thermal

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Does the test need an update? #2388

    thermal
    Participant

    The best thing would probably be to use a fresh table, kind of like Geekbench 4 versus 3. So the results could be presented like:

    Mac model – Simple benchmark score (lower buffer = more tracks) – Complex benchmark score (higher buffer = more tracks)

    Mac mini i5 3.0 GHz (2018) – 135 – 50

    or something along those lines. The overview should have an introduction clearly stating the differences between the simple and complex benchmarking.

    Just brainstorming 🙂

    in reply to: Does the test need an update? #2366

    thermal
    Participant

    Hey, so the test seems to be working well, but it does not cater for a realistic working scenario IMHO. In testing my newly acquired 2018 Mac Mini I attained the best score using the lowest buffer available (32).

    Working on a real project, 32 is not workable at all except in the initial writing phase. I do quite a lot of buss processing and use lots of hungry 3rd party plugins (such as Acustica Audio ones) and inevitably end up with at least 512 (and usually 1024) buffer towards the end of the mixing stage.

    So my proposition is to create an additional benchmark test which combines software and audio tracks using latency-inducing plugins on individual tracks, auxes/busses and the master buss. Maybe even throw in lots of automation on the heavy plugins for good measure. That way we would get a lot closer to a kind of “minimum performance” (“this mac can at a minimum handle this much”) benchmark number. I’d be happy to assist in setting this up if desired.

    edit: Just to be clear, I am not thinking of using any 3rd party plugins in the benchmark template.

    in reply to: Mac Mini Core i7 3.2 GHz Late 2018 #2364

    thermal
    Participant

    Wow, I am really surprised to see these results! I could only get 135 tracks on my 6-core i5 3 GHz. Clearly, the hyperthreading of the i7 makes a massive difference in Logic X, much bigger than Geekbench 4 would suggest. Aagh, I want an i7 now haha!

    in reply to: Does the test need an update? #1321

    thermal
    Participant

    Maybe you should join forces with this guy, the test worked right out of the box and was very easy to use 🙂

    https://www.logicprohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138612

    in reply to: Does the test need an update? #1270

    thermal
    Participant

    I wanted to try this, but Logic could not find the Boom Room.SDIR impulse response for Space Designer nor the audio file 3hook96.wav (part of the EXS instrument FM Short SQ.exs). Would probably be a good idea to make a self-contained project file.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)