|
|
|
12-28-2013, 03:59 PM
|
#1
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Far North
Posts: 191
|
Cpu usage in Reaper vs Logic X
Please find a video showing cpu usage in Reaper vs Logic X
64 bit buffer size
50 tracks with two plugins ; Fabfilter C & Q
CPU Reaper vs Logic X https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vytsf5onHkM&sns=tw
__________________
iMac 4.0 GHz, 32 GB, 1 Tera SSD, MacBook Retina 2.7 GHz, 16 GB, osx 10.12.4, Artist Mix & Control, RME cards + Octamix II, Genelec Monitors, Røde and SE mics, too many plugins. Gibson and Fender el guitars, Martin and Taylor acoustic guitars.
|
|
|
12-28-2013, 04:05 PM
|
#2
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Minneaplis
Posts: 3,317
|
"This video is private."
|
|
|
12-28-2013, 09:53 PM
|
#3
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 102
|
Please make it public. Thanks.
|
|
|
12-29-2013, 01:30 AM
|
#4
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Far North
Posts: 191
|
Open now
Please try now
__________________
iMac 4.0 GHz, 32 GB, 1 Tera SSD, MacBook Retina 2.7 GHz, 16 GB, osx 10.12.4, Artist Mix & Control, RME cards + Octamix II, Genelec Monitors, Røde and SE mics, too many plugins. Gibson and Fender el guitars, Martin and Taylor acoustic guitars.
|
|
|
12-29-2013, 03:47 AM
|
#5
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Newcastle - UK
Posts: 567
|
Sadly while Reaper is very responsive and scales well, this high CPU utilisation means I have to use logic exclusively on the road. My battery life runs to less than an hour using reaper while I'm getting 4+ composing in Logic.
My Reaper use is exclusively when I'm plugged into power at home for collaborative projects now. Even then the fans are running constantly to cool the cpu's which is annoying
|
|
|
12-29-2013, 05:40 AM
|
#6
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Far North
Posts: 191
|
Agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by philait
Sadly while Reaper is very responsive and scales well, this high CPU utilisation means I have to use logic exclusively on the road. My battery life runs to less than an hour using reaper while I'm getting 4+ composing in Logic.
My Reaper use is exclusively when I'm plugged into power at home for collaborative projects now. Even then the fans are running constantly to cool the cpu's which is annoying
|
There must be a problem with the audio implementation on OSX. I am trying to get the developers attention, but not sure I will suceed.
__________________
iMac 4.0 GHz, 32 GB, 1 Tera SSD, MacBook Retina 2.7 GHz, 16 GB, osx 10.12.4, Artist Mix & Control, RME cards + Octamix II, Genelec Monitors, Røde and SE mics, too many plugins. Gibson and Fender el guitars, Martin and Taylor acoustic guitars.
|
|
|
12-29-2013, 08:24 AM
|
#7
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 168
|
I can confirm the CPU Load issue mentioned by 'producer'.
I ran a test a few weeks back on Logic's 10.0.4 release vs Reaper on an 8-core Mac Pro and a MacBookPro.
If I remember correctly, it was an 90 track mix session and on just initial load with no plugins,
Logic X was cruising at a mere 4%,
Reaper was at 12-13% on playback
I had previously switched from Logic 9 to Reaper 4 a few years back, because Logic struggled at higher loads. I haven't mixed in Logic since then, but Reaper works brilliantly at higher loads, better than any other DAW. I'm not sure if Logic X fixed these issues, but it surely seems to run a lot more fluid now. I'm still worried about running a full session mix on Logic, so I stick to Reaper.
I have previously heard that Reaper works a lot better on PC compared to Macs. Devs care to jump in? Thanks.
__________________
Forgive me Lord for I haz synth'd!
|
|
|
12-29-2013, 09:09 AM
|
#8
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by producer
There must be a problem with the audio implementation on OSX.
|
Actually, IIRC, inefficient GUI drawing has been one of the main performance culprits on Macs.
|
|
|
12-29-2013, 02:12 PM
|
#9
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,891
|
i bet reaper beats logic if you did the same test on windows.
|
|
|
12-29-2013, 03:48 PM
|
#10
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,883
|
There is a little problem with this test youve made.
Logic uses a hybrid buffer system- the 64 io buffer is used only for record armed tracks, other tracks use the processing buffer (stationary at 1024 or 2048 buffer), so comparing both softwares at 64 buffer isnt exactly "fair".
Its true Logic is still a tad more efficient, but craps out much sooner at higher loads.
J
__________________
Win11, R 64bit
|
|
|
12-29-2013, 07:26 PM
|
#11
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,805
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by producer
|
Is there a performance difference between using VST plugs vs Audio Units in Reaper?
|
|
|
12-30-2013, 07:05 AM
|
#12
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 168
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janne83
Its true Logic is still a tad more efficient, but craps out much sooner at higher loads.
J
|
Is this still true with Logic X?
As I mentioned earlier, Logic 9 did struggle a lot at higher loads, where Reaper would sail smoothly.
__________________
Forgive me Lord for I haz synth'd!
|
|
|
12-30-2013, 11:38 PM
|
#13
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Far North
Posts: 191
|
Don't think thats the problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seventh
Actually, IIRC, inefficient GUI drawing has been one of the main performance culprits on Macs.
|
Why; if you click in another window (application) and Reaper become inactive (the audio part go to sleep), the cpu goes down to allmost zero. It must be the audio implementation. ( i.e. No hybrid buffer system like Logic and Pro Tools).
__________________
iMac 4.0 GHz, 32 GB, 1 Tera SSD, MacBook Retina 2.7 GHz, 16 GB, osx 10.12.4, Artist Mix & Control, RME cards + Octamix II, Genelec Monitors, Røde and SE mics, too many plugins. Gibson and Fender el guitars, Martin and Taylor acoustic guitars.
|
|
|
12-30-2013, 11:44 PM
|
#14
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Far North
Posts: 191
|
Hm.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janne83
There is a little problem with this test youve made.
Logic uses a hybrid buffer system- the 64 io buffer is used only for record armed tracks, other tracks use the processing buffer (stationary at 1024 or 2048 buffer), so comparing both softwares at 64 buffer isnt exactly "fair".
Its true Logic is still a tad more efficient, but craps out much sooner at higher loads.
J
|
In this test, Logic use 1/3 of the cpu load of Reaper. I am pretty sure you will be able to run bigger project in Logic due to this fact.
However, let me test in a few days
__________________
iMac 4.0 GHz, 32 GB, 1 Tera SSD, MacBook Retina 2.7 GHz, 16 GB, osx 10.12.4, Artist Mix & Control, RME cards + Octamix II, Genelec Monitors, Røde and SE mics, too many plugins. Gibson and Fender el guitars, Martin and Taylor acoustic guitars.
|
|
|
12-31-2013, 03:48 AM
|
#15
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Far North
Posts: 191
|
Here is a new test showing when the audio engines bails out
__________________
iMac 4.0 GHz, 32 GB, 1 Tera SSD, MacBook Retina 2.7 GHz, 16 GB, osx 10.12.4, Artist Mix & Control, RME cards + Octamix II, Genelec Monitors, Røde and SE mics, too many plugins. Gibson and Fender el guitars, Martin and Taylor acoustic guitars.
|
|
|
01-01-2014, 09:48 AM
|
#16
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 168
|
I should also be able to comment on Logic X's load handling at higher loads in the coming weeks.
1st track on the album was mixed on Reaper, but I'm going to give Logic X a try for track 2.
__________________
Forgive me Lord for I haz synth'd!
|
|
|
01-01-2014, 10:50 AM
|
#17
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 372
|
Hmmm... You guys might have convinced me to buy Logic X. The performance improvements in those tests is not subtle. The question is if this is consistent with all macs. I used to use Logic 8 and while I liked the program quite a bit, it was not very stable. However with newer computers and the latest Logic version, i'm guessing it is dramatically better than when I last used it.
Producer, can you list your system specs? And if anyone else with Logic X is able run some tests and report back that would be much appreciated.
|
|
|
01-02-2014, 06:50 AM
|
#18
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Far North
Posts: 191
|
Here is my spec osx 10.9.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by esosotericmetal
Hmmm... You guys might have convinced me to buy Logic X. The performance improvements in those tests is not subtle. The question is if this is consistent with all macs. I used to use Logic 8 and while I liked the program quite a bit, it was not very stable. However with newer computers and the latest Logic version, i'm guessing it is dramatically better than when I last used it.
Producer, can you list your system specs? And if anyone else with Logic X is able run some tests and report back that would be much appreciated.
|
Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro10,1
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 2,7 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 6 MB
Memory: 16 GB
Boot ROM Version: MBP101.00EE.B03
SMC Version (system): 2.3f36
__________________
iMac 4.0 GHz, 32 GB, 1 Tera SSD, MacBook Retina 2.7 GHz, 16 GB, osx 10.12.4, Artist Mix & Control, RME cards + Octamix II, Genelec Monitors, Røde and SE mics, too many plugins. Gibson and Fender el guitars, Martin and Taylor acoustic guitars.
|
|
|
01-02-2014, 07:01 AM
|
#19
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Far North
Posts: 191
|
running a big buffer size i.e. 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by producer
|
Some further comment
the test was executed running 64 bit buffer. Reaper will benefit from a big buffer size i.e. 1024 and will be on par with Logic - maybe slightly better, so Reaper rescue some of its honour.
But no one will like to mix with a cpu load > 60% as the fan will kick in and make a lot of noise. So in that respect, Logic will be more pleasant as it will work form 0 to 65% cpu load.
That said, still some work to do with Logic' s audio engine, so it can run with close to 100% cpu load on the computer, today it bails out approx. 65% cpu load.
Also note that Reaper audio engine always run at full load, it does not stop if your not playing, all tracks are also using cpu. A brut force approach, which is not elegant.
__________________
iMac 4.0 GHz, 32 GB, 1 Tera SSD, MacBook Retina 2.7 GHz, 16 GB, osx 10.12.4, Artist Mix & Control, RME cards + Octamix II, Genelec Monitors, Røde and SE mics, too many plugins. Gibson and Fender el guitars, Martin and Taylor acoustic guitars.
|
|
|
01-02-2014, 07:23 AM
|
#20
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 126
|
Have you tried changing from 4 to a lower number on the buffering page in Reaper, that brought my cpu way down before when I was having cpu usage issues...but then again I'm on windows but its worth a try on mac.
|
|
|
01-02-2014, 06:28 PM
|
#21
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 168
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by producer
Some further comment
the test was executed running 64 bit buffer. Reaper will benefit from a big buffer size i.e. 1024 and will be on par with Logic - maybe slightly better, so Reaper rescue some of its honour.
But no one will like to mix with a cpu load > 60% as the fan will kick in and make a lot of noise. So in that respect, Logic will be more pleasant as it will work form 0 to 65% cpu load.
That said, still some work to do with Logic' s audio engine, so it can run with close to 100% cpu load on the computer, today it bails out approx. 65% cpu load.
Also note that Reaper audio engine always run at full load, it does not stop if your not playing, all tracks are also using cpu. A brut force approach, which is not elegant.
|
Yes, I usually run around the 1024 region while mixing in Reaper.
While it's nice to have a smooth sailing 0 - 60, this was exactly the reason I left Logic 9, then Cubase 6.5 ... Reaper was the only DAW which could survive high loads without much fuss. Others, usually after I surpass the 50% mark, I have to split the session into 2 or 3 new sessions and mix and match levels between sessions. They also get very unstable and I have keep asking clients time to fix and revive the session. :/ In Reaper, it all stays in one session. But, that's my experience, could be different for others. I'm on a 2009 and 2010 Mac Pro.
__________________
Forgive me Lord for I haz synth'd!
|
|
|
01-03-2014, 05:09 AM
|
#22
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Far North
Posts: 191
|
Run test on Windows w / Reaper
Quote:
Originally Posted by reapercurious
i bet reaper beats logic if you did the same test on windows.
|
run the test on my "older" PC, i7 though
The load was approx: 18% i.e. more or less same as Logic
Again, this shows that Reaper on OSX is not efficient. Thats my whole point......
__________________
iMac 4.0 GHz, 32 GB, 1 Tera SSD, MacBook Retina 2.7 GHz, 16 GB, osx 10.12.4, Artist Mix & Control, RME cards + Octamix II, Genelec Monitors, Røde and SE mics, too many plugins. Gibson and Fender el guitars, Martin and Taylor acoustic guitars.
|
|
|
01-10-2014, 03:48 PM
|
#23
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 51
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janne83
There is a little problem with this test youve made.
Logic uses a hybrid buffer system- the 64 io buffer is used only for record armed tracks, other tracks use the processing buffer (stationary at 1024 or 2048 buffer), so comparing both softwares at 64 buffer isnt exactly "fair".
Its true Logic is still a tad more efficient, but craps out much sooner at higher loads.
J
|
WOW, I always wondered why the buffer settings made no sense to me in Logic. So which one of those buffers am I adjusting in the Logic Settings?
__________________
Rock Cello Forever
|
|
|
01-10-2014, 04:03 PM
|
#24
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Primitivity
WOW, I always wondered why the buffer settings made no sense to me in Logic. So which one of those buffers am I adjusting in the Logic Settings?
|
You can adjust both:
The io buffer setting corresponds to record armed tracks and has a numerical setting.
The Processing buffer setting corresponds to all other unarmed tracks and has large, medium and small settings- Its not exactly determined but it somehow related to 1024 or 2048 numerical buffer setting.
J
__________________
Win11, R 64bit
|
|
|
01-24-2014, 07:03 PM
|
#25
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 518
|
You lost me.
Put both at 1024 which is a realistic mixing setting, and let me know which one craps out first...
The way Logic deals with buffers is a little weird.
My experience with Logic X (9 and 8) is that it craps out waaaaay sooner than Reaper. But I could be wrong, since I never really tested it on the same computer.
Also, which OS are you using?
|
|
|
01-27-2014, 12:54 PM
|
#26
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Far North
Posts: 191
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeronimo
You lost me.
Put both at 1024 which is a realistic mixing setting, and let me know which one craps out first...
The way Logic deals with buffers is a little weird.
My experience with Logic X (9 and 8) is that it craps out waaaaay sooner than Reaper. But I could be wrong, since I never really tested it on the same computer.
Also, which OS are you using?
|
Pls see post #19 above
__________________
iMac 4.0 GHz, 32 GB, 1 Tera SSD, MacBook Retina 2.7 GHz, 16 GB, osx 10.12.4, Artist Mix & Control, RME cards + Octamix II, Genelec Monitors, Røde and SE mics, too many plugins. Gibson and Fender el guitars, Martin and Taylor acoustic guitars.
|
|
|
02-17-2014, 05:54 PM
|
#27
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,185
|
I'm on OSX 10.6.8 and I find that tracks register CPU usage on tracks with no audio at that point in the arrangement. Sometimes it's tracks with no items that cripple the CPU at points with no items in those tracks. Is this common behaviour?! In logic tracks with no audio have no CPU AFAIK.
|
|
|
02-27-2014, 05:52 AM
|
#29
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: West Tawkoni, Texas
Posts: 77
|
I don't agree with any of you. All math aside, Reaper is ALWAYS faster than Logic. Period.
|
|
|
08-05-2016, 04:38 AM
|
#30
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 365
|
I know reaper likes one thread for one core but logic can use two threads per core. I don't know much about this sort of thing but will that not have an effect on the efficiency ?
|
|
|
08-05-2016, 08:02 AM
|
#31
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden.
Posts: 1,610
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackenedheart
I don't agree with any of you. All math aside, Reaper is ALWAYS faster than Logic. Period.
|
Hear, hear. It also sounds "warmer".
__________________
REAPER was made for you and me
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:40 AM.
|