honest answer!
Yeah I never work with low buffers, and I think I would appreciate the extra headroom.

I think I’ll give the 28-core a try. If it’s gonna act funky I’ll just switch to the 16, which you proved to be PLENTY strong!

Thanks!


----------



## Dewdman42

the new 28core is way overkill for what we do and would be a tremendous waste of money! I even happen to think the 16 core is a diminishing return. The new 12 core macPro would be my choice today if I were going to buy a new mac in 2020. But i"m not because its just too darn expensive.

In some of the tests being done on this thread it is important to distinguish which tracks, if any, are live and armed for recording. That has a huge impact on the core utilization, most DAW's will put live tracks to a single core...including if you have a bunch of sends to AUX's hosting 8 instances of Breeze for example. 

Once you get to the mix down stage you should be ensuring that no tracks are armed in live mode and even my aging old computer can handle many instances of many plugins without issue. So some of the impressions on this thread are conflating a few things I feel. Most people would not need 8 instances of breeze on a live armed track while recording it, for example.

And by the way, the above issue, will not be improved at all with 28 cores or 16 cores. The 12 core machine will perform just as well for those tracks...because its the single core performance that matters. In fact an i9 iMac will perform even better for that particular thing.

When you are talking bout multi-core performance, the 16 and 28 core MacPros obviously have tremendous power but we don't actually need all that much multi-core performance, even my ancient 5,1 MacPro can keep up with just about everything when you get into multi-core mix down mode.

Paying for 16 or 28 cores is for millionaires or video rendering houses. We don't need it here.


----------



## michaelrohanek

Dewdman42 said:


> the new 28core is way overkill for what we do and would be a tremendous waste of money! I even happen to think the 16 core is a diminishing return. The new 12 core macPro would be my choice today if I were going to buy a new mac in 2020. But i"m not because its just too darn expensive.
> 
> In some of the tests being done on this thread it is important to distinguish which tracks, if any, are live and armed for recording. That has a huge impact on the core utilization, most DAW's will put live tracks to a single core...including if you have a bunch of sends to AUX's hosting 8 instances of Breeze for example.
> 
> Once you get to the mix down stage you should be ensuring that no tracks are armed in live mode and even my aging old computer can handle many instances of many plugins without issue. So some of the impressions on this thread are conflating a few things I feel. Most people would not need 8 instances of breeze on a live armed track while recording it, for example.
> 
> And by the way, the above issue, will not be improved at all with 28 cores or 16 cores. The 12 core machine will perform just as well for those tracks...because its the single core performance that matters. In fact an i9 iMac will perform even better for that particular thing.
> 
> When you are talking bout multi-core performance, the 16 and 28 core MacPros obviously have tremendous power but we don't actually need all that much multi-core performance, even my ancient 5,1 MacPro can keep up with just about everything when you get into multi-core mix down mode.
> 
> Paying for 16 or 28 cores is for millionaires or video rendering houses. We don't need it here.



Hi Dewdman, to prove your point, (which is fair, but possibly not quite right for my workflow) can somebody please load 60 instances of kontakt with a whole variety of spitfire orchestral library sounds using a blended mic setting, and accompanying MIDI tracks playing all of them at once. Then add a Spectrasonics Keyscape Piano, an Omnisphere pad and 9-10 other instrument tracks of average CPU-hungriness (if there's such a word), plus a few reverb sends, delay, a few izotopes, Soundtoys and FabFilters. 

This is a normal session file for me. I don't think an i9 will handle it as well as a high core Xeon. Right now my i7 iMac 2014 chokes on less than half of that, it won't work even on a buffer size of 2048, and thats with my reverb offloaded to a UAD Apollo. I freeze a lot and I'm tired of it.


----------



## jarjarbinks

BenHicks said:


> Here's a Logic Pro X test (Ver. 10.4.8) for you guys. I haven't used Logic for the last 3 years, so it took me a bit to remember how to set up the project and whatnot. lol
> 
> Test:
> 80 instances of Omnisphere ("agape warmth" patch) playing a 5 note chord with the following 5 plugins on each instance:
> 
> FabFilter Pro-Q 3
> Soundtoys Tremolator
> Soundtoys Decapitator
> FabFilter Pro-C 2 (4x Oversampling enabled)
> 2C Audio B2 (Duo Den Exp: Cinematic Long Hall preset)
> 
> Buffer: 256
> 
> For reference, my 8 core trashcan could barely run a project with just 8 instances of the B2 loaded in as sends.




Fascinating. Using Cubase, my Intel 4790k hackintosh can do about 32 instances of Omnisphere with the same per-track processing. Only difference is the reverb (I dont have the 2C Audio B2 so used Liquidsonics Reverberate instead).


----------



## Lawson.

BenHicks said:


> Another quick test. Same settings as above, except with 850 instances of Absynth playing 16th notes. (bonus points if you know what score that little ostinato is from)
> 
> While there may appear to be a decent amount of CPU headroom left over, Cubase started getting angry when I got over 900 tracks, causing lots of stop and go hitches, even when idling.




Just wanted to chime in and say the ostinato is Sayuri's Theme from Memoirs of a Geisha.  I'm kind of surprised no one answered it yet!


----------



## simsung

BenHicks said:


> Here's a Logic Pro X test (Ver. 10.4.8) for you guys. I haven't used Logic for the last 3 years, so it took me a bit to remember how to set up the project and whatnot. lol
> 
> Test:
> 80 instances of Omnisphere ("agape warmth" patch) playing a 5 note chord with the following 5 plugins on each instance:
> 
> FabFilter Pro-Q 3
> Soundtoys Tremolator
> Soundtoys Decapitator
> FabFilter Pro-C 2 (4x Oversampling enabled)
> 2C Audio B2 (Duo Den Exp: Cinematic Long Hall preset)
> 
> Buffer: 256
> 
> For reference, my 8 core trashcan could barely run a project with just 8 instances of the B2 loaded in as sends.





I tried the same test on a mac mini 2018 i7 6 Core. The only difference is the reverb, since i dont have the B2 i used the Fabfilter R. Result: 24 Tracks max before dropouts


----------



## JazzDude

55 OMNI instances with Steinberg plugins pingpong Delay, Frequency Equalizer and Roomworks each track. CPU around 70% ASIO guard high latency in 5,8ms out 7,8ms. running smooth without any glitches. Cubase performance meter around 80%. Disk IO 0%.
Hardware
Ryzen1700x 8+8 core 64GB RAM NVME 480GB NVIDIA 1050TI less than 1000 $/€ value
optimized WIN 10. In WIN 7 i could do abt 10% more instances.
ALESIS IO26 FW Interface 48k 256 samples


----------



## simsung

JazzDude said:


> 55 OMNI instances with Steinberg plugins pingpong Delay, Frequency Equalizer and Roomworks each track. CPU around 70% ASIO guard high latency in 5,8ms out 7,8ms. running smooth without any glitches. Cubase performance meter around 80%. Disk IO 0%.
> Hardware
> Ryzen1700x 8+8 core 64GB RAM NVME 480GB NVIDIA 1050TI less than 1000 $/€ value
> optimized WIN 10. In WIN 7 i could do abt 10% more instances.
> ALESIS IO26 FW Interface 48k 256 samples


that is hard to compare. we did the same test as above with omnesphere1 and even that changed result enormously


----------



## Damarus

I like this - I have a 7700k I can try this test on. Fair to say Pro-R is a comparable alternative to breeze cpu useage wise?


----------



## JazzDude

why would you use Omni1? Version 2.6 has a lot more to offer: its double than Version 2. 
So its a harder benchmarktest. I did a lot of bench tests with Omnisphere and Cubase. 
You can fill up Omni 2.6 with multitimbral (8 slots x 4 "soundsources/oscillators") and leave out the 3rd party plugins in Cubase to make it compatible for more people to share their experiences. We could share our files (only spectrasonics soundsources and efx).


----------



## simsung

JazzDude said:


> why would you use Omni1? Version 2.6 has a lot more to offer: its double than Version 2.
> So its a harder benchmarktest. I did a lot of bench tests with Omnisphere and Cubase.
> You can fill up Omni 2.6 with multitimbral (8 slots x 4 "soundsources/oscillators") and leave out the 3rd party plugins in Cubase to make it compatible for more people to share their experiences. We could share our files (only spectrasonics soundsources and efx).



that was the only version on my colleagues imac. we just wanted to do a quick test. since the results caine compare i didn’t mention them


----------



## JazzDude

ill prepare some Omnisphere bench files in Cubase 10, so everybody can use it and deactivate the tracks, for safe loading. It has preloaded 64 Omnispheres 2.6 with the "agape warmth" patch in folders of 10 and 5 midi notes running in loop.


----------



## BenHicks

Damarus said:


> I like this - I have a 7700k I can try this test on. Fair to say Pro-R is a comparable alternative to breeze cpu useage wise?


I don’t own the Pro-R, so I can’t really say. I also don’t own 2CAudio’s Breeze 2, but according to their website, the B2 and Aether are their heaviest as far as CPU usage goes. I purposefully used the B2 and the Duo Den Long Cinematic Hall preset in that test because it was the heaviest I could find on my system. The Breeze 2 seems to be 2CAudio’s response to the criticisms of their heavier verb offerings.

I’ll see if I can’t run that test again using VSS3, Valhalla Room or Seventh Heaven, which aren’t quite so heavy. Interesting to see all of these results, though. I know this thread is focused on the Mac Pro, but without context and comparisons to other CPU’s running similar tests, it can be hard to see how things stack up. I do think that there are a bunch of different factors that need to be accounted for, so results are going to vary, wildly. Still, it’s interesting.


----------



## BenHicks

Lawson. said:


> Just wanted to chime in and say the ostinato is Sayuri's Theme from Memoirs of a Geisha.  I'm kind of surprised no one answered it yet!


There’s an extra 16th note at the end of the phrase in my version, mainly because I wanted constant 16ths playing, but otherwise, yeah. Lol


----------



## Living Fossil

BenHicks said:


> I do think that there are a bunch of different factors that need to be accounted for, so results are going to vary, wildly. Still, it’s interesting.



One interesting thing would be to see how an extremely heavy chain holds up.
E.g. Two instances of Ozone 9 in a row - with limiter set to algo IV and true peak - and some additional heavy weights.
That would have some real world relevance, since quite often there is one heavy chain that taxes a single CPU thread.

p.s. thanks a lot for posting your results...


----------



## Dewdman42

exactly. Also...what happens if you have 50 or 100 tracks mixing down and you try to record one more track, that is also feeding a fairly heavy signal chain.


----------



## jononotbono

Also could you please set the Cubase project at 48khz. Thanks for the testing.


----------



## Dewdman42

see this result: https://www.logicprohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=138612&start=120#p757529



> The new 16 core Mac pro is crippled with 6 instances of U-HE Diva playing 8 voices each.. too much for single core load so it can only load 6 and leave all the other cores free.. it's the single core performance that is at fault here.. My iMac pro gets 6 also, yet my MacBook pro gets 15.. yes an 8 core MacBook pro gets 15 x 8 voice divas all playing back without logic overloads, vs 6 in a mac pro configured to about 14 grand.. There's a large topic at gearslutz explaining it all (the last 5 or so pages are the ones to read about this from memory), but basically OS X is not allowing the Xeons to keep a steady all core turbo speed and drops below Intel's actual rated speeds, whereas Windows is letting them perform at their maximum. For example in my iMac pro, i get 12 divas in Pro tools/bootcamp vs 6 in Pro tools/Mojave. It's a power limit issue in OSX and we all hope it gets worked out. The reason the MacBook pro gets one per available thread in Logic is because there is enough headroom left over after each one, to put the next one on.. With the mac pro's, the reason they can only play 5 or 6 is because even though those first few instances can be loaded on one core each, every new instance adds overhead even to previous cores, just slightly, but there is no headroom left in the single core performance so it flakes out much quicker. The 9900K gets like 20 or something.
> 
> Yet, with omnisphere, there is a demo of the new mac pro playing 80 of them and all 16 cores/32 logical cores getting hammered to the max. So really, it's only U-HE synths that seem to not be able to be fully taken advantage of on the Xeons.. I have other heavy cpu synths and I can use them all.. just not Diva.
> All the Arturia stuff is fine, Dune 3, the legend which sounds *amazeballs* used about 1/5th the cpu of DIva's moog filter mode. Try the legend, you will love it.. Only 8 voices but he used an AVX trick to get it to perform like other synths with one voice!


----------



## BenHicks

Dewdman42 said:


> see this result: https://www.logicprohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=138612&start=120#p757529


I've seen that as well and I'm glad you've highlighted this. The i9 (or even the i7 in some cases) will absolutely crush the Mac Pro in single core performance, so synths like Diva will perform *much* better on those CPU's. That's to be expected, granted you've done your research, but not everyone will be aware of this. If you primarily use Diva or some other CPU hungry softsynths, then I definitely wouldn't recommend the new Mac Pro.

It all comes down to workflow and the type of music you write. I don't own Diva or use *too* many synths like that in my music. I work primarily with large track counts utilizing Kontakt/Sine/Play instruments, so for my purposes, the 16 core has proven to be well worth it. Older projects that used to crush my 8 core trash can barely scratch 30% of my total CPU on the new Mac Pro. I've even found that plugins like the B2 are handled much better. For example, I could barely have 8 instances of the B2 reverb used as sends on my old mac. Now, I can throw 80 of them directly onto individual tracks if I wanted to, as was the case in my last video (and that's on top of all the other processing in the chain).

I created this thread in order to help others get a sense of what the new Mac Pro can/can't handle in order to help others decide if it's right for them. It's a big investment, so people should know what they are getting themselves into. If you use Diva or other single core reliant VI's/plugins, I definitely wouldn't buy one. I'd go with an i9/i7 machine. If your projects have large track counts of primarily Kontakt/Sine/Play instruments, I think you'll be quite happy.

I'm hoping that other members who decided to pick up one of these machines will share their experiences, particularly if they went with the 12 core or even the 24/28 core.


----------



## BenHicks

I ran through that Omnisphere test again, but replaced the B2 with Valhalla Room instead. I've decided to skip creating a video, since that's too much of a pain for me to deal with, especially with my sorry internet speeds. 

Here's a refresh on the project settings inside Logic X for that test:

__________________
DAW: Logic Pro X (Ver. 10.4.8)
Sample Rate: 44.1kHz (_Turns out my logic project settings default to 44.1 for some reason. Had I known that was the case, I would've changed it to 48, since I never work in 44.1_)
Buffer: 256

*FX Chain:*
FabFilter Pro-Q 3
Soundtoys Tremolator
Soundtoys Decapitator
FabFilter Pro-C 2 (4x Oversampling enabled)
Valhalla Room (Default settings at 20% mix)

*RESULT: 103 tracks*
__________________


For Cubase 10 users, I replicated everything, including all of the exact plugin settings. The only thing I changed was the sample rate/bit rate. For Cubase, I set it to 48/24. Here are the project settings:

__________________
DAW: Cubase 10 (Ver. 10.0.5)
Sample Rate: 48kHz
Bit Rate: 24
Buffer: 256
ASIO Buffer: High

*FX Chain:*
FabFilter Pro-Q 3
Soundtoys Tremolator
Soundtoys Decapitator
FabFilter Pro-C 2 (4x Oversampling enabled)
2CAudio B2 (Duo Den - Cinematic Long Hall - [17.3 mix])

*RESULT: 71 tracks*
__________________

And again with Valhalla Room instead of the B2:

__________________
DAW: Cubase 10 (Ver. 10.0.5)
Sample Rate: 48kHz
Bit Rate: 24
Buffer: 256
ASIO Buffer: High

*FX Chain:*
FabFilter Pro-Q 3
Soundtoys Tremolator
Soundtoys Decapitator
FabFilter Pro-C 2 (4x Oversampling enabled)
Valhalla Room (Default settings at 20% mix)

*RESULT: 94 tracks*
__________________


I wanted to test with Seventh Heaven, but, annoyingly, whenever I try to copy that plugin over to the next track, it doesn't keep the same preset/settings. There's no way I'm gonna waste my time tweaking dozens of individual settings. Not even for science. lol


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

This is the 2020 Mac Pro I got for Christmas. It has 28 cores, 1.5TB of RAM, two of the most expensive video cards they have, and an 8TB SSD. (Of course I also bought the $6000 display and the $1000 stand.)

It's Logic running 50 Omnispheres with a 5-note chord looped, set to a 128-sample buffer. Each track has five stereo Space Designers.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Or wait. It might have been my 2009 5,1 12 x 3.46GHz Mac Pro.

Sorry about the error!


----------



## Dewdman42

By the way, here's my 5,1 MacPro playing 40 tracks of Diva, with the buffer set to 64 no less, but no tracks are record-enabled.


----------



## Dewdman42

here's with Chroma reverb added to all 40 tracks.


----------



## Dewdman42

I don't know why my Mac Pro is only using 20 virtual cores though. weird. Plays without dropouts though. I added FabFilter-R also in addition to CHromaverb on all 40 tracks, no drop outs, but getting close to it.


----------



## simsung

Does anyone have the 8 core model mac pro?
I wonder how that performs. The idea is to go with it until the cpus get much cheaper. I guess its already powerful enough for most projects and doesnt need 2000$ extra for a better CPU. well thats my theory


----------



## Steve Wheeler

simsung said:


> Does anyone have the 8 core model mac pro?
> I wonder how that performs. The idea is to go with it until the cpus get much cheaper. I guess its already powerful enough for most projects and doesnt need 2000$ extra for a better CPU. well thats my theory


Seems like the maxed out imac outperforms the mac pro (by about 4%) for a lot, lot less (a little over 3k if you upgrade RAM on your own).

This is the next computer I'm looking at buying as I can't spring for a $6k box at this time especially where the 8 core doesn't perform as well as the imac it seems like: https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks

I just wish Apple made an mid-ATX tower that was i9 X-series based. I don't like having $1k tacked onto an i9 system for a 5k monitor that I don't need.


----------



## Prockamanisc

The shitty thing that I've seen is that the costs have not really come down as more cores get introduced. It used to be that Gen 1 = 1 core = $100. Gen 2 = 2 cores = $100. Etc. But lately it's been seeming like with each new generation, it's like Gen 8 = 8 cores = $800. Cost has not been dropping with each new iteration, and instead, rising with the increased performance.


----------



## Dewdman42

in years past, computers were doubling in speed every year or two, which had the effect of driving down the price of slightly older, not-bleeding-edge hardware. But that phenomenon is over. They are reaching an upper limit of clock speeds until some totally new technology comes out, if ever. They can increase cores and and improve some other bottlenecks here or there, but the end result is that they can't double the performance every year or every other year anymore. so that means the prices are actually stabilized.. There is no reason to drop the price of slightly older stuff anymore because its not much worse then the very newest stuff, for example. And yes, adding more cores, means more manufacturing costs. They are creating increasingly more complicated systems in order to try to wring out a bit more performance but that increased complexity is costly. A lot more costly for a little more performance. 

That is just how its going to be for the foreseeable future until/unless they come up with something truly revolutionary.


----------



## Steve Wheeler

Prockamanisc said:


> The shitty thing that I've seen is that the costs have not really come down as more cores get introduced. It used to be that Gen 1 = 1 core = $100. Gen 2 = 2 cores = $100. Etc. But lately it's been seeming like with each new generation, it's like Gen 8 = 8 cores = $800. Cost has not been dropping with each new iteration, and instead, rising with the increased performance.



Well, I think that the good news is that with the advent of the higher end Ryzen stuff, CPU prices are coming down again. Part of the problem is that for a bit now, if you absolutely needed the highest performance, Intel was the only game in town, really. Now you can get a Ryzen 9 16 core/32 thread CPU for (ostensibly if you can find it) $750. $47 a core is not too bad. 

This is good news for people building their own Intel machines too. Intel dropped prices on the HEDT desktop stuff in response to Ryzen: The i9-10920X is $750 right now over at B&H. 

With Apple, much as I really like their software, they do go out of their way to make the hardware purchases as anti-consumer as possible. Soldering memory, storage, and CPUs straight to the board is complete bullshit. There's zero reason to do this on desktops besides preventing people from buying aftermarket parts and upgrading. Yes, I get the whole closed system idea, but all they have to do is void warranties for those that want to use aftermarket parts. Apple reminds me of where Avid was at in the early 2000s.


----------



## simsung

Steve Wheeler said:


> Seems like the maxed out imac outperforms the mac pro (by about 4%) for a lot, lot less (a little over 3k if you upgrade RAM on your own).
> 
> This is the next computer I'm looking at buying as I can't spring for a $6k box at this time especially where the 8 core doesn't perform as well as the imac it seems like: https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks
> 
> I just wish Apple made an mid-ATX tower that was i9 X-series based. I don't like having $1k tacked onto an i9 system for a 5k monitor that I don't need.



ok that doesnt sound that bad. if the 8core is already almost as good as the maxed out imac, my plan to update the cpu whenever i need it, seems to make sense


----------



## Eskmo

nMP 16core 192owcRAM
geekbench:
single core: 1154
multicore: 15775

275 tracks on this Logic test:








New Logic Multitrack Benchmark Test


well this is it: NewLogicBenchmarkTest.zip I really think I have created the perfect new benchmark test.. and props to Evan, didn't realise how long it would take to get the balance right. On my 2015 macbook pro 2.8hghz quad, i get 37 tracks with turbo disabled or 38 with turbo enabled.. Their re...




www.logicprohelp.com


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Dewdman42 said:


> I don't know why my Mac Pro is only using 20 virtual cores though. weird. Plays without dropouts though. I added FabFilter-R also in addition to CHromaverb on all 40 tracks, no drop outs, but getting close to it.



I don't know why it would be using 20 instead of 24, but these are my settings. At one point the default setting was causing my machine to use 12. I forget which one it was I had to change to get it to behave.


----------



## Dewdman42

My settings are similar. I seem to be noticing this since upgrading to 10.4.8 and I'm still on Mojave. Other people are saying 10.4.8 is doing better with cores on Catalina and part of me is starting to wonder if Apple did something to make it all better on Catalina but worse on Mojave.. Call me paranoid...

I am unable to get all 24 meters to fill up, often time only 2/3 of them, even with numerous tracks. I'm not sure what to make of that. But also its not clear to me that the LPX Cpu meter is actually measuring the cores, but is actually showing the number of threads. When I watch a third party Cpu monitor, all 12 cores are filling up with activity.

So I don't want to make too much out of it.

I have found the Playback threading setting gets me a bit less pop and crack then Playback & Live...when I'm mixing. The Playback & Live I feel is more useful when I'm noodling around because when you click on a track header there is not that annoying latency delay for the first couple of notes on the keyboard, which does happen when its set to "Playback".


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Mojave 10.14.6, Logic 10.4.8.


----------



## David Kudell

For those of you lucky enough to have the new Mac Pro, you should check out this PCI SSD raid...5300MB/sec read speed! Talk about an awesome sample library drive!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

David Kudell said:


> Talk about an awesome sample library drive!



Robin Williams said cocaine was God's way of telling you you have too much money. He didn't know about this.


----------



## David Kudell

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Robin Williams said cocaine was God's way of telling you you have too much money. He didn't know about this.


That’s a good one! Although in this case, the OWC raid is actually a lot cheaper than Apple’s SSD options, which only go to 2200 MB/sec. So save money and get a smaller Apple SSD for the OS, and get a faster cheaper sample drive with the OWC.


----------



## simsung

do i get it right? The only options we have are only the sonnet m.2 or the owc from above for library space? 
I need at least 4TB and want to avoid using the owc external 2,5" drive bay - since there are the pcie options.


----------



## Virtuoso

David Kudell said:


> the OWC raid is actually a lot cheaper than Apple’s SSD options, which only go to 2200 MB/sec. So save money and get a smaller Apple SSD for the OS, and get a faster cheaper sample drive with the OWC.


Mine runs at around 3000MB/s for both read and write. The base 256GB model is quite a bit slower for some reason - the write speed is only around 1300MB/s.



simsung said:


> do i get it right? The only options we have are only the sonnet m.2 or the owc from above for library space? I need at least 4TB and want to avoid using the owc external 2,5" drive bay - since there are the pcie options.



No, there are other options. I ordered a few cards from Amazon to try out this weekend. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07JJTVGZM (This $12 card) works perfectly with an old Samsung 960 Pro and gives 3GB/s read and 2GB/s write (probably a limitation of the SSD).

This one at $94 takes 2 normal SATA SSDs and also works perfectly, with read and write speeds of around 520MB/s (tested with two Samsung 860 EVOs). Might be able to squeeze more out of it in a RAID0, maybe up to 650MB/s, but I didn't test that yet.

I also ordered https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07R4XPPCX (this 16x card) to see if there is any speed improvement (haven't tried it yet), and most interesting of all, this 16x Asus card that takes 4 M.2 NVMe drives. IF it works, it could be awesome for super high speeds and capacities in a RAID0.

I say IF, because the motherboard needs to support 'bifurcation' (which divides the 16x PCIe lanes equally between the 4 drives) - otherwise only 1 of the 4 drives will be usable. I have read reports that the new Mac Pro does, but also speculation that it doesn't. I will know for sure on Sunday when I get round to trying it. Fingers crossed!


----------



## simsung

Virtuoso said:


> Mine runs at around 3000MB/s for both read and write. The base 256GB model is quite a bit slower for some reason - the write speed is only around 1300MB/s.
> 
> 
> 
> No, there are other options. I ordered a few cards from Amazon to try out this weekend. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07JJTVGZM (This $12 card) works perfectly with an old Samsung 960 Pro and gives 3GB/s read and 2GB/s write (probably a limitation of the SSD).
> 
> This one at $94 takes 2 normal SATA SSDs and also works perfectly, with read and write speeds of around 520MB/s (tested with two Samsung 860 EVOs). Might be able to squeeze more out of it in a RAID0, maybe up to 650MB/s, but I didn't test that yet.
> 
> I also ordered https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07R4XPPCX (this 16x card) to see if there is any speed improvement (haven't tried it yet), and most interesting of all, this 16x Asus card that takes 4 M.2 NVMe drives. IF it works, it could be awesome for super high speeds and capacities in a RAID0.
> 
> I say IF, because the motherboard needs to support 'bifurcation' (which divides the 16x equally between the 4 drives) - otherwise only 1 of the 4 drives will be usable. I have read reports that the new Mac Pro does, but also speculation that it doesn't. I will know for sure on Sunday when I get round to trying it. Fingers crossed!



oh thank you! that’s lots of good alternatives. can you please share your results tomorrow after testing?


----------



## Virtuoso

Will do - I'm really hoping the Asus card works out. It will make a very cheap way of getting 8TB of ultra fast internal storage. If it doesn't I'll probably go for the Sonnet M.2 4x4 which has a chip onboard to handle the bifurcation.


----------



## simsung

Virtuoso said:


> Will do - I'm really hoping the Asus card works out. It will make a very cheap way of getting 8TB of ultra fast internal storage. If it doesn't I'll probably go for the Sonnet M.2 4x4 which has a chip onboard to handle the bifurcation.


 
just found something interesting in the macrumors forum here
According to that article, the asus card doesnt work ... well lets see


----------



## Grilled Cheese

Interesting. That article also mentioned the following card which holds 6 M.2 SSD modules. https://amfeltec.com/pci-express-gen-3-carrier-board-for-6-m2-or-ngsff-nf1-pcie-ssd-modules/

Benchmarks are eye watering!

:emoji_astonished:


----------



## srprose

My 2009 Mac Pro has had an upgrade a few years ago to a 12 core Xeon 2x2.93 motherboard with 48GB Ram, AMD Fire Pro D700 graphics etc. It’s been fine up till now for anything I threw at it both video and audio wise, but I seem to have come up against a wall with my recent Spitfire BBC SO purchase. Like many others I suspect I’m wondering what machine to replace it with - a decent iMac with limited upgrade potential, or the new Mac Pro with all its newbie problems manifesting on this thread? I know we are all in the same boat, so watching this thread interestedly. What are people going for to run a library like BBC SO at the moment?


----------



## khollister

srprose said:


> My 2009 Mac Pro has had an upgrade a few years ago to a 12 core Xeon 2x2.93 motherboard with 48GB Ram, AMD Fire Pro D700 graphics etc. It’s been fine up till now for anything I threw at it both video and audio wise, but I seem to have come up against a wall with my recent Spitfire BBC SO purchase. Like many others I suspect I’m wondering what machine to replace it with - a decent iMac with limited upgrade potential, or the new Mac Pro with all its newbie problems manifesting on this thread? I know we are all in the same boat, so watching this thread interestedly. What are people going for to run a library like BBC SO at the moment?



I have been keeping an eye on the new Mac Pro threads here and at Gearslutz since I'm kinda thinking about trading up from my iMac Pro 10 core.

First, I have not seen any real issues reported other than performance with certain circuit-modeled synths like Diva/Repro and questions about the clock frequency control (runs below what is expected based on the stated all-core turbo specs). The Diva thing is real, but IMHO not particularly relevant for how many actually make music (as opposed to running benchmark tests). The patch used earlier in this thread for a test of 50 tracks on a 5.1 MP is a mono patch and based on some really cursory tests on my iMP, I could likely get at least 60-80 instances. However going to one of the poly patches with a track having 5-10 voices, you are talking 6-12 tracks. And these limitations appear to be due to both very poor scaling of the plugin (design/coding) as well as possibly some oddness with how the plugin manages threads and CPU resources on Xeons as opposed to i7/i9 CPU's - although that is far from clear so far.

My take on this is while it would be nice to run 200 voices of Diva in divine mode, I can't imagine ever arranging something that used anywhere near that number of voices with a synth like Diva. It's an interesting test of single core performance, but may not be a real-world limitation for most folks.

The clock speed not being as high as expected may be a bug in firmware/Catalina for the nMP, or it may have to due with the AVX512 instruction set. Intel specs the turbo frequencies to be much lower when AVX512 is being used and we do not know for certain (rumor is Logic uses AVX512) which plugins/DAWs make use of AVX512. 

That said, everyone who is using a nMP seems to be pleased with the performance on everything except synthetic benchmarks with certain plugins.

If you style of music making relies almost exclusively on dense arrangements of circuit-modeled analog synths (like Diva), you might be more comfortable with an i9 iMac. If, like many of us here, you typically reply on large number of tracks of sample-based instruments (Kontakt/PLAY/UVI etc), you will likely be over the moon with a nMP (cost aside).

Two things to think about on the iMac approach:

1) It again depends on workflow and compositional style, but the iMacs (and Mac Minis) have very real potential for thermal throttling or loud fans (or both) under prolonged high loads. The iMac Pro and Mac Pro have far more robust thermal designs.

2) The iMacs and Minis have a single TB3 bus with 2 ports. The iMac Pro and Mac Pro have 2 busses with 4 ports (double the bandwidth). Whether this is a problem depends on your storage and peripheral configuration. Since I'm using UAD Satellites and multiple TB/USB3.1 connected SSD's for sample streaming, I need/want the 2 TB busses.

If you are looking for a new rig because of Spitfire stuff, I suspect you would be quite happy with a nMP. Of course whether tha is a cost effective choice is a decision only you can make. There is also no doubt that from a CPU standpoint, an i9 iMac would clobber your 5.1 MP as well assuming you dont hit the TB bandwidth or thermal speedbumps.


----------



## Steve Wheeler

khollister said:


> I have been keeping an eye on the new Mac Pro threads here and at Gearslutz since I'm kinda thinking about trading up from my iMac Pro 10 core.
> 
> First, I have not seen any real issues reported other than performance with certain circuit-modeled synths like Diva/Repro and questions about the clock frequency control (runs below what is expected based on the stated all-core turbo specs). The Diva thing is real, but IMHO not particularly relevant for how many actually make music (as opposed to running benchmark tests). The patch used earlier in this thread for a test of 50 tracks on a 5.1 MP is a mono patch and based on some really cursory tests on my iMP, I could likely get at least 60-80 instances. However going to one of the poly patches with a track having 5-10 voices, you are talking 6-12 tracks. And these limitations appear to be due to both very poor scaling of the plugin (design/coding) as well as possibly some oddness with how the plugin manages threads and CPU resources on Xeons as opposed to i7/i9 CPU's - although that is far from clear so far.
> 
> My take on this is while it would be nice to run 200 voices of Diva in divine mode, I can't imagine ever arranging something that used anywhere near that number of voices with a synth like Diva. It's an interesting test of single core performance, but may not be a real-world limitation for most folks.
> 
> The clock speed not being as high as expected may be a bug in firmware/Catalina for the nMP, or it may have to due with the AVX512 instruction set. Intel specs the turbo frequencies to be much lower when AVX512 is being used and we do not know for certain (rumor is Logic uses AVX512) which plugins/DAWs make use of AVX512.
> 
> That said, everyone who is using a nMP seems to be pleased with the performance on everything except synthetic benchmarks with certain plugins.
> 
> If you style of music making relies almost exclusively on dense arrangements of circuit-modeled analog synths (like Diva), you might be more comfortable with an i9 iMac. If, like many of us here, you typically reply on large number of tracks of sample-based instruments (Kontakt/PLAY/UVI etc), you will likely be over the moon with a nMP (cost aside).
> 
> Two things to think about on the iMac approach:
> 
> 1) It again depends on workflow and compositional style, but the iMacs (and Mac Minis) have very real potential for thermal throttling or loud fans (or both) under prolonged high loads. The iMac Pro and Mac Pro have far more robust thermal designs.
> 
> 2) The iMacs and Minis have a single TB3 bus with 2 ports. The iMac Pro and Mac Pro have 2 busses with 4 ports (double the bandwidth). Whether this is a problem depends on your storage and peripheral configuration. Since I'm using UAD Satellites and multiple TB/USB3.1 connected SSD's for sample streaming, I need/want the 2 TB busses.
> 
> If you are looking for a new rig because of Spitfire stuff, I suspect you would be quite happy with a nMP. Of course whether tha is a cost effective choice is a decision only you can make. There is also no doubt that from a CPU standpoint, an i9 iMac would clobber your 5.1 MP as well assuming you dont hit the TB bandwidth or thermal speedbumps.



Will mention that Apple addresses thermal throttling in the i9 iMacs by actually throttling wattage. Here's a review: . Basically, it somewhat neuters the full performance of the CPU at high load. Still gets pretty hot, but with a fan control app can cool it down. Don't know how loud the fans are on the thing though. 

Also, the 2018 mac minis have 2 TB3 busses and 4 TB3 ports I'm pretty sure. The iMacs do only have the 1 bus and 2 ports though.


----------



## khollister

Steve Wheeler said:


> Also, the 2018 mac minis have 2 TB3 busses and 4 TB3 ports I'm pretty sure. The iMacs do only have the 1 bus and 2 ports though.



Oops, you're correct. Still only a 6 core i7 though, so not too compelling compared to the 8 core i9 in the iMac.


----------



## Steve Wheeler

khollister said:


> Oops, you're correct. Still only a 6 core i7 though, so not too compelling compared to the 8 core i9 in the iMac.



Agreed. It's pretty wild that the mini benches multicore similar to my hacked 5,1 MP 12-core. Single core, it does even better. Would be pretty wild to see a mini refresh with the i9 that's in the MBP (where the minis are all laptop CPUs). 

I'd kill for a Mac tower that's HEDT and not Xeon based. The iMac is actually priced decently for what it is, but about $1k of that is a 5k monitor I don't really care that much about. Imagine a tower with i9 X-series processors? It'll never happen because it'd kill their pricing model, but a man can dream. (I have weighed the idea of a hackintosh, but it just seems too risky atm).


----------



## Dewdman42

Imho the diva tests floating around are highlighting a potential problem with the nMP that may show up later when trying to use increasingly cpu-heavy instrument or fx plugins as they come out. Right now people are trying to blame diva as if it is the culprit but I think the only thing diva is doing wrong is using a lot of clock cycles, which increasingly sophisticated plugins will need to be able to do. Diva just happens to be a bit at the bleeding edge for that.

Generally speaking plugins do not have any influence or control over core usage, that is all managed by the host and OS X. In rare exceptions some plugins offer some ability to create more threads on other cores, such as kontakt and diva; as an OPTION. Sometimes those features can be helpful and sometimes not. Most people turn off kontakt’s multicore option for example.

I ran the recent diva benchmark on my 5,1 with and without multicore option enabled. I got 7 tracks without and 9 tracks with it on. So that helped me in that case.

But the fundamental problem with all macs today is that they are based on a speed stepping cpu architecture that is designed to keep the cpu clock speed as low as it can get away with to control the heat. That cpu tech was primarily introduced for laptops originally since they don’t have space for a big heat sink, etc. Apple calls it “turbo”. But bear in mind the purpose of turbo is not to optimize cpu speed for performance, it is to optimize down the cpu speed for heat control. All the mbp’s, minis and iMacs need that heat control and the vast majority of Apple users are not playing the hottest games or running daw plugins and they don’t need an Olympic sprinter for a cpu. They need something that doesn’t fry the cpu and looks pretty nice on their ikea office desk.

With the non towers this heat control is of very high priority. With the nMP it is probably not as necessary but hard to say for sure right now until and unless Apple changes something so that the nMP will run the cpu at higher clock rates. Right now it appears to be constrained to lower clock rates, as are the other macs too, but still the i9 clock rate, even constrained, is higher then the Xeon constrained clock rate.

In daw work we are really in need of higher clock rates. Any constraining to those cpu speeds is going to seriously effect things when cpu heavy plugins are used.

In the pc world, people over clock their computer to the highest clock speed possible and use water cooling and other things to do it. The nMP does not have water cooling. It has better cooling then the other Apple products but still pales in comparison to what is possible commonly on a pc. Therefore it will probably not be possible to crank up the nMP to always turbo mode for sustained periods like is possible on a pc today. I think the constrains Apple is placing on the Xeon clock speeds are not by accident.

In some applications, work can be spread to many threads across cores and then a 16 core monster would be more then fine even at constrained clock speeds. But for daw work that is a serious concern because of the way threads are typically allocated per track or channel. That means each core needs the clock speed to prevent drop outs.

I look forward to seeing more tests with more cpu hungry plugins besides diva so we can really see what the nMP can do with heavy dsp on tracks. For me it’s a concern about the platform.

Other people that use few fx in every track and lightweight instrument dsp may never have a problem with it. But then a 5,1 would also probably work fine for that user too.

I have also read that people trying to run xeons full speed with many cores are unable to get all the cores up to the rated max clock speed. They say smaller core counts are a lot preferable for overclocking. I’m sure that is related to heat and/power requirements. But none of that fares well for the prospect of expecting a 16 core nMP to ramp up to theoretical max clock speeds via “turbo”


----------



## jcrosby

khollister said:


> The clock speed not being as high as expected may be a bug in firmware/Catalina for the nMP, or it may have to due with the AVX512 instruction set. Intel specs the turbo frequencies to be much lower when AVX512 is being used and we do not know for certain (rumor is Logic uses AVX512) which plugins/DAWs make use of AVX512.



Pretty sure this is correct. I have a hackintosh, overclocked it for a couple days and decided it wasn't worth it, (the gains didn't justify the high temps and higher bills)... Anyway long story short...

I had an AVX offset when I overclocked the machine and noticed in Logic that the all core turbo dropped by exactly the AVX offset amount I set when OC'd, whereas Logic would hit full speed when not OC'd...


----------



## samphony

Sorry if i put out a different perspective on the diva thing but couldn’t you work in a way like you would with hardware synths? Meaning committing faster to audio and move on?


----------



## Dewdman42

Overclocking is not for everyone, but bear in mind, that overclocking is an advanced technical topic and it really takes quite a lot of time and effort to dial in just the right motherboard settings for any given configuration to get acceptable heat and some amount of improved clock speed. Its not a black or white thing. You can dial it up bit by bit until its too much and then dial it back and it will be fine.

Generally, to achieve a reasonable amount of overclocking you will want to make sure you have a bigger power supply, a better-then-standard heat sink with proper thermal paste in place, etc. This will allow you to push the settings before it starts getting too hot or wonky. The CPU will do wonky things once it either is pushing the limit of what the power supply can provide or the excess use of power causes all the heat to exceed the improved heat sink and fans you put in. In extreme overclocking, you would need to get liquid cooling. Most people don't need to overclock to the extreme level, you can overclock a little bit. The i9 is capable of going to 5ghz, but a lot of people would be in a very good position with it just running at something higher then 4ghz all the time, for example.

There are numerous settings that you have to play around with in any given motherboard and its not an exact science as everything effects everything else. Memory timings, multipliers and several different things. You have to do the research on the motherboard you're using to find out what other people are doing and then you have to play around experimenting until you can find the sweet spot where the cpu clock speed is higher then before without causing the CPU to start to do wonky things from not enough power or too much heat. The only way you find out if its doing wonky things is basically because when you run a sustained cpu stress test for quite a long period, it should be able to run without corrupting the data (the tool will keep track of that) and it should not blackscreen or shutdown. If it can sustain that for a long time and you're comfortable with the fan noise and temperature readings while doing that...then you've found the sweet spot...and your sweet spot might not be as high as some game player that has a tricked out water cooled monster machine, but it will still definitely be better then the stock base clock speed. You also have to be careful NOT to try to run your main operating system while testing all this out because if the CPU does wonky things it can corrupt your data and corrupt your OS installation, forcing you to reinstall from scratch. You should be doing all stress testing way before attempting to run your carefully configured OS with stable and tested overclock settings. Like I said, this is not for the faint of heart.

I had an overclocked hackintosh for years and it was not liquid cooled, just a better-then-stock heat sink, bigger power supply then originally had, and an extra fan. It still runs like a charm now overclocked as a windows machine. The factory clock speed on that is 2.4ghz and it has been running at around 3.2hgz for years. I can't even imagine letting it run at 2.4ghz that would be so dog slow in comparison and why? It was WELL worth the effort for me.

But I have spent, literally hours and hours, dialing in the settings, monitoring the temperature until I was comfortable that its ok, etc. 

I would venture a guess that most of the people on this forum do not want to mess around with any of that.

But I do feel the base rate of most CPU's is well below what they are capable of. There is no reason to have an i9 slugging along below 4ghz, for example. Apparently the Turbo technology is supposed to allow Apple computers to run very slow and quiet when not in use, but then ramp up under load. The reports around are that nMP is not ramping up very well under load... That's all.. The i9 has a higher base clock speed to begin with so it already has an upper hand that way, but apparently the i9 macs are ramping up much more liberally for some reason. And so the effective clock speed difference between an i9 mac and an nMP is bigger than reported due due to that it would seem.

How does any of this overclocking talk relate to the nMP?

As I said before, people that do overclocking on PC's, report that machines with high core counts are unable to do high overclocking settings, and often feel that not all of the cores are getting overclocked properly. The CPU starts to do wonky things a lot sooner, constraining their ability to overclock very high. There are theories about it, but I suspect that unless you're hearing it from an engineer at Intel its just theory. But I suspect its related to power and heat...with more cores...more heat starts to happen a lot quicker...so there is only so high they can overclock.

Even though you aren't overclocking an Apple computer, its not even possible.. But that is EXACTLY what turbo mode is supposed to be doing automatically for you. It's supposed to detect load and then dynamically ramp up the clock speed, as if it were being overclocked dynamically under load. 

Can you see how for various reasons related to power supply, heat, high core counts, etc...the nMP may in fact be kind of limited in its ability to ramp up the clock speed on say 16 cores? Thus it would be stuck down in the lowly base clock speeds..which are mediocre to begin with compared to say the i9 macs. This big difference in effective resulting clock speeds between these two machines is, in my opinion, why someone recently reported that a 16 core nMP could only run 6 tracks of Diva while an iMac with i9 could run 20 tracks of the same project.


----------



## Dewdman42

samphony said:


> Sorry if i put out a different perspective on the diva thing but couldn’t you work in a way like you would with hardware synths? Meaning committing faster to audio and move on?



Unfortunately no it really doesn't work that way. Smarter algorithms can be faster then dumber algorithms in that they require less DSP cycles to get something done, so a lighter weight plugin does what you are imagining, it uses the fewest clock cycles possible and gets out of the way. If a plugin is using more cpu cycles, then its take more time to get it done, it's not like the cpu runs faster for one plugin vs another. A cpu-hog plugin requires more cycles and they require more time. If they take so much time that they can't get the buffer filled in time, then that's when you get audio drop outs.


----------



## gsilbers

samphony said:


> Sorry if i put out a different perspective on the diva thing but couldn’t you work in a way like you would with hardware synths? Meaning committing faster to audio and move on?




this is exactly why i think bands like prodigy, chemical brothers and crystal method where so good back in the day. they needed to commit and it was a tough choice and went with it. now they have endless undos and options. sometimes limits are great. 

but in this context though.. for media scoring the option to just be able to undo and change the synth later on if there is picture edit its extrmely important. if you composer to picture and there is an edit which involves changing the melody or harmony then getting back to the same sound is a bit cumbersome and getting another sound will get the director asking why that cool synth was changed and add it back in. 
im sure there are other reasons, but thats the one it comes to mind. 
logic has freeze and disable the track so its a good workaround. but the best is to not have any technology limitations when creating. 

what was this thread about again? lol


----------



## samphony

It’s something I’ve (re) learned from my time working with Jóhannsson. Commit to audio as fast as you can and create something unique and re sample re sample re sample


----------



## Virtuoso

chrispire said:


> Interesting. That article also mentioned the following card which holds 6 M.2 SSD modules. https://amfeltec.com/pci-express-gen-3-carrier-board-for-6-m2-or-ngsff-nf1-pcie-ssd-modules/


That looks great! $800 for the card though. You could potentially have 3 of those in the spare 16x slots, each loaded with 6x 4TB drives for 72TB of ultra fast storage! Total - $15k. 

My budget won't quite stretch that far though, so for now I'm just running a pair of 2TB M.2 drives in a RAID0 using super cheap PCIe adapters. That gives 4TB with a write speed of 5GB/s and a read speed of 4.3GB/s. 

Unfortunately I can confirm that the reports on the Asus 4x4 ASUS Hyper M.2 X16 PCIe 3.0 X4 are correct. The new Mac Pro does not support bifurcation and so the card only makes a single drive available.


----------



## Dewdman42

came across this today. Interesting


----------



## Damarus

Why the hell does he sound out of breath the whole time ffs


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

srprose said:


> What are people going for to run a library like BBC SO at the moment?



A slave computer, unless you have enough money not to care.

To me it makes zero sense to spend $8000 on a computer. I don't care how powerful it is.


----------



## simsung

Virtuoso said:


> That looks great! $800 for the card though. You could potentially have 3 of those in the spare 16x slots, each loaded with 6x 4TB drives for 72TB of ultra fast storage! Total - $15k.
> 
> My budget won't quite stretch that far though, so for now I'm just running a pair of 2TB M.2 drives in a RAID0 using super cheap PCIe adapters. That gives 4TB with a write speed of 5GB/s and a read speed of 4.3GB/s.
> 
> Unfortunately I can confirm that the reports on the Asus 4x4 ASUS Hyper M.2 X16 PCIe 3.0 X4 are correct. The new Mac Pro does not support bifurcation and so the card only makes a single drive available.



so you have 2 pcie cards - each for one m.2 and you can still set both to raid0?


----------



## AndyP

Damarus said:


> Why the hell does he sound out of breath the whole time ffs


Probably the MacPro draws the oxygen from the room.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

srprose said:


> My 2009 Mac Pro has had an upgrade a few years ago to a 12 core Xeon 2x2.93 motherboard with 48GB Ram, AMD Fire Pro D700 graphics etc. It’s been fine up till now for anything I threw at it both video and audio wise, but I seem to have come up against a wall with my recent Spitfire BBC SO purchase. Like many others I suspect I’m wondering what machine to replace it with - a decent iMac with limited upgrade potential, or the new Mac Pro with all its newbie problems manifesting on this thread? I know we are all in the same boat, so watching this thread interestedly. What are people going for to run a library like BBC SO at the moment?



I just delivered a few projects using BBCSO, all from my MB Pro. I have nearly every instrument loaded, for a total of 10.5GB (I only have 16GB). Granted, the orchestrations were not massive, but if load only one articulation per instance the SF Player is very efficient. I also have it loaded on my slave, but now I don't think I'll ever need it.


----------



## AndyP

I think the MacPros with more than 8 cores are more interesting than the entry-level machine.

The iMac with an i9 processor costs half as much and delivers more processing power. If you can get by with max 128 GB RAM the i9 is sufficient.

It's different if you use older libraries with high resource requirements (VSL, HOD) for which VEP slaves are often used today.
A well developed MacPro with more than 256 GB Ram and 12 - 16 cores is then already interesting.

Mathematically I don't see any reason for a MacPro at the moment, I'd rather add a MacMini or a MacBook Pro as slave to my i9, which is about the same but costs much less (instead of a 12 or 16 core mp).

If you don't do video editing and can do without the internal expandability, you have enough alternatives. At least as long as you don't need more than 2 installations of the VI licenses.


----------



## Virtuoso

simsung said:


> so you have 2 pcie cards - each for one m.2 and you can still set both to raid0?


Yes - the drives don't have to be on the same physical card. They just need to be the same size, otherwise you will lose capacity on the larger one. I created the RAID0 using Disk Utility (just as a test really) - you could also use the third party SoftRAID.


----------



## khollister

Dewdman42 said:


> came across this today. Interesting




3 things I took away from that:

1) MacOS is indeed limiting the turbo speeds and/or TDP compared to Windows. This was also discovered by TNM over on Gearslutz on his iMP (also seems to rule out a firmware issue).

2) It is NOT thermal throttling since running the fans full blast did nothing to change the clock or performance (good news there at least)

3) It is quite odd that the i9 MBP got 80 tracks on whatever Logic test he was running but the 8 core MP got 160. Both are 8 cores and at least for the first run, the i9 had sligtly higher clocks I thought. The only possible reason I can think of is Logic uses AVX512 and the i9's do not support it. This gets back to one of my personal theories on why the iMP & 2019 MP do weird things with Diva, MassiveX, etc. compared to i7/i9's. Other than ECC/RAS/PCIe lanes, it is the only other functional difference between the Xeon/HEDT Skylake-X parts and the i7/i9 Coffee Lake parts that I'm aware of.


----------



## Dewdman42

khollister said:


> 2) It is NOT thermal throttling since running the fans full blast did nothing to change the clock or performance (good news there at least)



Well to be more accurate, that is exactly what thermal throttling is. Its just that OSX is not allowing it to throttle up when there is plenty of air flowing through. That could be because the fans are not actually cooling the CPU enough to keep the temperature down and allow it to be throttled up, or it could be that OSX is being more conservative about how much throttling can be applied per temperature, etc.. Windows is apparently more liberal in allowing the machine to throttle itself up. 



> 3) It is quite odd that the i9 MBP got 80 tracks on whatever Logic test he was running but the 8 core MP got 160. Both are 8 cores and at least for the first run, the i9 had sligtly higher clocks I thought. The only possible reason I can think of is Logic uses AVX512 and the i9's do not support it. This gets back to one of my personal theories on why the iMP & 2019 MP do weird things with Diva, MassiveX, etc. compared to i7/i9's. Other than ECC/RAS/PCIe lanes, it is the only other functional difference between the Xeon/HEDT Skylake-X parts and the i7/i9 Coffee Lake parts that I'm aware of.



Well that struck me as odd too and inexplicable, I didn't pay that close attention at the moment to investigate what possible hardware differences exist between the two machines, but I think the stuff about AVX is pure speculation. Generally plugins will not be taking advantage of AVX512, which is an actual instruction set, the plugin would have had to have been compiled with that in it. There could be other reasons and could have been the way he was running the test too, he didn't show us his screen. Did he accidentally have the MBP in live mode by any chance? That would make a difference. 

I have been starting to put together a JUCE plugin that does nothing other then apply a CPU load in a controllable way, with a slider to choose how much load. At some point last night I had 24 tracks in Logic Pro, each with an instance of that plugin and some strange things happened when I moved the sliders around. LogicPro is definitely not always allocating new threads for each new track and it doesn't make sense to me at all, not all cores were always being used. Depends probably on numerous internal factors in LogicPro about load balancing or whatever algorithms they are using, which might not make sense with my frankenstein cpustressor plugin that just turns on a simple load and never stops. Point is...logic does some odd stuff with thread and core usage that is probably not as simple as we all think it is (one thread per track), and how it allocates things across cores. This makes it very difficult to speculate about what Logic is doing with threads and cores...in the past two weeks I have seen all manner of speculation about what people think LogicPro is doing with core allocations...and most of it is just that...speculation. Unless they have access to LogicPro source code, we don't really know the exact thread and core load balancing algorithms that Apple is using in there...so many of the speculations we have read in the past two weeks should be taken with a grain of salt.

But I agree, I found it very odd that the MBP so seriously under performed the track counts there. He did say that his iMac out performed the MacPro, however. So that is something weird. I vaguely recall he mentioned some other reason why he thought the MBP might lose out, but i can't remember his reasoning now.


----------



## Dewdman42

my main take away was that the nMP does ok, maybe comparable to the iMac, but for seriously too much money. I also was struck by how he was running into video playback with stuttering and things like that. We can hope Apple will fix some of these things in OSX updates to make the machine faster, but I'm not going to count on that until it happens.


----------



## Technostica

Dewdman42 said:


> But the fundamental problem with all macs today is that they are based on a speed stepping cpu architecture that is designed to keep the cpu clock speed as low as it can get away with to control the heat.
> That cpu tech was primarily introduced for laptops originally since they don’t have space for a big heat sink, etc.



The purpose is to optimise both power efficiency and performance with heat/temperature not always being the major issue. That’s why it’s also seen in desktops, workstations and servers where temperature isn’t always the constraint. For servers for example, power efficiency is a big issue and temperature can be mitigated by running more and faster fans which is often done in data centres.



Dewdman42 said:


> Apple calls it “turbo”.



Intel named their baby Turbo Boost and that’s the official name.



Dewdman42 said:


> But bear in mind the purpose of turbo is not to optimize cpu speed for performance, it is to optimize down the cpu speed for heat control.



Not true.
There is a system block whose name I forget within the chip which monitors multiple metrics (clock speeds, temperatures, voltages, amperes etc) with the purpose being to give you the best of both worlds.
When the system is under a light load, the CPU clock speed and voltage are both reduced down to the minimum that is supported which saves a lot of power.
When you need maximum single or dual core speed, the system block knows it can push the frequency and voltage higher than it can if more cores are loaded.
There are multiple tiers for different counts of cores loaded and clock speeds; more loaded cores meaning lower speeds.
Turbo Boost working with the system block gives you more performance in these cases than if it didn’t exist.



Dewdman42 said:


> With the non towers this heat control is of very high priority. With the nMP it is probably not as necessary but hard to say for sure right now until and unless Apple changes something so that the nMP will run the cpu at higher clock rates. Right now it appears to be constrained to lower clock rates, as are the other macs too, but still the i9 clock rate, even constrained, is higher then the Xeon constrained clock rate.


There are a number of areas of note here.

Firstly, there are multiple officially supported clock rates for modern CPUs that range from the idle speed through the base speed to the maximum Turbo Boost speed and points in-between those 3.
The more cores you load the lower the supported speed although some contiguous core counts will share the same maximum clock speed.
See this link for info on the Per Core Turbo Values for the 28 core W3175x:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13748/the-intel-xeon-w-3175x-review-28-unlocked-cores-2999-usd/3

Secondly, Apple chose a dog of a platform in choosing Intel’s current server platform because it only exists due to an extremely severe issue with their manufacturing division which has led to delays of 2 years and counting in moving to the newer 10nm fabrication process.
This has had a double whammy effect in that their newer architecture designs are tied to the new 10nm process node, so they are left with old designs on the old node.
Whereas AMD have a new design on a new node meaning that they don’t have to do what Intel have done which is to desperately push past sensible limits which has led to the power inefficient but still underperforming mess that they have. See here for some info:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1504...60x-and-3970x-review-24-and-32-cores-on-7nm/2

Thirdly, there are fine grained processor states that are time limited, which can confuse the issue if you are only testing for short periods as you can see higher clocks in these scenarios. See here:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-processors-draw-more-power-than-expected-tdp-turbo



Dewdman42 said:


> In the pc world, people over clock their computer to the highest clock speed possible and use water cooling and other things to do it. The nMP does not have water cooling. It has better cooling then the other Apple products but still pales in comparison to what is possible commonly on a pc. Therefore it will probably not be possible to crank up the nMP to always turbo mode for sustained periods like is possible on a pc today. I think the constrains Apple is placing on the Xeon clock speeds are not by accident.



There is a limit on what you can achieve with a top end power inefficient CPU whilst keeping the cooling system in check noise wise.
Are Apple too conservative with fan noise at the expense of performance?
With the W-3175X able to pull close to 400W it can’t be easy to cool that quietly in an air-cooled workstation so something has to give.
That’s just at 3.8GHz as when Intel first demoed it they used exotic cooling to run it at 5GHz at which point it was consuming over a megawatt.
I think 18 cores is the maximum core count for their midrange server chip design and even that can use 180W.
Not sure I’d fancy cooling even that quietly but at least Apple have complete control over the system.



Dewdman42 said:


> Its just that OSX is not allowing it to throttle up when there is plenty of air flowing through. That could be because the fans are not actually cooling the CPU enough to keep the temperature down and allow it to be throttled up, or it could be that OSX is being more conservative about how much throttling can be applied per temperature, etc.. Windows is apparently more liberal in allowing the machine to throttle itself up.


Most of the control is usually done by the CPU in conjunction with the firmware as that is the quickest way for it to change its speed/voltage based on demand; having the O/S control it adds a layer of latency.
That makes sense as the CPU is the thing that monitors itself and knows what values are safe and/or desirable.
With mobile chips you can typically see a wider range of firmware settings depending on the OEM with some being more conservative temperature wise.
This is understandable as surface temperatures are an issue with laptops and different designs will transfer heat differently and especially so for convertibles.
For desktops, the issue is more of noise as it’s generally okay to let the CPU run close to the maximum temperature before it will thermally throttle; it’s designed to run that hot and for extended periods.

I don’t know if Apple have passed on more control to the O/S in this area or what they do with regards to hotspots.
With modern CPUs being so thermally dense there is the potential issue of thermal hotspots.
In this scenario, it’s possible for the O/S in conjunction with the CPU’s control centre and firmware to move an active thread to another core to reduce the thermal density.
That can lead to higher clock speeds where a thermal limit was being reached.
I don’t know much about this but as thermal density continues to increase it might become more commonly used.

Turbo Boost is an important ecological feature as the CPU power consumption is broadly related to the clock speed and the square of the voltage.
So without this feature the idle power consumption of your whole system would be noticeably higher.
Watts roughly relates to clock speed x voltage squared.
So 0.8GHz @ 0.7V versus 4GHz @ 1.1V (squared) has a factor of difference of nearly 13.


----------



## Dewdman42

sorry no. If the purpose were to optimize performance they would turn it up to 11 and leave it there. Turbo, speed stepping or whatever you prefer to call it....is a measure to control heat and power requirements, and it dials CPUs down to help those things. In this case its KEEPING the performance down too much


----------



## Dewdman42

secondly, reports are in that the MacPro runs at high clock speeds and performance under boot camp then under OSX. So clearly the operating system has an influence on how the hardware controls the speed stepping capability built into the motherboard, CPU and related components.


----------



## Technostica

Dewdman42 said:


> sorry no. If the purpose were to optimize performance they would turn it up to 11 and leave it there. Turbo, speed stepping or whatever you prefer to call it....is a measure to control heat and power requirements, and it dials CPUs down to help those things. In this case its KEEPING the performance down too much


Ironically your 11 reference is spot on as before Turbo Boost you were stuck at 10.  
Ignore the laptop and lower clocking stuff and look at what it gives to performance desktop.
Intel now recognises a preferred core so if you run a single core load it can use that core and push you to 12! 

Don’t focus on the phrase Turbo Boost but on the on-core management engine as that is the driver here.
Without that and its multiple sensors the CPU would have to be more conservative to protect itself from damage so you would have lower performance.
The extra granularity that it allows is what helps.
Without all this you would definitely have lower performance.
A great example of the power of such systems is the top binned AMD Ryzen X suffix chips.
They are so well optimized by their version of this technology that it is hardly worth overclocking them unless you want to go ‘crazy’ and use a very high voltage and cool them with water. Even then the gains aren’t that dramatic.
For overclocks at sane voltages you will gain in multi-core loads but lose in single and lower core count loads so many just don’t bother.
That shows you how optimised these tools are performance wise.


----------



## Dewdman42

nothing actually goes to 11 or 12, I was being tongue in cheek.

Speed stepping PREVENTS the cpu from running at full capacity. Simple as that. All of that technology is designed like an engine governor to prevent it from overheating or using more power then necessary. The usefulness is that it can keep the system cooler by allegedly only allowing it up to full capacity when the need arises. Unfortunately in the case of the new MacPro, it is not allowing it up often enough or perhaps responsively enough.

Its perhaps a play on words whether you want to call that dialing it down, or enabling it to be dialed up higher under stress. Some would argue that better cooling and bigger power supply would satisfy things to have a higher base clock speed and in some extreme cases just leave it on high! That would be purely optimizing it for performance. Turbo mode, speed stepping...these are compromises being made to find the balance between performance and power consumption. And it would appear, not being made very well on the new MacPro and current OSX.


----------



## Dewdman42

Technostica said:


> Secondly, Apple chose a dog of a platform in choosing Intel’s current server platform because it only exists due to an extremely severe issue with their manufacturing division which has led to delays of 2 years and counting in moving to the newer 10nm fabrication process.
> This has had a double whammy effect in that their newer architecture designs are tied to the new 10nm process node, so they are left with old designs on the old node.



That is interesting and yet another reason to avoid this MacPro IMHO.


----------



## Technostica

Dewdman42 said:


> secondly, reports are in that the MacPro runs at high clock speeds and performance under boot camp then under OSX. So clearly the operating system has an influence on how the hardware controls the speed stepping capability built into the motherboard, CPU and related components.


Which is why I said that “Most of the control is usually done by the CPU in conjunction with the firmware”.
You can also run utilities in Windows that can control many firmware settings but there needs to be a good reason for the O/S to take control of them by itself without user interaction.
Fan speeds for example can be controlled directly in the firmware or via user software.
The advantage of having the firmware do it is that it doesn’t fail if the O/S crashes and it means it still works with other O/Ss such as Linux.
I used to use software for fan control but moved to firmware now that UEFI has taken over. One advantage is that it works from the moment you power on rather than potentially having noisy fans until the system fully boots which used to take fairly long from a HDD. 
It’s certainly feasible for macOS to tell the firmware to be more conservative than the default settings that Windows would see. That would be trivial.


----------



## Dewdman42

Not just the firmware it would seem. Reports are coming in of users taking the same machine, running tests in OSX, then rebooting under bootcamp and getting more frames per second or whatever they are testing..and significantly so...under windows.


----------



## Technostica

Dewdman42 said:


> Not just the firmware it would seem. Reports are coming in of users taking the same machine, running tests in OSX, then rebooting under bootcamp and getting more frames per second or whatever they are testing..and significantly so...under windows.


There are performance differences between macOS and Windows for sure but that's a whole other area.
Core boost speeds is one very specific thing and it should be fairly easy to measure that independently of a DAW to see the base line.
Just run a benchmark that isn't too demanding and that can be adjusted to run on as many cores as you'd like.
Run it for multiple core counts and monitor the core speeds.


----------



## Dewdman42

well we can speculate all day long. I saw a video of the guy testing with OSX and windows and he was looking at heat consumption and other things to determine..I can't recall if he was actually monitoring the core speeds but there are a ton of reports on GearSlutz about the cores not ramping up. Maybe you should go argue over there with them.


----------



## Technostica

Dewdman42 said:


> nothing actually goes to 11 or 12, I was being tongue in cheek.


In this case it does quite literally allow you to go to 11 so to speak:
“Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0:
Identifies the four fastest cores on the processor to provide improved lightly-threaded performance on X-series processors. The driver allows users to set preferred applications that will direct workloads to the fastest cores.”



Dewdman42 said:


> Speed stepping PREVENTS the cpu from running at full capacity. Simple as that.


So how fast do you think the 28 Core W-3175X would run if unencumbered by Turbo Boost?
Keep in mind that it can consume close to 400W at its base clock of 3.8GHz so if it ran at the maximum Turbo Boost speed of 4.3GHz with all cores loaded it would have to increase the voltage and push the power consumption over 500W I imagine. That’s just not at all feasible.



Dewdman42 said:


> All of that technology is designed like an engine governor to prevent it from overheating. The usefulness is that it can keep the system cooler by allegedly only allowing it up to full capacity when the need arises. Unfortunately in the case of the new MacPro, it is not allowing it up often enough or perhaps responsively enough.


This sounds like an Apple issue and not an Intel one.


Dewdman42 said:


> That is interesting and yet another reason to avoid this MacPro IMHO.


AMD have just released a 64 core CPU for $4,000:








AMD’s 64-Core Threadripper 3990X, only $3990! Coming February 7th







www.anandtech.com




Better off with the 32 core really as it has higher base and turbo clock.



Dewdman42 said:


> well we can speculate all day long. I saw a video of the guy testing with OSX and windows and he was looking at heat consumption and other things to determine..I can't recall if he was actually monitoring the core speeds but there are a ton of reports on GearSlutz about the cores not ramping up. Maybe you should go argue over there with them.


Sorry to hear that you feel you are arguing; it’s a discussion to me.
I felt that you were missing a very important part of the picture and wanted to fill in the gaps.
But you clearly aren’t very interested in my perspective so I’ll let it rest.


----------



## Dewdman42

Technostica said:


> In this case it does quite literally allow you to go to 11 so to speak:



yes on this point you are arguing over my choice of words which is stupid thing to argue about.

Nothing goes over 100%. All of these technologies are compromises so that the hardware can run below 100% in order to preserve power and avoid heat. In this case something somewhere is preventing the new MacPro from being able to run as close to 100% as it is capable. A truly performance-oriented preference would put in bigger power supplies, better cooling and allow it to run full speed, if possible always. Or at least closer to it more often. I understand why they are making the compromises, but they are compromises nonetheless. In the case of the MacPro, these compromises don't appear to be well tuned and so the machine is not being allowed to run at its full potential, at least under OSX.



> This sounds like an Apple issue and not an Intel one.



I am not attempting to blame anyone. Apple is selling the computer, it's their responsibility.


----------



## Dewdman42

Regarding the new stuff coming out from AMD and also the i9 line...there are going to be some big changes this year I feel..that are really going to make the $10k MacPro look like a bad memory in a year or two from now. IMHO.


----------



## khollister

I get the fact that Apple is constraining the turbo speeds compared to what the chips support with adequate cooling (which the 7.1 MP and likely iMP provide). However, consider that a user over on GS compared the performance of his 8 core iMP to his MBP that he disabled turbo on (presumably with an Intel utility). The shocking result is the iMP at 3.6-3.9 GHz played _fewer_ DIVA tracks than the MBP running at the base clock of 2.4 GHz. Not by a huge margin as I recall, but WTF?

To me, that suggests something seriously wrong with the Xeon-W chips (used in iMP and 7.1 MP) relative to the i7/i9's and even previous gen Xeon's used in the 5.1/6.1 MP's. I have seen couple comments about folks with older MP's getting higher Diva track counts with trashcan MP's than 7.1 MP's.

While absolutely speculation, the only functional difference in the architecture that I can see of the later Xeon's is AVX-512 support. No other Intel CPU supports it other than the Skylake-X HEDT parts (e.g. i9-9960X) which are not used by Apple. I am suspicious the primary problem with the new MP's isn't a relatively minor clock speed "gap" but some compiler/OS oddity WRT AVX-512 that plugins like Diva trip over due to whatever coding techniques are used. 

It would be really interesting if U-he could be persuaded to do a test build of Diva without whatever compiler switches enable AVX-512, assuming that they aren't already doing that. The fact that the number of Diva instances doubles under Bootcamp/Win10 with only a minor clock increase (4 vs 3.8) lends further credence to the idea that something else is going on besides CPU clock speed management in MacOS.


----------



## Dewdman42

Yea well on another forum someone sent me an LPX project to test diva on my 5,1. It was able to play at least one more track then the 16 core nMP according to what he reported. So yea something is definitely amiss, the nMP should have slayed my 5,1. 

My 5,1 doesn’t have AVX at all. I don’t agree with the AVX related theories floating around unless we hear it directly from Urs’ mouth. That is pure speculation by the gearslutz crowd trying to guess at it.

but yea there is definitely something amiss.

we need to see more tests with another equally cpu hungry plugin And other standardized situations.


----------



## jarjarbinks

Dewdman42 said:


> Yea well on another forum someone sent me an LPX project to test diva on my 5,1. It was able to play at least one more track then the 16 core nMP according to what he reported. So yea something is definitely amiss, the nMP should have slayed my 5,1.
> 
> My 5,1 doesn’t have AVX at all. I don’t agree with the AVX related theories floating around unless we hear it directly from Urs’ mouth. That is pure speculation by the gearslutz crowd trying to guess at it.
> 
> but yea there is definitely something amiss.
> 
> we need to see more tests with another equally cpu hungry plugin And other standardized situations.



Hopefully something that can be fixed via update... 
Or else a massive recall would be in order


----------



## Damarus

Makes you curious about the "1000 tracks in logic" demo they did during the announcement huh


----------



## khollister

Dewdman42 said:


> Yea well on another forum someone sent me an LPX project to test diva on my 5,1. It was able to play at least one more track then the 16 core nMP according to what he reported. So yea something is definitely amiss, the nMP should have slayed my 5,1.
> 
> My 5,1 doesn’t have AVX at all. I don’t agree with the AVX related theories floating around unless we hear it directly from Urs’ mouth. That is pure speculation by the gearslutz crowd trying to guess at it.
> 
> but yea there is definitely something amiss.
> 
> we need to see more tests with another equally cpu hungry plugin And other standardized situations.



I may have started teh AVX512 thing over there as a result of simply "what's different about Xeon-W vs i9 or Xeon-E/Westmere.

Repro-5/1 and Massive X exhibit the same sort of "combinatorial explosion" in thread loading as Diva. Roland Jupiter-8 too, although it isn't as extreme.

Zebra, Omni, Alchemy, the Roland D-50/1080/5080, Kontakt, Korg M1/Wavestation and TAL-U-NO-LX are very well behaved. I don't own the Korg analog synths to try.


----------



## Dewdman42

well its an interesting theory. Might even turn out to be true, we shall see how it plays out.


----------



## khollister

jarjarbinks said:


> Fascinating. Using Cubase, my Intel 4790k hackintosh can do about 32 instances of Omnisphere with the same per-track processing. Only difference is the reverb (I dont have the 2C Audio B2 so used Liquidsonics Reverberate instead).



I decided to do a little more testing with Diva (too much free time). I loaded Logic and Diva on my 2017 MBP (3.1GHz quad core Kaby Lake i7) and compared some scenarios with my 10 core iMP. I used the Deep Space Diva preset in "great" quality mode with multithreading both on and off. I used an 8 voice chord that I just held for several bars. I monitored CPU use with LPX, iStat and Intel Power Gadget. I checked the freq with iStat and IPG. THe laptop was plugged in to maximize performance. All other apps were shut down. Both are running Catalina and LPX 10.4.8

iMac Pro 10 core:

1) With multithreading ON, 8 tracks. CPU was about 85-90% loaded across all 20 cores (iStat/IPG), 3.75-3.85 GHz

2) With multithreading OFF, 6 tracks. CPU was about 35% loaded but the load was spread only on the 10 physical cores in iStat. performance meter in LPX didn't look much different except for fewer threads used. 

2017 Macbook Pro:

1) With multithreading ON, 5 tracks. CPU was 60-65% loaded across all 8 cores (iStat/IPG), freq was 3.5 GHz for the first few cycles until the temp shot up, fans went crazy and freq started dropping.

2) *With multithreading OFF, 11 tracks !!!???.* CPU was still 60-65% loaded, same frequencies.


This all seemed fairly reasonable (although the iMP should have done better considering both the slightly faster clocks and 2.5X cores) until I turned multihreading off on the MBP. The i7 doubling the track count with multithreading turned off is rather amazing since it was the opposite effect of what happened on the Xeon. The multithreading option in Diva behaved on the Xeon as I would expect (in spite of the modest improvement in LPX track count). I have no idea what is going on with the i7.

To be completely fair about all this, With Omni, Alchemy, Zebra, Kontakt or the standard Logic benchmarks using VI's and effects within Logic, the iMP & nMP kills the MBP (as it should). However, this tells me that something bizarre is going on with MacOS+Xcode+current Xeons with whatever coding techniques/libraries are being used in heavyweight analog-modeled, oversampled synths like Diva & Repro. 

Yes, it appears the 2019 MP's are underachieving on clock speeds in some cases compared to the iMP's, but the real news here is the plugin behaving completely different on an i7 than a Xeon-W. Clock Speed Matters, but I think the reason current 8 core i9 iMacs and Macbook Pros are killing the nMP's on these type of tests is primarily some compiler/OS anomaly on the different architectures, not just the single core speed difference.


----------



## khollister

One more thing - the latest version on Intel Power Gadget has a speed test menu now. You can select single core, all-cores or a couple other options. And that load test can be run with normal scalar instructions, AVX-256 or AVX-512 (i7 & i9's do not have AVX-512 instructions - the menu item doesn't appear there). On the iMP (socket 2066 Xeon-W Skylake-X part), running the all-core AVX-512 test drops the speed from 3.8+ immediately to 3.4. However, I always see 3.7-3.8 in Logic unless I'm above 90% total CPU load per Activity Monitor. So while my previous SWAG that the Xeon/desktop "thing" might be due to AVX-512 compiler weirdness is not disproven yet, it seems more likely that the lower clocks relative to all-core turbo on the 2019 Mac Pros are probably *not* due to extensive use of AVX-512.


----------



## Dewdman42

My opinion at the moment is that Xeon is throttling down the clock speed as more cores are utilized more. This is probably due to the fact that more power is needed when more cores are hitting higher levels of utilization. Also more heat produced. In any case, super cpu intensive plugins would start to suffer if and when the clock speed goes down. 

Having more cores is only helpful when you can spread the work load out to many threads, but a heavy plugin is heavy on one thread and needs the clock speed to keep up.

So basically when you have a few tracks going, fine...clock speed is fine, but as you add tracks, which adds threads, and multi-core utilization starts to increase...then the clock speed starts to drop and eventually a heavy cpu plugin like Diva will start to crap out.. whereas other plugins that are not as intensive on the CPU can still make it through and allow more and more threads to be created, utilizing more and more cores.

The i7 and i9 appear to not be throttling down the clock speed, rather the opposite...they start from a low idle clock speed and throttle it up as load increases.


----------



## khollister

Dewdman42 said:


> My opinion at the moment is that Xeon is throttling down the clock speed as more cores are utilized more. This is probably due to the fact that more power is needed when more cores are hitting higher levels of utilization. Also more heat produced. In any case, super cpu intensive plugins would start to suffer if and when the clock speed goes down. Having more cores is only helpful when you can spread the work load out to many threads, but a heavy plugin is heavy on one thread and needs the clock speed.
> 
> So basically when you have a few tracks going, fine...clock speed is fine, but as you add tracks, which adds threads, and multi-core utilization starts to increase...then the clock speed starts to drop and eventually a heavy cpu plugin like Diva will start to crap out.. whereas other plugins that are not as intensive on the CPU can still make it through and allow more and more threads to be created, utilizing more and more cores.
> 
> The i7 and i9 appear to not be throttling down the clock speed, rather the opposite...they start from a low idle clock speed and throttle it up as load increases.



The iMP and MP appears to behave as if Apple disabled the C-state/SpeedStep stuff in the EFI and the clock speed is managed by the OS to presumably hit some desired power target. It does not appear to be driven by actual temperature. The question is why Apple seems to be so conservative given the thermal capacity of the 2019 MP. 

The laptops behave like all the Intel speed-fiddling is turned on. The clock is low under light load to keep temps down and preserve battery and only ramps up as the load increases and more horsepower is required. It also seems to be actually using the temp as well, unlike the Xeon machines.

The real news though is that plugins like Diva behave radically different on Skylake/Cadylake Xeons than on all of the i7/i9 desktop parts, regardless of clock speed differences.


----------



## Dewdman42

khollister said:


> The iMP and MP appears to behave as if Apple disabled the C-state/SpeedStep stuff in the EFI and the clock speed is managed by the OS to presumably hit some desired power target. It does not appear to be driven by actual temperature. The question is why Apple seems to be so conservative given the thermal capacity of the 2019 MP.



(shrug). OSX or in the motherboard...no idea.. matters not to me..that is internal Apple decision making. but it may be necessary because more cores being used closer and closer to 100% means more power draw and it may not have enough power to drive all 16 cores full tilt, so to speak without lowering the clock speed as you approach that.

Temps are a result of more power being used. The nMP has better temperature control then most laptops to be sure so it should be able to handle higher temps, but power is also a factor. if the machine starts to use more and more power, not only will the temps go up, but at some point the power-starved cores will start to produce errors. 



> The laptops behave like all the Intel speed-fiddling is turned on. The clock is low under light load to keep temps down and preserve battery and only ramps up as the load increases and more horsepower is required. It also seems to be actually using the temp as well, unlike the Xeon machines.



I agree. But its not necessarily just laptops. This is probably also a factor of the i7/i9 architecture with typically less number of cores.


----------



## Virtuoso

Interesting...









Macs May Be Getting 'Pro Mode' Option to Boost Performance, According to macOS Catalina Beta


Apple's Macs could soon have the option for a "Pro Mode" that boosts performance according to data found in the macOS Catalina 10.15.3 beta. Released in December, the beta contains code discovered by 9to5Mac that references an optional Pro Mode that appears to override fan speed limits and...




forums.macrumors.com





Apple's Macs could soon have the option for a "Pro Mode" that boosts performance according to data found in the macOS Catalina 10.15.3 beta.

Released in December, the beta contains code discovered by _9to5Mac_ that references an optional Pro Mode that appears to override fan speed limits and energy saving restrictions to improve performance. Code in the beta says "Apps may run faster, but battery life may decrease and fan noise may increase" when Pro Mode is turned on.

As with Do Not Disturb, Pro Mode is a temporary option that is set to turn off the next day after being enabled, likely to make sure Macs are running in optimal conditions.

The code found in the beta seems to suggest Pro Mode is coming to the 16-inch MacBook Pro, but _MacRumors_ has also received an anonymous tip suggesting the Mac Pro will also get a Pro Mode option that will override maximum fan speed software limits for improved thermal performance.

More information on Pro Mode should be available when macOS Catalina 10.15.3 sees a release, provided this is the update where it will be introduced.


----------



## Virtuoso

I put a Highpoint 7101A RAID card in today with 3x 2TB SSDs (saving for a 4th!). The read/write speeds are great, but bear in mind this is mainly for video where large sequential files are more common. It might not work as well for sample libraries where 4k speeds are more important.


----------



## Technostica

Dewdman42 said:


> Temps are a result of more power being used. The nMP has better temperature control then most laptops to be sure so it should be able to handle higher temps, but power is also a factor. if the machine starts to use more and more power, not only will the temps go up, but at some point the *power-starved cores will start to produce errors*.


That’s not going to happen as it would imply a serious design flaw that we would know about by now as there are billions of Intel CPUs that use on chip performance management.
The CPU monitors itself very frequently and adjusts clock speed and voltages primarily, based on measurements of thermals, power usage, demand etc.
The chips are carefully calibrated to work within certain parameters so what you suggest is very fanciful.


----------



## Dewdman42

Exactly. 

I wasn't meaning to imply that MacPros are going to produce errors, I was speaking hypothetically about what _WOULD_ happen if CPU clock speed management was not in place to throttle down the CPU clock speed under load.

That is why, by design the macpros have to slow down the clock speed as core utilization goes up. It is that way by design to prevent errors as well as overheating. It is a physical constraint of the hardware that 16 cores can’t run full tilt.

unfortunately that it’s also one reason why this architecture is not great for digital audio.

If you are questioning my assertion that CPUs can produce errors when starved of power, then do a little research about overclocking. That is exactly what happens. The system is calibrated to run within limits where that won’t happen. When you push the system it will happen. It will either overheat from all the power use or crash from not enough power. If the macpro did not throttle the cpu clock speed down while increasing core utilization it could cause one or the other to happen.

And this throttling down has already been measured and observed by Xeon-w users


----------



## jarjarbinks

Dewdman42 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I wasn't meaning to imply that MacPros are going to produce errors, I was speaking hypothetically about what _WOULD_ happen if CPU clock speed management was not in place to throttle down the CPU clock speed under load.
> 
> That is why, by design the macpros have to slow down the clock speed as core utilization goes up. It is that way by design to prevent errors as well as overheating. It is a physical constraint of the hardware that 16 cores can’t run full tilt.
> 
> unfortunately that it’s also one reason why this architecture is not great for digital audio.
> 
> If you are questioning my assertion that CPUs can produce errors when starved of power, then do a little research about overclocking. That is exactly what happens. The system is calibrated to run within limits where that won’t happen. When you push the system it will happen. It will either overheat from all the power use or crash from not enough power. If the macpro did not throttle the cpu clock speed down while increasing core utilization it could cause one or the other to happen.
> 
> And this throttling down has already been measured and observed by Xeon-w users



So, could something be done to fix this on Apple's part? Or are us Mac Pro owners screwed?


----------



## Dewdman42

Well they just announced a so called power user mode that they may be bringing into catalina, which allegedly will run the fans at high speed for 24 hours before it automatically resets back to the previous behavior. No idea how that will effect the new MacPros, we shall see.

I think this is fundamentally a hardware constraint, its not simply something that can be fixed. In the overclocking community many people complain that machines with large core counts do not overclock well. What that means is that the clock speed on 12 or 16 or 28 core machines simply cannot run as fast as machines with less cores. And I believe the primary reason is related to power draw. But power draw and heat are interlinked with each other. Its the power that creates the heat. When you overlock you have to find the happy balance between turning up the voltage to give your CPU, memory and motherboard enough power to run at a higher clock speed, but that in turn creates more heat. At some point you are either not giving it enough power for the desired clock speed, and the system crashes, or if you ramp up the voltage...presuming your power supply can handle it...and then you start to get a lot more heat. 

So overclockers play around with that to try to go beyond the safe limitations imposed by the the default settings from Intel mainly. Intel knows with reasonable certainty that if the cpu operates within certain limits, it will not crash and will not run too hot...so systems are shipped and spec'd with fairly conservative values. Overclockers try to push that limit by improving cooling in their system in order to push more power into it, and raise the clock speed without problems. They have to test their system until they find a setting that doesn't crash and doesn't run the fans too much or whatever...and then they can enjoy a faster-then-stock computer.

Overclocking is not available on macs. I'm only mentioning that for some perspective about why Turbo mode even exists at all on a mac. They are attempting to provide a system that will attempt to find a safe happy medium between power and heat and no chance the cpu will crash due to errors. Turbo mode provides a little more leeway by dynamically changing the clock speed according to the load, hopefully pushing that safe zone a little higher in general.

The i7/i9 have less cores..and are often used in Laptops where thermal problems come up more often. So they start with slow cpu speed when idle and only increase the clock speed under load (along with fans and power pushing into it. 

The MacPro is using a different CPU architecture, Xeon, which has many more cores...and now apparently the behavior is to run it at ideal clock frequency when idle, but to rather slow down the clocks as more cores are utilized in parallel more, so that it will not be starved of power or overheat. Its kind of the opposite turbo behavior compared to the i7/i9's, same general overall goal, to try to optimize what they system can do without blowing up.

Perhaps this new power user mode that will be coming out for Catalina will be able to minimize how much the CPU's throttle down under load, or perhaps the base frequency will be raised in some way, as overclockers do manually on PC's, perhaps not. It will undoubtedly be much more conservative then what overclockers typically do because it has to run absolutely without crashing...and without the temp raising too high...even if the fans are blaring the whole time.

We shall see, but I don't expect to see that much of an improvement honestly because a lot of overclockers complain that big core counts are simply difficult to run at full clock speed...all the cores consume a lot of power and generate a lot of heat.


----------



## Greg

I had a bad stick of ram which didn't let the mac pro boot up and made the fans run at full speed. Loud as hell but holy shit can they move a ton of air. Hoping pro mode takes maximum advantage of that


----------



## Technostica

Dewdman42 said:


> Exactly.
> I wasn't meaning to imply that MacPros are going to produce errors, I was speaking hypothetically about what _WOULD_ happen if CPU clock speed management was not in place to throttle down the CPU clock speed under load.
> 
> That is why, by design the macpros have to slow down the clock speed as core utilization goes up. It is that way by design to prevent errors as well as overheating. It is a physical constraint of the hardware that 16 cores can’t run full tilt.
> 
> unfortunately that it’s also one reason why this architecture is not great for digital audio.
> 
> If you are questioning my assertion that CPUs can produce errors when starved of power, then do a little research about overclocking. That is exactly what happens. The system is calibrated to run within limits where that won’t happen. When you push the system it will happen. It will either overheat from all the power use or crash from not enough power. If the macpro did not throttle the cpu clock speed down while increasing core utilization it could cause one or the other to happen.
> 
> And this throttling down has already been measured and observed by Xeon-w users


Ah, you were talking about over-clocking without clarifying that which is why I was scratching my head.
You seem to be over thinking it, what with over-clocking and the theoretical disabling of the CPU’s own management system!
Either the system doesn’t have the cooling muscle to allow the CPU to hit its various maximum Turbo speeds, or it does but is not allowed to utilise it fully due to noise levels being prioritised.


----------



## Dewdman42

I was trying to respond to the comments from others about why its not ONLY about temperature. Try to keep up.


----------



## Technostica

Dewdman42 said:


> I was trying to respond to the comments from others about why its not ONLY about temperature. Try to keep up.


The Mac Pro is not overclocked, so unless you think the system is unable to supply the correct voltage/amps to the CPU, highly unlikely, the only reason for it to not hit the maximum turbo speeds is down to inadequate cooling or Apple not allowing it for other reasons.
What's that got to do with overclocking?  

The max all core turbo on the 28 core will be around 3.8GHz so has anyone confirmed this?


----------



## Dewdman42

Please go back and read my posts more carefully before responding carelessly. I never said they are overclocked. Read more carefully. Learn something!

The Xeon-W appears to turn the clock speed DOWN as core utilization is increased. the discussion about overclocking is only to shed some light on why, which you appear to still not understand, so go read it all again.

cheers


----------



## Technostica

Dewdman42 said:


> The Xeon-W appears to turn the clock speed DOWN as core utilization is increased.


Pretty much ALL Intel CPUs these days have different maximum turbo boost speeds based on the number of core loaded; those with more cores will see a bigger gap between the turbo boost speeds
THIS IS NORMAL BEHAVIOUR; nothing new to see here.

Do you actually know the rated all core speed for the 28C chip?
It has a base of 2.5 and max turbo is maybe 3.8.
Has it been reported that it can't hit 3.8 with an all core load?
That would be an actual fact for a change.


----------



## Dewdman42

you are still not understanding

i7/i9 starts from a low cpu speed when the computer is idle and ramps up the CPU clock speed on an as-need basis.

Xeon-W does the opposite. It starts at the highest clock speed its going to ever get to and as more cores are utilitized under load it turns the clock speed down.

This has been observed through independent testing. Xeon-W does NOT accelerate to maximum core speed when all cores are being utilized, it does exactly the opposite...

The reason is explained above in my verbose explanation about overclocking which you didn't read carefully.


----------



## D Halgren

Dewdman42 said:


> you are still not understanding
> 
> i7/i9 starts from a low cpu speed when the computer is idle and ramps up the CPU clock speed on an as-need basis.
> 
> Xeon-W does the opposite. It starts at the highest clock speed its going to ever get to and as more cores are utilitized under load it turns the clock speed down.
> 
> This has been observed through independent testing. Xeon-W does NOT accelerate to maximum core speed when all cores are being utilized, it does exactly the opposite...
> 
> The reason is explained above in my verbose explanation about overclocking which you didn't read carefully.


That's not what my iMac Pro does. It is at low clock speeds when idle and ramps up with load. It's just the base 8 core. I've seen it go down to 1.8ish GHz, when nothing is happening, to 4 GHz under load. For what it's worth...


----------



## Technostica

Dewdman42 said:


> you are still not understanding
> i7/i9 starts from a low cpu speed when the computer is idle and ramps up the CPU clock speed on an as-need basis.
> Xeon-W does the opposite. It starts at the highest clock speed its going to ever get to and as more cores are utilitized under load it turns the clock speed down.
> This has been observed through independent testing. Xeon-W does NOT accelerate to maximum core speed when all cores are being utilized, it does exactly the opposite...
> The reason is explained above in my verbose explanation about overclocking which you didn't read carefully.


I read that and you can do something similar or possibly the same in Windows by changing the power settings.
It's not ideal and has some potential downsides I think but I do it sometimes if the usual clock speed changes lead to audible glitches in my DAW which can happen. Then I set the clock speed to the maximum which disables any down clocking; my cooling can handle it.

That's just a configuration option and in itself has no bearing on the maximum rated turbo boost speeds.
This is not exactly esoteric stuff.
I'd still like to know what all core boost speeds people are getting with the 28C chip. Anybody?


----------



## Dewdman42

D Halgren said:


> That's not what my iMac Pro does. It is at low clock speeds when idle and ramps up with load. It's just the base 8 core. I've seen it go down to 1.8ish GHz, when nothing is happening, to 4 GHz under load. For what it's worth...



someone else reported to me their clocks slowing down. let's see a detailed report! I'm not opposed to calling the other person wrong, but I have heard this report from more then one place too. does it not slow down when the core usage comes up? I could also accept an explanation that it idles slow, ramps up with some cpu use, but then backs off as core usage goes up... which is still part of the fundamental problem.


----------



## Dewdman42

Technostica said:


> I read that and you can do something similar or possibly the same in Windows by changing the power settings.
> It's not ideal and has some potential downsides I think but I do it sometimes if the usual clock speed changes lead to audible glitches in my DAW which can happen. Then I set the clock speed to the maximum which disables any down clocking; my cooling can handle it.



Reports are in that the nMP running windows on bootcamp is able to crunch higher scores in benchkmark testing then the same machine booted into OSX. So its certainly possible that some power related settings are allowing the CPU's run hotter.

Perhaps the power user mode that Catlina is going to release soon will be something similar along those lines, we shall see.


----------



## D Halgren

Dewdman42 said:


> someone else reported to me their clocks slowing down. let's see a detailed report! I'm not opposed to calling the other person wrong, but I have heard this report from more then one place too. does it not slow down when the core usage comes up? I coold also accept an explanation that it idles slow, ramps up with some cpu use, but then backs off as core usage goes up... which is still part of the fundamental problem.


I'll do some testing and get back to you.


----------



## Dewdman42

I will PM you about that, I have a JUCE plugin I made to help with testing that, its not ready for public release though, but will send it to you.


----------



## Technostica

Dewdman42 said:


> someone else reported to me their clocks slowing down. let's see a detailed report! I'm not opposed to calling the other person wrong, but I have heard this report from more then one place too. does it not slow down when the core usage comes up? I coold also accept an explanation that it idles slow, ramps up with some cpu use, but then backs off as core usage goes up... which is still part of the fundamental problem.


I didn't suggest they are wrong as I can configure my PC to do something similar as I already stated.
It's quite a common thing for DAW users to do as it can reduce the chance of audible glitches due to latency issues as the clock speed jumps around.

Did they say what the maximum speed they noticed?


----------



## D Halgren

Dewdman42 said:


> I will PM you about that, I have a JUCE plugin I made to help with testing that, its not ready for public release though, but will send it to you.


I was just going to do the old track duplication + heavy effects load trick, but I could check out your plug.


----------



## Technostica

The cooling looks interesting based on this video and this 12C Xeon does appear to keep the clock speed high:


Note: The clock speeds may well be whilst bench-marking and not at idle; my bad.


----------



## Dewdman42

D Halgren said:


> I was just going to do the old track duplication + heavy effects load trick, but I could check out your plug.



People have been having problems with Diva which is notoriously high CPU, but some unknowns about why Diva is a problem and much speculation about different things which nobody really knows. I just thought it would be useful to have a consistent plugin that produces CPU load in a predictable way we can all use to compare. The final version will be free for everyone when its done, and will aim to provide a consistent way to measure different systems and DAW's against each other...over time it may improve as people contribute ideas about how it should be pushing DAW's differently. Right now its just spinning the CPU, but I am adding features to emulate memory use more and other things...


----------



## khollister

Over on one of the 2019 MP threads at GS, Urs from U-he just posted he took delivery of a 16 core MP last week and has been chasing the Diva performance issue noted on the recent Xeon-based Macs. He found the problem and has a RC build on KVR - final release (1.4.4) should be in the next week or 2 according to Urs.

Someone tried the RC - reported something like 25 instances versus 5 with the current release version!


----------



## khollister

Just reran the original Diva test from GS - here is my post over there:

iMac Pro 10 core, Apollo X6

Running the original "Diva vs Bootcamp" project TNM uploaded when this all started. Using the 1.4.4 RC from KVR.

Original test with Diva 1.4.3 - 6 tracks

With RC 1.4.4 - *30 tracks!!* with multicore=OFF and quality=great












Urs fixed the hell out of this!!

BTW, my clock varies a bit between 3.76-3.86 as this runs. Sitting at about 4.12 before I hit play

Going to turn multicore on just to see what happens now

UPDATE: Catalina (10.15.2) and Logic 10.4.8


----------



## grantfloering

@BenHicks great tests, I've had mine for a few months and it's been incredibly solid with Logic, Pro Tools and Ableton 10. This week I decided to upgrade to Cubase Pro 10.5 to build a larger, more efficient orchestral template and I'm running into some sort of weird glitch with tempo ramps and Kontakt instruments specifically. 

Have you run any tests with tempo changes using Kontakt patches (both orchestral and synths) with and without tempo-synced articulations? If I set the buffer to around 1024 or 2048 I still get some really bizarre CPU spikes and audio dropouts. Kinda scary after the beast of a machine I've witnessed firsthand. I didn't think I could crack it. 

Have you experimented with adjusting the Kontakt core settings manually? Or do you keep them off and let the Cubase split the load across the cores?

SPECS:
MacPro 2019
3.2 16 Core
96 GB ram
AMD Radeon Pro 580x (baseline)

Sample Libraries on external Samsung EVO SSD via Thunderbolt 3.0

RME Fireface UFX II as the audio interface.


----------



## stigc56

Turn off sync in Kontakt. Don’t use ramp in tempo changes.


----------



## sculpture

grantfloering said:


> @BenHicks great tests, I've had mine for a few months and it's been incredibly solid with Logic, Pro Tools and Ableton 10. This week I decided to upgrade to Cubase Pro 10.5 to build a larger, more efficient orchestral template and I'm running into some sort of weird glitch with tempo ramps and Kontakt instruments specifically.
> 
> Have you run any tests with tempo changes using Kontakt patches (both orchestral and synths) with and without tempo-synced articulations? If I set the buffer to around 1024 or 2048 I still get some really bizarre CPU spikes and audio dropouts. Kinda scary after the beast of a machine I've witnessed firsthand. I didn't think I could crack it.
> 
> Have you experimented with adjusting the Kontakt core settings manually? Or do you keep them off and let the Cubase split the load across the cores?
> 
> SPECS:
> MacPro 2019
> 3.2 16 Core
> 96 GB ram
> AMD Radeon Pro 580x (baseline)
> 
> Sample Libraries on external Samsung EVO SSD via Thunderbolt 3.0
> 
> RME Fireface UFX II as the audio interface.



I have pretty much the same setup as you and have also been disappointed by the performance on Cubase. Would you say that Logic is more efficient or does there seem to be something wrong with Cubase specifically?


----------



## grantfloering

sculpture said:


> I have pretty much the same setup as you and have also been disappointed by the performance on Cubase. Would you say that Logic is more efficient or does there seem to be something wrong with Cubase specifically?



Honestly, I'm not sure because I have seen Cubase templates with worse computer specs running more. efficiently. For example Daniel James (of hybrid two). He's running an old trashcan mac with fewer processors, lower processor speed, and a little less ram with Cubase 10.5, but I think he's on macOS Mojave? If that is so, and Catalina is the culprit when it comes to communicating correctly between an OS and DAW's, we'll just have to wait it out I guess. Perhaps Cubase 11? 

Logic X is really good, but I just can't get around the setup and _feel _of that DAW. Cubase seems like the logical choice for organization, MIDI editing, programming, large templates, etc. 

It's really a bummer that the new Mac Pro 2019's can't be downgraded to Mojave, I have a feeling that would solve a ton of issues. But alas, this is truly one of THE most frustrating aspects of this industry. Upgrades, downgrades, compatibility issues and BAM the issue is fixed with perfect synchrony; but only for a couple of months before some hidden auto-update happens overnight and throws the whole system into chaos. SMH.


----------



## Symfoniq

Cubase 10.5 feels dog-slow on my Mac Pro 7,1 with Catalina, especially compared to my Windows 10 PC. Logic is snappy and quick.

As the Diva update shows, there's a lot to be said for optimizing software for new hardware and operating systems. I suspect there are performance gains to be had with Cubase on Catalina if Steinberg puts in the man hours.


----------



## colony nofi

stigc56 said:


> Turn off sync in Kontakt. Don’t use ramp in tempo changes.


YES! I've written on this many times... it is super important to take this into account. Tempo ramps while using tempo sync will bring powerful systems to their knees. I've learnt to write VERY intricate steps into the tempo track... because I use instruments who need tempo sync in Kontakt. Its frustrating beyond belief.


----------



## grantfloering

I’m thinking about picking up some OWC Accelsior 4M2 PCIE SSD’s to put in my Mac Pro to run my sample libraries. Has anyone seen or heard of these yet? Anyone know how in the world 6,200mb read/write speeds are possible?


----------



## Virtuoso

grantfloering said:


> I’m thinking about picking up some OWC Accelsior 4M2 PCIE SSD’s to put in my Mac Pro to run my sample libraries. Has anyone seen or heard of these yet? Anyone know how in the world 6,200mb read/write speeds are possible?


It's a RAID, so the data is striped across 4 drives. M.2 SSDs can do around 3GB/s individually, but the performance doesn't scale proportionately, and if you are on an older Mac Pro, the PCIe 2.0 bus will be a limiting factor on your maximum speed. I get 9GB/s from the RAID in my 2019 Mac Pro, which is PCIe 3.0.

RAID is not necessarily the best choice for sample libraries though. They are great for sustained transfers of huge files, which is why they are ideal for video work, but sample libraries are the opposite of that. You need very quick access to thousands of relatively tiny files. You may find it's faster to run the 4 drives individually instead - the latency will be much lower.


----------



## charlieclouser

grantfloering said:


> I’m thinking about picking up some OWC Accelsior 4M2 PCIE SSD’s to put in my Mac Pro to run my sample libraries. Has anyone seen or heard of these yet? Anyone know how in the world 6,200mb read/write speeds are possible?



Those speeds are for RAID 0 configurations.

A friend has just set up a fully-bricked-out 28-core rack mount Mac Pro, and he did a ton of research on the various PCIe cards that could hold NVME SSD sticks. Although I like the OWC card because it has no fan, and also because OWC is a Mac-centric company so you wouldn't be using a card designed for Windows machines that may be flaky on Mac, apparently it's the slowest of the three contenders:

- OWC Accelsior = slowest.

- Sonnet = middle of the pack in speed, was on major backorder, but is now shipping.

- Amfeltec Squid = fastest, can hold SIX sticks instead of four like the others, and utilizes the PCIe lanes in manner that is somehow faster, although I'm not sure if that speed boost only takes effect when using RAID 0 configurations, or if it offers some advantages when using the six slots as independent volumes. Also the Squid card has two fans which can be loud as it's designed for use in server racks, and since Amfeltec doesn't cater to the retail market, it's a little hard to find and involves emailing or faxing a purchase order to the company and paying by wire transfer or some such. But the card arrived and works great according to my friend. He sent me the following screenshot of BlackMagic's speed test app running on the Squid loaded with Samsung 970 Pro 2tb SSDs in RAID 0:


----------



## Virtuoso

There is a fourth card, which is the one I'm using - the Highpoint 7101-A. The current model has fan speed control to minimise noise - you can even switch it off.

Here's a benchmark I ran when I first got it. This was using APFS encrypted. I later changed to HFS+ and got slightly better results of around 9GB/s.


----------



## charlieclouser

Virtuoso said:


> There is a fourth card, which is the one I'm using - the Highpoint 7101-A. The current model has fan speed control to minimise noise - you can even switch it off.
> 
> Here's a benchmark I ran when I first got it. This was using APFS encrypted. I later changed to HFS+ and got slightly better results of around 9GB/s.



Very nice. Good to see that the Highpoint card has fan control. One thing that makes the Squid attractive is the six slots as opposed to four - but that is less of an issue when 4tb sticks are available. Samsung doesn't seem to have 4tb sticks yet but OWC and some other do, so I'd imagine that Samsung won't be far behind. 

My buddy is doing the Neil Parfitt thing with everything in one box, so he has his Mac Pro loaded with HDX3 for ProTools as well as RME and UAD cards for the native side (Logic), and wanted to squeeze as many sticks into as few slots as he could, so the Squid won that battle - for now.


----------



## Virtuoso

There's a good thread on MacRumors about the minefields of PCIe SSDs. It's worth doing your homework before jumping in as there are many gotchas!

For example, the Sonnet card apparently doesn't support double-sided SSDs, so you need to choose your drives carefully. The Samsung 970s run pretty hot and will thermally throttle unless well cooled. Some Sabrent SSDs may need to be reflashed (in Windows) to change the default sector size. With many of the less expensive non-'Pro' drives, performance can also drop drastically over long transfers when the onboard cache is used up. There are four main types of technology used - SLC, MLC, TLC and QLC, each with pros and cons - price/lifespan/speed. Lifespan in particular varies hugely from the expensive SLC drives to the cheap QLC drives (where each cell can be written/erased 90,000 times vs just 1,000).


----------



## charlieclouser

Virtuoso said:


> There's a good thread on MacRumors about the minefields of PCIe SSDs. It's worth doing your homework before jumping in as there are many gotchas!
> 
> For example, the Sonnet card apparently doesn't support double-sided SSDs, so you need to choose your drives carefully. The Samsung 970s run pretty hot and will thermally throttle unless well cooled. Some Sabrent SSDs may need to be reflashed (in Windows) to change the default sector size. With many of the less expensive non-'Pro' drives, performance can also drop drastically over long transfers when the onboard cache is used up. There are four main types of technology used - SLC, MLC, TLC and QLC, each with pros and cons - price/lifespan/speed. Lifespan in particular varies hugely from the expensive SLC drives to the cheap QLC drives (where each cell can be written/erased 90,000 times vs just 1,000).



Thanks for the link to the MacRumors thread - that will come in handy when I finally make the switch. Still waiting for the smoke to clear a little in the PCIe / blade arena, and for 4tb 970 Pro blades to appear.


----------



## grantfloering

Virtuoso said:


> RAID is not necessarily the best choice for sample libraries though. They are great for sustained transfers of huge files, which is why they are ideal for video work, but sample libraries are the opposite of that. You need very quick access to thousands of relatively tiny files. You may find it's faster to run the 4 drives individually instead - the latency will be much lower.


Hmmm, yeah I remember hearing about that years ago. But if I’m loading all my sample libraries into ram, does the raid setup matter? I figured the faster speeds might help with load times of individual instruments and articulations into ram? No DFD.


----------



## Virtuoso

charlieclouser said:


> Still waiting for the smoke to clear a little in the PCIe / blade arena, and for 4tb 970 Pro blades to appear.


Samsung are about to release their next gen drives which will be roughly double the speed of the 970s (~6GB/s). They will be PCIe 4.0 though so, although they will still work on a 2019 Mac Pro, it will be at PCIe 3.0 speeds.

Sabrent have had https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07ZQSDQDB (4TB drives) out for a few months, but the price has really gone up. They were $599 last year but now they're $850!


----------



## Bendico

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Or wait. It might have been my 2009 5,1 12 x 3.46GHz Mac Pro.
> 
> Sorry about the error!


Very informative, thanks for sharing...


----------



## grantfloering

I suppose I'm curious about the absolute best case solution for loading samples into RAM without using VEP or slave machines with everything pre-loaded. I do have VEP, but I find it tedious to continually update templates while keeping everything in sync. And with the MacPro 2019 power I assume, there are alternative solutions. 

Is it safe, reliable, and faster to install a PCIe or blade SSD into my MacPro 2019 to store all of my libraries? Because I don't have any interest in streaming DFD, rather I want to open up large sessions with Kontakt instances enabled and have the sample libraries (up to 70-90gbs) loaded into ram faster. 

Currently with my external Samsung 2.5" 860 SSD docked in the USB-C OWC toaster, sessions take about 6-8 minutes to load everything up. Granted, they are very large sessions. And when I disable all of the instances of Kontakt the session loads in about 10 seconds.


----------



## Dewdman42

I have tried some raid solutions and I have been unable to get projects to load any faster. But there are some people on here that claim they have installed thousands of dollars worth of hardware and made their load times turn into much less..so do a search and see what others have done.


----------



## Brobdingnagian

@Virtuoso Checking in on this thread to ask how has your experience been with the High Point product over the course of the last year?

I ended up going the Accelsior route on one remote writing rig, out of ease and various Covid-related logistics. Currently, looking to upgrade all four rigs here Mac/slave PC's and looking at High Point and/or the Amfeltec Squid options, rather than the Accelsior. I only get to about 5K speeds on the Blackmagic test, compared to your blistering results.

Any further thoughts and opines appreciated. 

Paging Doctor @charlieclouser for any recent thoughts as well.

Many Thanks,
-B


----------



## charlieclouser

Brobdingnagian said:


> Paging Doctor @charlieclouser for any recent thoughts as well.


I'm still lumbering along with my Mac Pro cylinders running Mojave, being too afraid to break my 1,200 plugins that are finally all working! I haven't taken the plunge for the new rack-mount Mac Pro yet because if Apple stays true to their estimate of transitioning their entire product line over to Apple Silicon within two years then I'll be glad I waited.

I have zero need for PCIe slots, except maybe to run an NVME farm, but I still kind of prefer external drives if the speed is there. Since WWDC is in a few days I'll see if there's any news about a "next" Mac Pro or Mac Pro Mini or whatever.

That said, all three of the people I know who are running 16-core Mac Pros are loving life.


----------



## Wunderhorn

charlieclouser said:


> I'm still lumbering along with my Mac Pro cylinders running Mojave, being too afraid to break my 1,200 plugins that are finally all working! I haven't taken the plunge for the new rack-mount Mac Pro yet because if Apple stays true to their estimate of transitioning their entire product line over to Apple Silicon within two years then I'll be glad I waited.
> 
> I have zero need for PCIe slots, except maybe to run an NVME farm, but I still kind of prefer external drives if the speed is there. Since WWDC is in a few days I'll see if there's any news about a "next" Mac Pro or Mac Pro Mini or whatever.
> 
> That said, all three of the people I know who are running 16-core Mac Pros are loving life.


Regarding hardware you can count me in with those 16-core people who are happy with that solution.
To me it was a blessing to turn all the external drive nonsense into an internal solution.
I use the highpoint in one of my machines, but TBH you don't need RAID or any expensive carrier card at all if you have a decent NVMe blade. You can go with the super cheap carrier cards, the difference is neglectable if you are not a benchmark-byte-pincher. Kontakt can't load things that fast anyway because of the decompression it needs to do.

Anyway, having no drop-outs and accidental disconnections or bumping against drive enclosures or the mounting-unmounting dance etc. is worth a lot and even if it is not factually true, it 'feels' faster and more stable to have the data take the shortest route - with no cable but just through PCIe.


----------



## Brobdingnagian

charlieclouser said:


> I'm still lumbering along with my Mac Pro cylinders running Mojave, being too afraid to break my 1,200 plugins that are finally all working! I haven't taken the plunge for the new rack-mount Mac Pro yet because if Apple stays true to their estimate of transitioning their entire product line over to Apple Silicon within two years then I'll be glad I waited.
> 
> I have zero need for PCIe slots, except maybe to run an NVME farm, but I still kind of prefer external drives if the speed is there. Since WWDC is in a few days I'll see if there's any news about a "next" Mac Pro or Mac Pro Mini or whatever.
> 
> That said, all three of the people I know who are running 16-core Mac Pros are loving life.


Make it four people (we have met, although very briefly)! Loving things here as well on a 16 core/384GB system. More importantly, thank you so much for your response, @charlieclouser and for your always incredibly valuable and generous posts. And you too, @Wunderhorn !


----------



## Virtuoso

Brobdingnagian said:


> @Virtuoso Checking in on this thread to ask how has your experience been with the High Point product over the course of the last year?
> 
> I ended up going the Accelsior route on one remote writing rig, out of ease and various Covid-related logistics. Currently, looking to upgrade all four rigs here Mac/slave PC's and looking at High Point and/or the Amfeltec Squid options, rather than the Accelsior. I only get to about 5K speeds on the Blackmagic test, compared to your blistering results.


I've had no issues with the HighPoint 7101-A which continues to give great speeds around 9GB/s with 4x 2TB drives. I also bought their SSD7140, which takes 8x M.2 drives. They claim speeds of >14GB/s, but with 8x 2TB drives in a RAID0, I could only get around 4GB/s from it for some reason so I returned it. I replaced it with the 7204 which, in theory, is a fanless version of the 7101, but again I only got mediocre speeds of 4GB/s and that card too was returned. I have no idea why the 7101-A is so much faster than the newer models.



Wunderhorn said:


> I use the highpoint in one of my machines, but TBH you don't need RAID or any expensive carrier card at all if you have a decent NVMe blade. You can go with the super cheap carrier cards, the difference is neglectable if you are not a benchmark-byte-pincher.


True if you're only talking about 1 drive, but if you need extra capacity or want to make the best use of your available slots, the RAID cards are the way to go. They take 4-8 drives for capacity of up to 32GB per card. Asus sell a cheap 4x M.2 card, but it relies on motherboard PCIe port bifurcation which most boards, including the Mac Pro, don't support.


----------



## Brobdingnagian

Virtuoso said:


> I've had no issues with the HighPoint 7101-A which continues to give great speeds around 9GB/s with 4x 2TB drives. I also bought their SSD7140, which takes 8x M.2 drives. They claim speeds of >14GB/s, but with 8x 2TB drives in a RAID0, I could only get around 4GB/s from it for some reason so I returned it. I replaced it with the 7204 which, in theory, is a fanless version of the 7101, but again I only got mediocre speeds of 4GB/s and that card too was returned. I have no idea why the 7101-A is so much faster than the newer models.
> 
> 
> True if you're only talking about 1 drive, but if you need extra capacity or want to make the best use of your available slots, the RAID cards are the way to go. They take 4-8 drives for capacity of up to 32GB per card. Asus sell a cheap 4x M.2 card, but it relies on motherboard PCIe port bifurcation which most boards, including the Mac Pro, don't support.


Thank you so much for the update and info regarding the newer cards, @Virtuoso !

I am both sorry for your ordeal and disappointed to hear of the lacklustre performance of the newer cards...


----------



## marclawsonmusic

charlieclouser said:


> I have zero need for PCIe slots, except maybe to run an NVME farm, but I still kind of prefer external drives if the speed is there. *Since WWDC is in a few days I'll see if there's any news about a "next" Mac Pro* or Mac Pro Mini or whatever.


I didn't want to hijack your other thread, Charlie, but I was curious why you decided to jump on the 2019 Mac Pro now?

I heard there is going to be a new Mac Pro in 2022, but maybe that timing doesn't work for you. I was just curious if you had other reasons... I'm trying to decide whether to wait myself.


----------



## charlieclouser

marclawsonmusic said:


> I didn't want to hijack your other thread, Charlie, but I was curious why you decided to jump on the 2019 Mac Pro now?
> 
> I heard there is going to be a new Mac Pro in 2022, but maybe that timing doesn't work for you. I was just curious if you had other reasons... I'm trying to decide whether to wait myself.


While my current system on a 2013 Mac Pro 6,1 cylinder under Mojave is working fine, I would love the big CPU power, fast PCIe + NVME storage, and advanced video cards of a 28-core Mac Pro. Any future Apple Silicon "Mac Pro M" will probably not support ReWire in any MacOS configuration, and it will want a more recent version of Live. Since the current version of Live (v11) does not support ReWire, it will undoubtedly be either impossible or impossibly fiddly to get Logic + Live v10 + ReWire installed and working correctly on an Apple Silicon machine. 

Maybe it would work, but big chunks of stuff would be running in Rosetta mode, so perhaps not a great choice moving forward.

Although I'm curious if anyone's gone there and gotten Logic + Live v10 + ReWire going on Apple Silicon.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

charlieclouser said:


> While my current system on a 2013 Mac Pro 6,1 cylinder under Mojave is working fine, I would love the big CPU power, fast PCIe + NVME storage, and advanced video cards of a 28-core Mac Pro. Any future Apple Silicon "Mac Pro M" will probably not support ReWire in any MacOS configuration, and it will want a more recent version of Live. Since the current version of Live (v11) does not support ReWire, it will undoubtedly be either impossible or impossibly fiddly to get Logic + Live v10 + ReWire installed and working correctly on an Apple Silicon machine.
> 
> Maybe it would work, but big chunks of stuff would be running in Rosetta mode, so perhaps not a great choice moving forward.
> 
> Although I'm curious if anyone's gone there and gotten Logic + Live v10 + ReWire going on Apple Silicon.


Thanks!


----------

