Poor performance explained!

[strangedaysuk]

So I run Apple silicon and noticed that only 4 cores are being used.

I understand this is an excuse used for reliability. However in the video below Reaper and Cubase seem to have no issue with it. And to top it of the offer almost double the performance. Even Logics performance is terrible.

Makes me consider Reaper for now till the developers properly get to grips with Apple Silicon. I now know why the M1 felt so much slower that Intel despite good benchmarks, the issue is in the programming.

https://youtu.be/FSqX4bt9to4?si=J4_D4hH-3PhqZSUs

[JingleDjango]

I'm curious to hear more about this because I'm pricing out a new mac for next year.

[dominicperry]

This is not new news.
It's been clear, and clearly stated by Avid since the start of the M1 chips, that PT only uses the performance cores. This makes performance more predictable and leaves the efficiency cores to do OS background tasks.
If Reaper and Logic do it better, then that's fine. Personally I find that Reaper has some unpleasant behaviour when overloaded - everything slows down, rather than throwing an error, which is what PT and Logic do when they run out of juice.
Either way, it is how it is. Not a scandal, not remarkable, not worth swapping DAWs over.

Dominic

[JingleDjango]

Originally Posted by dominicperry

Either way, it is how it is. Not a scandal, not remarkable, not worth swapping DAWs over.

I think if the 3rd generation chips are performing worse than M1, which is what the linked video asserts, then it's worth remarking on.

[strangedaysuk]

I don’t agree that it shouldn't be discussed.

It’s old news but I didn’t realise that some DAWs are able to utilise all cores. Even using a few low performance ones could offer a bit more power.

It’s suggested that currently some developers are not to grips with the M chips - which is partly Apples fault.

Bear in mind Cubase apparently is working very well, and to suggest it’s not worth swapping when performance gains are twice what’s on offer.

Maybe it’s true that Reaper falls over, I’ve heard Cubase is stable though.
To also find the latest processors dropping performance seems very bizarre.

I think the options should be placed into the users hands. We get to decide buffer sizes why can’t we decide what we prefer to use with core count.

[resonatee]

Well it is good to know that all. For all we know uptil now, Avid is doing the same thing Apple is doing with Logic (Logic also uses mostly perf cores)
For now it seems the best machine choices for PT work are the ones with the most Perf cores...Older Pro's(M1,M2) Max, Ultra versions

My question is for example - does video engine on Silicon M1,2,3 processors use the performance core or efficiency one?

[dominicperry]

I never said it shouldn't be discussed. It's just not new news.
Recently discussed here: https://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=426786

The picture is more nuanced than "old better than new". There is a specific problem that the newest Pro chip has fewer performance cores than the old ones.

M1 base has 4 performance cores:
M2 base has 4 performance cores:
M3 base has 4 performance cores:

M1 Max has 6 or 8 performance cores:
M2 Max has 8 performance cores:
M3 Max has 10 or 12 performance cores:

So, if you ignore extra cache, RAM, GPU cores, efficiency cores, clock speed, and heat generation then:
The base model will perform about the same across all three versions,
The Pro will perform worse in the newest version.
The Max will perform better in the newer versions.

Avid have got to grips with the Apple Silicon chips. They've just decided (in common with some other DAW writers) to use only the performance cores for the audio engine.
IIRC, Logic puts all of your MIDI on a single core, so it looks like that isn't performing "properly" either, but the intention is to avoid audio processing bogging down your MIDI stuff.
And you can decide on how you use your cores with Logic, but not with Pro Tools.

Can you really run twice as many tracks on Cubase as Pro Tools? Do you need them? If so, perhaps Cubase is for you. But the James Zhang video did not show Pro Tools running half as many tracks as Cubase (89,89,104 in Cubase, 86,71,64 in PT).
How equivalent they are in the real world is hard to say, as always with DAW performance comparisons.
I should make it clear that I own and use PT, Logic, Studio One and Reaper. I have no axe to grind.

Dominic

[JingleDjango]

I'm not interested in other DAW performance but the insight about performance vs efficiency cores is new to me and will inform my buying decision.

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by strangedaysuk

So I run Apple silicon and noticed that only 4 cores are being used.

I understand this is an excuse used for reliability. However in the video below Reaper and Cubase seem to have no issue with it. And to top it of the offer almost double the performance. Even Logics performance is terrible.

Makes me consider Reaper for now till the developers properly get to grips with Apple Silicon. I now know why the M1 felt so much slower that Intel despite good benchmarks, the issue is in the programming.

https://youtu.be/FSqX4bt9to4?si=J4_D4hH-3PhqZSUs

For many Pro Tools users the M1 systems offer impressive performance vs the Intel systems they came from. So your claim there is a little unusual. What exact systems are you comparing? You running native or under rosetta?

What exactly do you mean by "felt so much slower" in the context of a DAW? The UI was slower? You have less capacity to run plugins? Getting specific AAE errors? Some folks have seen graphics glitches. Some folks made mistakes buying under configured Apple Silicon systems with too little memory. Some folks are still running on slow old external storage. As usual, plugins can cause issues. What troubleshooting have you tried?

[smurfyou]

Originally Posted by resonatee

My question is for example - does video engine on Silicon M1,2,3 processors use the performance core or efficiency one?

Video Engine is still not Apple Silicon native.

3 years late