The Problem with M3 Pro MacBook Pro for Music Production | M3 Pro vs M2 Pro vs M1 Pro
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2024
- Comparing M3 Pro MacBook Pro to M2 Pro MacBook Pro and M1 Pro MacBook Pro on REAPER, Steinberg Cubase 13, AVID Pro Tools, Logic Pro X, Ableton Live, FL Studio and Studio One.
👇Watch these next👇
🖥️ The Ultimate M1/M2 Mac Buying Guide for Music Production: • The Ultimate M1/M2 Mac...
🖥️ M2 Pro vs M1 Max/M1 Pro In-Depth Testing: • M2 Pro MacBook Pro: DA...
🖥️ M2 MacBook Air Review: Running an Entire Studio on it: • M2 MacBook Air: Can It...
🎵 Riff featured in the tests: "Futile" by Derev
⏰ Timestamps:
00:00 Start
00:27 Video overview
01:01 M3 Pro MacBook Pro Specs
01:20 M3 Pro vs M2 Pro vs M1 Pro: key differences for music production (performance cores vs efficiency cores)
01:48 How the tests are set up
02:57 Testing methodology: why I test this way & why the test results are useful for real-life scenarios
03:55 M3 Pro vs M2 Pro vs M1 Pro: REAPER
04:41 How to correctly interpret the track counts in the test results
05:03 M3 Pro vs M2 Pro vs M1 Pro: Steinberg Cubase 13
05:47 M3 Pro vs M2 Pro vs M1 Pro: Pro Tools Ultimate
06:04 Pro Tools testing footage
06:15 Why does M3 Pro underperform M2 Pro & M1 Pro?
06:36 M3 Pro vs M2 Pro vs M1 Pro: Key difference in core distribution
07:19 M3 Pro vs M2 Pro vs M1 Pro: Logic Pro X
07:58 M3 Pro vs M2 Pro vs M1 Pro: Ableton Live 11
08:18 How buffer size affects CPU performance in Ableton Live 11 for Apple Silicon chips
08:54 Large buffer size vs small buffer size in Ableton Live 11 tested
09:42 M3 Pro vs M2 Pro vs M1 Pro: FL Studio
10:47 How I set up the test project in FL Studio
11:38 M3 Pro vs M2 Pro vs M1 Pro: Studio One
12:24 Studio One testing footage
12:53 Mac Buying Guide for Users of REAPER, Cubase & FL Studio
13:50 Mac Buying Guide for users of Logic Pro X, Pro Tools, Ableton Live & Studio One
14:21 James' advice for buying a Mac for music production
14:42 Example: how to choose a Mac if you use a lot of sample libraries
15:54 Blooper featuring wife
🎚️ DAW versions tested:
- REAPER v7.05
- Cubase 13 v13.0.10
- Logic Pro X v10.8
- Pro Tools Ultimate v2023.9.0
- Ableton Live 11 v13.3.13
- FL Studio v21.2.1
- Studio One v6.5.1
// HIRE ME TO MIX & MASTER YOUR MUSIC
○ Listen to my work: www.jameszproductions.com/
○ Mixing and mastering inquires: hello@jameszproductions.com
○ WeChat ID: James9592. 我能用粵語和普通話提供混音服務。歡迎加我微信（加時請注明目的）
// MY POPULAR VIDEOS
○ M2 MacBook Pro Review for Music Production: • M2 Pro MacBook Pro: DA...
○ Pro Audio Engineer Reviews Slate VSX Headphones: • Pro Audio Engineer Rev...
○ 10 REAPER Tips You Should Know: • 10 REAPER TIPS YOU SHO...
○ The Definitive Guide to Logic Compressors: • WHICH LOGIC COMPRESSOR...
// MY SETUP FOR TH-cam
📷 Camera: Sony Alpha A7 III
↳ amzn.to/3E7i0Du
📷 Lens: Tamron 17-28 F2.8 Di III RXD
↳ amzn.to/3YNL9et
🎙️ Microphones:
↳ SM7B: amzn.to/3foDmlb
↳ Comica CVM-VM10II: amzn.to/3Naxni8
🎛️ Audio Interface: RME Babyface Pro
↳ amzn.to/3BY9hRi
💡 Key Light: MOUNTDOG Continuous Lighting Kit
↳ amzn.to/3LTpJXn
💡 Background Lights:
↳ Aputure LED Panel: amzn.to/3BOUbxa
↳ Mini LED light tubes: amzn.to/4a1qIAB
🖥️ 4K Computer display: BenQ EW2780U
↳ amzn.to/3UbIUOJ
🔄 TH-cam sub counter: Ulanzi Smart Pixel Clock
↳ amzn.to/3RqiWJ4
▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂ ▂
Follow me on:
📘Facebook: / jzptoronto
📷Instagram: / jameszproductions
DISCLOSURE: Some links might be affiliate links. If you purchase a product with the links that I provide I may receive a small commission. There is no additional charge to you of course! Thank you for supporting my channel so I can continue to provide you with awesome music production content each month! - เพลง
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 5 // 100T vs PRX | FUT vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q75pv359eP4/mqdefault.jpg)
🔥NEW VIDEO: Logic Pro 11 on Apple Silicon: Are Cores Fully Utilized? th-cam.com/video/ucgAvt1qGEM/w-d-xo.html
I'm currently in the process of developing more DAW tests that are more comprehensive and have improved testing methodologies. My goal is to post *a series* of testing videos like this one once a new Apple Silicon chip is available in the desktop form factor (Mac Mini or Mac Studio). So, if you are interested, subscribe and stay tuned! Thank you all for your support 🙏❤
It's understandable that some DAWs will be better optimised than others since the professional audio industry is insanely slow at updates BUT it's a huge disappointment that Reaper is better optimised than Logic Pro. It actually makes no sense at all
I feel that pain. It make really no sense 🤔
Be disappointed in logic.. this isn't an apple problem.. at all lol. Apple doesn't dictate how a private companies software utilizes the apple hardware.
@@Stix_Zidinia Logic's been an Apple product since 2002...
Maybe part of it has to do with the fact it now runs on the iPad, I assume via universal binary, meaning that they probably now have to "tune down" things to run on iOS as well. Even if not universal binary they obviously share a codebase. Just an assumption without any basis because I don't own Logic anywhere.
Sounds just like Apple to me. The same company that sells you a weaker chip for more money would be the company that underperforms compared to its competitors and charge you more money.
What a brilliantly produced video! Efficiently and professionally done, without any unnecessary chatter! SO refreshing! Great work and extremely disappointing for Logic users. It's Apple's own DAW!! Unbelieveable!
In 2019 I left Windows for good. I went all Linux. I did not go Mac because I saw no empirical stats on their own software such as Logic. This video only affirms my decision.
This! So well done.
He’s running ProTools and Logic in Rosetta - so his whole test in invalid!
Both PT and Logic were running in native mode, not Rosetta.
the results shocked me
UPDATE: Hi guys! Multiple people have notified me that some of the DAWs have been updated to fix the core utilization issue shown in this video. I'm glad that my video may have brought this issue to the DAW developers' attention, and I want to thank people who reached out to the devs about this issue as well.
I'm currently in the process of developing more DAW tests that are more comprehensive and with improved testing methodologies. My goal is to post *a series* of testing videos like this one once the M3 Pro chip is available in the desktop form factor (Mac Mini or Mac Studio). So, if you are interested, subscribe and stay tuned! Thank you all for your support 🙏❤
don't suppose Ableton is one of the ones that updated to fix this...?
And Logic, has that been updated? Could you post a list of the ones you've been made aware of?
@@raffiy586 Logic hasn't been updated yet. It's been a few months since the last major update. Hopefully we get one by June in time for WWDC. Apple are expected to make a lot of announcements around A.I. and improvements to Siri so they might have some big updates for Logic. They've hinted at it with the new mastering assistant plugin and the smart tempo stuff they added/
@@raffiy586 pro tools has been updated to use efficiency cores
@@raffiy586 - Yes, that's my query too.
This guy is legit. As a fellow audio engineer I appreciate your insight and expertise
Thanks! Hit the tip button if this guy saved you several thousand dollars while simultaneiously kicking DAW makers to code their products better....This is EXTREMELY valuable information
Wow, thanks so much for the tip!! Really appreciate it :)
Amazing video for sure. Thanks so much. I probably would have went for the m3 pro but now I know I can save my self so much. Especially being Canadian
This seriously was the most decisive video i could have watched. Thank you SO SO MUCH!!
Regarding lower buffer sizes in Live, with smaller track counts, you want to be at 128 or 256 buffers. Higher buffers will default Live to using the efficiency cores, and the CPU usage will report HIGHER. Lower buffers automatically sets Live to use the performance cores and reports a lower CPU percentage. As track count increases, the CPU cores get maxed out, so you would raise the buffer size to 1024, like in your tests. But at that point, the CPU usage is well above what the efficiency cores can handle, so Live will stay with the Performance cores. That's why there is confusion on this issue. Ultimately, your tests are pretty much spot on, but they don't explore the live performance aspect of the various audio engines. The reason why Live has always underperformed in these kinds of tests is that it prioritizes live playback, which has an added cost. There is a price to pay for not having any audio hiccups when you add zero-latency effects or add tracks or drop instruments, all while audio is playing nonstop.
Really helpful comment. Hopefully it will get voted to the top. Athough I suppose his point about having a m2 with more performance cores being optimal is still true for Ableton users.
Thanks for the info! As I understand it, it still doesn't change the fact that when it comes to Ableton, people need to be looking at the p cores instead of the total core count. I'm mostly a mixing and mastering engineer and so low latency is not a priority to me and I always work in large buffer sizes.
@@JamesZhan Yes, fair comment, and good guidance. In my case, I used the M1 Air (heat modded) as my daily driver for about a year, and I realized that none of my projects ever need the 150 track limit with the M1 Air. (My test was taking Live's default demo track that ships with it, and just duplicating all tracks until it croaked.) The M1 Air was like 140ish tracks. That's plenty. Now, with the M1 Ultra Studio, which is about the same as the M2 MacBook Pro (my other machine) I can hit about 300 tracks. Again, so much overkill. But you're absolutely right, with Live it's all about the number of performance cores. Thanks for doing the tests...I've been a fan of those for a while.
This would, to me, indicate an issue with Live’s coding, in that it probably should utilize all the cores all the time a’la Reaper and Cubase. Live is waaaaaay beyond a performance tool now, it’s a full on DAW with the most incredible UI I have ever used. I have the M2 Max and never come remotely close to maxing anything out. I would imagine the performance would end up higher than the M2 Pro as it has 8 performance cores.
@@ckatheman either it's the same coding issue as with Logic and Studio One, or it's a design choice to make sure that the DAW never uses the Efficiency cores in the event a powerful plugin causes an audio outage. Either way, I think it's generally been the case that Reaper has been the most CPU-efficient DAW for years.
Thanks! This has literally changed my life and will definitely change my next purchase. Great video that finally gets to the bottom of things I care about.
Hey James, First an foremost thanks for this video. You are probably the first to do these type of comparisons for the Apple / Music Composition group. You are doing everyone a huge favor as this was a struggle for me to research when searching around for a new mac in the past. Not only did you meticulously tackle each of my concerns but also explained everything perfectly from both a musician and computer power users point of view.
On another note, I am a bit disappointed with Ableton Live. I have been using them for years. The UI is not too taxing on the processors (or so I think) and believed it would outperform with efficiency on M2 MAX. May need to consider if Reaper would compliment my workflow.
Thanks again! Great Video!
I was waiting for this vid! Thank you very much for doing it - not enough reviewers are focusing/even covering DAW work with the new M3s
How interesting! What a win for Reaper and Cubase. The Logic result is really disappointing given how much Apple were touting the track count when they first introduced the Apple Silicon lineup.
You can find other tests that make Logic look much better than Cubase in performance. For the most part honestly Logic has performed better than Cubase in performance tests. You can check that with nearly every other test on youtube. Reaper always does well.
Is there some way to force logic into using the efficiency cores?
If you’re using Cubase on a Mac you’re doing it wrong.
@@TJATJA1982 Why?
@@NiallEveritt Logic is built to run on Macs. Why pay tons for a Mac if you're not going to use the software written specifically for it? Might as well spend half the money and get a PC. Having used both, admittedly more of Logic than Cubase, Logic is just a lot better for me. Better instruments, better standard plug-ins, better looking, cheaper. But in the end it's a tool to get things done - people have their own wants, desires and workflows. I just much prefer Logic.
i have an m3pro and i'm considering using another daw, and i keep coming back to this video. Thank you for this good content!
Awesome video James!! This is one of the rare video series that's actually really useful for us music production tech enthousiasts that switched or want to switch to new Macs. Like others in the comments I'm also really interested in Bitwig compared to the other DAWs, as well as Ableton 12 once it's out.
Ableton 12 will perform like 11 but worse, they’ve never made the performance better since 9
This video/channel is very much appreciated. To my knowledge, no one has done thorough real-life audio testing with Macs like you.
Something to be aware of, as a producer of a multi-core capable plug-in (Unify), it has not been very fun supporting Apple lately (FYI, Windows isn't cake either.) It would appear these big DAW developers are in many cases struggling as well. Apple doesn't offer us clear concise information about what they're doing, ever. Interesting that Logic Pro from Apple isn't at the top of the list in dealing with their own Hardware / OS Software. The Struggle is real!
@@TrensharoWindows backwards compatibility is insane.
Right on Skippy! Unify's independent core management has been a godsend. I've been stuck in PC land all my life and my latest custom build was over 5 grand. Thanks to James though. I'm going to try an apple product for the first time and since I use studio one I'm going to spring for the 16 core Max. I'm starting to regret having left Cubase years ago given their superior core management. I overwhelm every computer and I'm hoping this time will be different. Don't look forward to the learning curve though😮
Thank you for the effort and time you put in to this. I appreciate your dispassionate, fact based approach to testing things out. Great job!
Wow. This is a lot of testing. Thank you. 👏🏻
Great work dude! If you ever repeat this test could you see how many tracks we can get with the lowest buffer size?
Glad to see that Reaper perform so well, my impression too. However Logic should really be able to use the E-cores if you set the Processing Threads correctly. Also the Large setting of the Process Buffer Range is 2048 samples, and this setting is effectively the playback buffer as opposed to the I/O buffer.
What would be the correct setting for the threads if not the 'use all cores option'? Automatic?
@@lukeskirenkoyea I’m also wondering
@@lukeskirenkonothing else, than what was done in the video. Settings are correct.
Logic has always been able to use both the P and E-cores as well, so this is either a change related to the M3 itself or Logic 10.8.
@@tronam Yes, I'm confused. Definitely needs more investigation.
This is gold! AFAIK, nobody has done this test before. I'm curious if this test would get similar results if done in PC. Keep it up, James! This channel deserves more sub.
Great video, very informative and very well-produced! You get to the point, there are no sales pitches -- and I greatly respect and appreciate anyone who will admit when they don't know the answer.
This video has definitely supported my choice of moving to REAPER for my music composition needs. I was using Cubase or Digital Performer (pre-M1), then Logic (M1), but after hearing about REAPER's CPU efficiency, I decided to make the switch and couldn't be happier. I won't be switching DAWs again. And it looks like I'll be sticking with my M1 MacBook Pro for a while yet, since it doesn't seem like there's much of an improvement in performance between the M1 and the M3 - especially if you don't need the ability to run everything in real-time all the time. With REAPER's subprojects functionality, your CPU and RAM become almost irrelevant anyway.
I switched to Reaper a couple of years ago and never looked back.
Thanks for the thorough analysis, this is super interesting. As a live performer, I don't think I'll fully utilise the parallel processing capabilities of my M1 Max anytime soon, but with lots of plugins on individual tracks single-core performance can already be a bottleneck, especially as I don't have the luxury of using a buffer size as large as 1024. I'd be very interested in a single-core performance comparison of these Apple silicon CPUs.
Exactly! This experiment, which the author shows, has nothing to do with Real work. In real work with 3-6 plugins on each strip it leads to exactly ONE loaded core! And any DAW simply stops working. I have a Mac Studio M1 ULTRA - and My 10 cores don’t even work. Daw just doesn’t see them/doesn’t distribute the load on them. Pain in the heart from Real work.
Really respect the work done in this and your transparency. GO YOU !!!
Thank you for the well done and straight forward information video. Your results are similar to what I have found using the same (and more) DAWs on the Windows PC platform.
I have found FL Studio to be not as optimized as one would expect. Until recently, Cubase & Samplitude were in the same group of operational efficiency.
Keep up the good work and again, thank you!
Cred to you for taking time to make this video, great upload. Cheers from Northeren Norway!
Great video - I would really love to see Bitwig compared to Live since some of the Bitwig developers used to work at Ableton but have a different approach (supporting Linux etc). I would hope / expect that it’s in the Reaper / Cubase camp of coding efficiency
I tried Bitwig and Reaper (although it was 2 and a half years ago), as I was looking for a new DAW to use with Ableton Live (10 at the time).
Bitwig was pretty much the same as Ableton, meaning it was not CPU efficient at all and Reaper was making me feel like I had a much better computer than the one I owned.
@@nectariosm I have live 11 and Bitwig 5 and Bitwig is noticably better on my system. As a matter of face i pulled out my 12 year old macmini with 16gb and a slow ssd in it and it could run most of my projects easily on 256 buffer size thats an old system so who knows
@@williamshaneblyth apparently so. I tried Bitwig 3 years ago when I also tried Reaper and decided in favour of Reaper, not because Reaper was "better" than Bitwig, but because I was already using Ableton and wanted a replacement for Logic Pro...and Reaper was my replacement for Logic Pro. At the time Bitwig felt as heavy as Ableton Live but apparently in the last 3 years, Bitwig has become more efficient, which is a good thing of course and I too would like to see how Bitwig would score in this test.
I just did a similar test on my M1 with bitwig 5 and it seems like it behaves like reaper and cubase, all the Cores are involved when the power Cores are not enough.
Bitwig runs like butter (midi+audio) on both my M1 Pro and M2 Air. What a brilliant piece of software
Thank you for this video. You confirmed my earlier buying decision. Newer is not necessarily better.
This is one of the best on this subject.
Thanks
love your dedication to all the fine details, this is a great data set! thank you!
Been waiting for this! I ended up getting m3 max since I need for video editing too. So I should be fine. But the downgrading of p cores each gen is super disappointing.
glad to see the result. I hope you include Bitwig and Reason in the future test. Thank You
+1 for Bitwig - I've heard it makes good use of Apple silicon, but I've not seen anyone do one of these stress tests with it so that would be super-useful (it's also just a really good DAW which you'd probably enjoy messing around in)!
@@owenspottiswoode5936 I did a comparison with Bitwig vs Ableton on my channel... bitwig crushed ableton
Outstanding video! Thank you for the effort you put into testing this!
Handy knowledge, thank you for the learning - James. Cheers!
Is the new Logic Pro fixes this issue?
This makes me glad I went for the 16 core m3 max. I did a test of my own in Live 11 and pushed the track count to just over 160 instances of u-he re-pro with a fab filter limiter on each track as well as a 3rd party phaser and neutron unmask on each track too with a 1024 buffer size.
It absolutely annihilates my 2018 intel MBP. To the point where I was literally laughing out loud. And… the laptop was still cool to the touch. Light years ahead compared to what I was using.
Yeah one of the most impressive things about these apple silicon chips is definitely how power efficient they are. MacBooks used to have the reputation of sounding like a jet engine under heavy load; now, not anymore!
Really cool! How much RAM do you have?
Holy mackerel! this is some very valuable info. sent it to a friend who wants to upgrade from an older intel.
and i am very happy that i recently upgraded specifically to the m1pro, thanks!
Thanks for taking the time to run these tests, I’ve recently moved back to Cubase after a very long break, and I’ve noticed Cubase does not like using the internal Mac audio driver and performs much better using say an RME , just so you know
I wish my DAW - Bitwig, would be included into such a comparison. Anyway, huge thanks for sharing the results of your reasearch! Reaper is clearly a winner here.
I'd also love to see Bitwig in this, if there is ever a chance to update this for James
I just did a similar test on my M1 with bitwig 5 and it seems like it behaves like reaper and cubase, all the Cores are involved when the power Cores are not enough.
Thank you for testing it and letting us know. That's great to hear @@riendeplus1923
I haven’t bought my first MacBook pro yet and was certain I would go for the newer M3 Pro space black model but now I am rethinking that and perhaps might be just fine with an M2 Pro 14 inch instead but I think I’ll try to shoot for the 12 core variant.
I love these data-driven deep-dive videos. They've helped me tremendously deciding which SKU to buy!
Brilliant video, thanks so much for sharing and the efforts you put into it. Liked the video immediately! Shows again how underrated and at the same time smartly programmed Reaper is.
I’ve always felt this about cubase but I’m really surprised about Ableton Live. Cuz it always feels like it runs smoother than any other daw for me but it does build up lag as the projects become heavier. And reaper is reaper. Didn’t expect anything less from their devs but dear god the gui could use some attention
If they can improve the GUI without increasing CPU usage, then that's great, but it's probably supposed to be as plain as possible for the CPU benefits. As it stands, you have to invest time into customising REAPER to your liking (and I have done that myself) - but since many come to REAPER for the performance benefits, then taking those benefits away just to make it look prettier doesn't make any sense in my opinion.
Thanks for doing this James and for including Studio One 🙏 I’ve been doing a laborious amount of research in order to make an informed decision for my switch from intel i7 iMac to Silicon. These pressure tests offer us a unique insight to how our mac’s will perform with our DAW. I think for me to I can’t see a real life project in Studio One pushing the CPU out, but it’s an important consideration for someone doing large mixing projects like scoring.
For anyone looking at purchasing a new Silicon Mac I’ll share my considerations.
1. The increase of P & E core balance in M3 will provide better battery performance over M1/M2. Max chips of all families will give you increased performance but less battery performance (so if you plan on being able to create anywhere outside studio that’s a consideration especially with a laptop). I expect to replace the battery once based on previous experience.
2. There is a correlation between SSD size and read/write speed. Other testers have shown that base SSD size score lower than 2TB upward. If you work multiple projects at same time then load times will benefit. The more you max out the built in storage it will impact the speed of your hardware. It’s good to account for 30% headroom. Also if you don’t want external storage like me then more inside is worth it.
3. The newer the mac the longer it’s going to be supported; if you plan on keeping your mac for the next 5 - 10 years. With an M1 which is almost 3 years old now if you want longevity consider the time you want to keep this machine. Maybe the initial savings are tempting (refurbished) but in 7+ years the extra on M3 in 2023 might end up a better investment.
4. 18GB Ram is good right now but with the speed tech is moving; I think 32GB is a good consideration especially if you’re using RAM hungry VST’s e.g Omnisphere. Also Logic loads song projects into RAM (important for logic users). Also the OS needs a base percentage of the RAM by default.
5. Every DAW is built in such a way to optimise its feature sets so the CPU pressure test doesn’t tell the whole story, you have to factor in your typical workload; it’s quite possible you’re never going to hit the wall of CPU load or very seldomly.
My choice after all this is Macbook 16” M3 Pro // 32GB RAM // 4TB SSD. This is coming from a 27” iMac i7 Intel 2017 // 16GB RAM // 2TB SSD (Ventura is the last OS for this machine so it’s time for me to switch to Silicon coming on the scene). My new MBP will give the ability to make music anywhere, provide good battery life, fast performance, handle RAM demands, very fast read/write for load times and the longest hardware support from date of purchase. I’m running Studio One 6.5 Professional.
Thank you for sharing your considerations! I hope they help out others. I will share my take on your point #3:
Over the years, Macs have been getting anywhere between 7 to 10 years of OS updates. Now that Macs are using Apple's own chips, I wouldn't be surprised if they support these computers for even longer. It's also very common for audio engineers to simply not update their macOS to ensure backward plugin compatibility. Moreover, for many, it might be hard to predict how their needs would evolve in the next 5-10 years. I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to over-spec your Mac "in case I need 64GB of RAM 5 years down the road." With this logic, you can easily say just buy the most maxed out Mac because you never know if might start doing video, 3D render, gaming, graphic design, or coding down the line-I'm sure you get what I'm saying. Plus, nowadays, I think people replace their computer with a new one more often than before.
I think for many, the money they save from getting a previous gen refurbished Mac can be used in ways that make a much bigger difference for them as music creators. Using the refurbished M1 Max vs new M3 Max example from the video, the $1400 saved can be used to buy plugins, sound libraries, or even several instruments that allow people to have more fun in creating music, rather than just spending it on future-proofing, if you know what I mean.
Anyway, there's definitely a balance to be had in this aspect! And I hope you enjoy your first Apple Silicon Mac!
@@JamesZhan I agree with your points James. It’s about factoring in everything you personally need/perceive as value in your individual case. I certainly don’t need anymore plugins or instruments. If anything I’d like to simplify my setup and work within limitations but that’s off topic.
If my financial position was not what it is I’d definitely be looking at this very differently. As for whether Apple will support their hardware longer than 7-10 years is yet to be seen; and there isn’t a history to support that. They’re always going to drive customers to upgrade in order to be sustainable.
On another note; the M3/M3 Pro only has 150GB bandwidth not 200GB like the predecessors. However looking into this further (currently) it’s unlikely that anyone other than a power user will scrape the ceiling of that.
I think if you do any further testing it’d be interesting to see how the different models fair on battery consumption / load times and possibly some different tests to account for plugins that drive mainly off CPU or RAM.
Keep up the good work James. I hope more people see this and the developers take note or at least weigh in with some insights. Like why Logic / Studio One don’t make use of E cores like the others? What’s the reason? I did hit up Studio One about this so happy to comment what they responded but it wasn’t overly insightful.
Yep well I’m upgrading from an imac 2012 to mbp m3 36gb ram & 1Tb hardrive 👍
Studio One is notorious for inefficient coding on the Mac platform. Intel and ARM. Ditched it, and have been happy ever since.
@@Mikahaan no problems for me personally but you do you 🫡
Amazing content man! Its getting harder to find these types of ACTUALLY USEFUL VIDEOS!
Awesome video! Your are so good at explaining it on details.. thanks for sharing 😄
Wow. This completely changes my approach to buying a laptop. It seems like getting on of the few remaining M1 systems will be a better investment than buying a long battery life M3 given that I want to be able to compose music when I’m traveling.
Keep in mind, though, that the 11-core M3 Pro will probably get your MBP much longer battery life due to it having more efficiency cores. This might be important if you are going to be on battery a lot.
I wouldn’t obsess too much over these hypothetical stress test results. They’re interesting for relative chip comparison, but even the vanilla 2020 M1 chip performed just fine for plenty of music production scenarios on the go and even for full studio use. How often do you run 100 virtual instruments all simultaneously playing the exact same notes over and over for minutes at a time with 5 insert effects on each track?
My workflow is primarily orchestral and scoring which tends to be more RAM constrained than anything else, so my main reason for going with the Pro/Max chips is to reach the 64GB+ memory tiers.
I run a 12 core m2 mini in pro tools hard in demanding situations with huge track counts and plugin counts. Sometimes I forget the buffer is at 64 and never have a cpu problem. First computer in my career like that.
@@Trensharo It does matter what CPU you have, especially in mobile, because Apple Silicon’s performance per watt is way ahead of anything else on the market. A MacBook Air using primarily CPU barely consumes more than 20w and can run any DAW for hours at full performance, regardless if it’s plugged in or not. It doesn’t even have a fan, making it the perfect computer for live recording.
Thanks for your videos. I was going to purchase one of the M3 Macbook Pro and was hoping for a config like my old iMac i9 with 32GB RAM and 4TB storage. Prices and config's on M3 were disappointing, so remember you past tests I purchased a refurbished M1 Max with 32GB and 4TB of RAM and saved money and performance is awesome. Thanks for your videos.
Glad to hear it worked out so well for you!
What is the point? m3 max with 14 cores (10e) 36GB ram same price. 4 tb?
Thank-you for doing these exhaustive tests!
Well done James! I really appreciate time and effort you put on this study!
No surprise that Reaper would be at the top. Big ups to Cubase though, I didn't expect that!
The weird thing is that my MBA M1 fully utilises the E cores with Ableton Live 10, as well as having up to 300+ tracks with Diva and heavy 3rd party effect plugins. Maybe 11 and onwards is not good with optimisation yet.
@TheSzyko Let's hope that Ableton can fix this issue with the soon to be released version 12
Oh my God.. may I go to this for mainstage..live performance
Thanks so much man! Off to watch the buying guide. New subscriber ✌🏻
Thanks again for the effort to do this test.
Interesting thing about Reaper Vs Ableton Live. Ableton keeps all processing for one track inside one core. I have run into issues when mastering with Ableton and having several plugins. Reaper however will spread the total load of all tracks across all cores. Because of this, if I’m likely to use resource intensive plugs on a single track, I move over to Reaper so I don’t run into resource issues.
Yeah, reaper is incredibly efficient!
This is wrong. No DAW can process one track/channel on several cores. You can't parallelize effect chains that are serial.
Would be cool to include Luna and Bitwig in the next update in the future. Also, what is your current go to daw nowadays? Thanks!
Man, at some point I will run out of screen real estate to put all the test results if I keep adding more DAWs 😂 I've been using REAPER for mixing and mastering since 2015.
Second the Luna request!
Luna is free now and sounds amazing compared to other DAWs. I still love using Logic and Cubase along with Luna for mixing. Keep up your great work here James! It’s very useful!!!
@@MrFn65 what do you mean with luna sounds amazing compared to other daws? the internal plugins?
@@gt4032 thx for the info
Very basic, scientific and simple test for all to get within the context explained. Good job!
really well done video man! you're a natural in front of the camera and the information was so interesting/informative!
Glad you liked the video! Not sure about being a "natural" in front of the camera 😂 You don't even know how many retakes I had to do even though I read off a teleprompter word by word 😂
The switch to big.little processing was troublesome for real time audio. Apple had a “bug” previously where they would randomly assign real time audio processing app threads to E cores and the audio would stutter. Their new solution is to use audio workgroups, however it requires app optimization. Logic is working as expected; Apple does not want real time audio threads running on E cores.
Also, audio workgroups will ONLY work on CoreAudio apps and AudioUnit plugins. Other apps and plugin formats are left out. Hence why Reaper etc have all had to come up with their own unique solutions to task scheduling. Hopefully at some point all this stuff will be fixed at the OS level, but sadly that’s probably far off into the future. Until then, devs will have to come up with their own hacks / solutions and figure out what works for their specific apps & plugins.
Surge!!! Man, the good ole days :')
Apple is forcing people over to the M3 Max to get performance cores. I have tested the M3 max in music production and it is a great machine but really expensive. Agree with your conclusion that if you only need music production performance it would make more economical sense to get an used M2 - M1 machine.
love your videos as well. Wish you had some M3 Pro tests for this round. Of course the M3 Max is a beast, so no surprise!
Thank for this. Have M3 Max arriving tomorrow!
Very interesting video! Thank you for taking the time to test these DAWs side by side. I currently own the 10 Core M1 Pro with 32GB of RAM and my primary DAWs are Pro Tools and Ableton. I haven't had a reason to upgrade due to my workload and the Macbook not breaking a sweat. This may shine some light into the reason why. I was also very surprised to see Logic fall into the same issue considering it's Apple's own software.
Reaper is very tightly coded, extremely lean software with the fastest bug fixes and development cycles I've ever know from a DAW. Doesn't surprise me it has the highest track count. Fantastic DAW which does require some customisation to get it to really work for you, that's the only thing.
Using Reaper after using Live is kinda horrible.
Very hard to get used to it.
And I’ve used alllll kinds of Daws.
@@wasabi333 To start with and without any customisation, yes it's a bit odd. I only starting using Reaper for some spatial audio work (Live can't support enough track channels) and it took some time to understand it's power (actions and scripts). I've used Live since V6 and have used every DAW except Studio One. I started on Reason 2/2.5. Live is great but I don't tend to bother with it now. Most important thing is use what is most productive for you, or has the feature set you need.
@@ideosound I see ,but I have still not achieved this. =/
I have the 14” M3 Pro 12/18 / 36gb ram and I maxed out 181 tracks with 32 buffer size on the Logic Pro benchmark which you can find online so its plenty powerful for music production.
For reference I upgraded from my 2018 10-core Intel Xeon iMac Pro 64gb ram and it could barely handle 117 tracks on the highest buffer setting.
Congrats! Finally a very good review on TH-cam. Excellent video!
Thanks for the information..very helpful ❤
Glad you're covering these m series macs. Also, glad I use REAPER lol. Amusing how PT and Logic can't utilize the new efficiency cores. Looks like Apple and Avid need to do some optimizations for these new chips.
This begs the question, what else in MacOS is not optimized properly, causing things to run objectively slower than they should? *grumbles* haha
Great vid!
The funniest is logic = Apple and they’re not even be able to optimize their own system. What a shame….
When it comes to Logic at least, I'm more inclined to believe that there's a particular reason the team behind it prevented from using the efficiency cores to the max, simply because Apple is absolutely amazing at optimizing their software and hardware-FCPX is a great example. There's just no way it's an oversight or mistake that Logic doesn't use the efficiency cores. Maybe it's not even Apple, but the plugin? Though I tested with other plugins and it's the same thing. Some said it could be the AU format itself that's the problem.
I'm just reporting on hard data; I'm only an engineer of the audio kind! Haha.
@@JamesZhan no prob! But even FCPX is slow compared to resolve on Mac. Finally, i actually make the move to switch on PC cause all these oS and hardware updates causes more issues than solutions (for now I guess). Once you understand Reaper is tend to be the new standard in production (already the case in video games), I think ARM system in PC world (in a couple of months) will force Apple to rethink their priority and leadership. Time will tell!
Thanks for this video. Reaper user here. And glad that it’s my DAW of choice. It’s development team do the best job. Surprised that more people don’t choose it.
@@revp01 I love REAPER too for the kind of audio work I do, which is mixing and mastering. However, I understand why some people don't like it or choose it.
Compared to some other DAWs, like Cubase, Logic and FL Studio, I find REAPER's UI to be really ugly, cold and uninspiring; it doesn't feel like a creative environment.
Those 3 other DAWs feel a lot more fun to make music in, and they come with way more music, creation, tools, like plug-ins and sound libraries than REAPER.
In short, I would recommend REAPER to audio engineers, and Cubase/Logic/FL Studio/Ableton to musicians.
A couple things if it hasn't been mentioned in the comments already. DAWs like Live, Bitwig, and FL studio do not use a secondary buffer for basically pre rendering tracks that are not armed for recording. This is really obvious when you arm tracks in them VS the studio style DAWs like Logic, Reaper, DP, Cubase etc. Bitiwig for example has zero change in performance, but arming tracks in Reaper, Cubase and DP etc. will result in drastically higher CPU. Live, Bitwig and FL will always underperform compared to the others because at least in the case of Live and Bitwig they sacrifice CPU to "real time" engines that do not stutter and cause dropouts when you add instruments while they're playing back tracks etc. It's also really IMO important to keep the test plugin from "reputable" vendors, i.e. ones that don't have issues with Apples heavy update cycle. Reaper has always won the CPU shootout wars, it's the leanest code, not the least features. Pretty sure there isn't spectral editing in Cubase. :) Logic bounces around in every test I've done like yours over the years, from great to mediocre like you experienced. Digital Performer does as well as Cubase is doing here, and Bitwig outperforms Live, plus seems to really love U-He plugins.
"Pretty sure there isn't spectral editing in Cubase." - Actually, there is.
To add to this, 1024 is also a really strange choice for a performance test, only mixing engineers and people who never input MIDI or audio into a DAW live are going to get anything from results at that high of a latency. Composing is out of the question, and DAWs respond differently at different buffer settings, Cubase in particular struggled for years at less than 80% of the availible CPU power that Logic or Reaper could get at low latency settings. It might be surprising how different the results would be at lower buffer rates akin to what we would use to compose, like 128 etc.
@@klauba That's cool, but my point was his comment that Reaper was less complex of a DAW than Cubase and that's why it has better CPU than Cubase, is just flatly off. Reaper does plenty of things Cubase can't and visa versa. It's not a "simple" DAW by any means.
@@machinesworking indeed. 1024 feels strange. For example i paste here chunk from Dune3 synth manual so you guys can figure out real-life scenarios>>>> Furthermore, it is important to choose a good latency/audio buffer size. We recommend to use
between 10-20 ms, or 512 samples at a 44.1 / 48 kHz sample rate. On most systems, this should
result in a good balance between low-latency, realtime feel and CPU performance. Note that
using less than 128 sample buffers will disable multi-threaded processing, as the thread
synchronisation overhead becomes too significant
512 is a noticable amount of latency to me., I play guitar and 256 is a bare maximum latency I can handle., preferably 128 or lower. I see no real world use in a test at 1024. @@marian0321
Thank you for dropping this video because it will hopefully stop all the DAWs from kicking the can down the road and do better.
I really appreciate the way you explain stuff. Thanks a lot.
My suggestion is to recreate the tests with 512 or lower. At latencies as high as 1024 introduces, the system could assume that there are other things more important than maximum audio performance (such as battery life) meaning that you won´t get best performance. We have made tests where a project on an M1 Ultra struggled but still played at 128 or 256 and would cause overloads at 1024.
@Trensharo Feel free to believe whatever you want. Logic is a product written by Apple and has more options to "talk" to the operating system than you would probably think. There is a reason why battery drainage and power comsumption can very different based on how an app interacts with the OS. Also, the fact that 1024 might be good for other DAWs, it does not necessarily mean that it is good for Logic Pro X.
What this implies for Logic Pro (and there has been no 'Logic Pro X' for years), is that upgrading the 14" MBP to the 12-core would likely outperform the 11-core, and the M3 cores being faster, it would outperform the M2 Pro with 6 P-cores, simply bc the 6 M3 P-cores are faster (as well as more efficient). And that going with the M3 Pro base 16" MBP (which is already configured as 12-core) would provide even slightly better performance due to bigger fans and better thermals.
Even though Apple stopped restricting I/O by starting to again use two nand chips on the 256 (RIP) and the 512 SSDs, other tests have shown better CPU/P-core performance on the 1 TB SSD, making that a worthy reason to get 1 TB (as well as better performance simply due to the 16" form factor).
What Apple improved on the M3 makes a lot of sense, but puzzlingly makes little sense for those using DAWs that use P-cores and do not use E-cores, GPU, or the other M3 bells and whistles. Especially since Logic Pro is their flagship application-their DAW.
My wishful thinking is they were OK with this for two reasons:
1) The older Apple silicon is still plenty fast, so it did not really need an upgrade. My tracks apparently use fewer resources than your test tracks, but I can run 100 tracks on an ancient 2020 M1 13" MBP with only 8 GB of UM and it just screams along, not even breathing hard, spiking occasionally at 35%, maybe rarely at 65%. I haven't had to freeze a track since my 2011 MBA. I would imagine that even the base M3 could outperform it, since the M1 only has 4 P-cores instead of 5 and the M3 cores are like 30% faster.
It's not a matter of how powerful if even the lowly M1 is powerful enough. You could buy a Ferrari that has a top speed of 120, or upgrade to one that can do 140, or one that can do 160. But the base model will get you to work on time, just as quickly, and no more quickly than your work buddy who drives an old Hyundai. The point of diminishing returns on performance, making more performance unnecessary, has already occurred for 95% of Logic users, and the high-intensity users are going to go desktop, Studio, Max and Ultra, anyway.
2) possibly they have plans to revamp Logic in order to use E-cores, which if they do, would negate any minimal P-core performance as things stand right now, replacing it with an equivalent performance upgrade to Reaper. Under the circumstances of how they are rolling out M3, it would not surprise me to see that (but I won't hold my breath). It also wouldn't surprise me if that new Logic Pro is waiting in the wings-waiting for heavy users to cave in and upgrade to the MAX or high-end M3 desktops we should see by March or July. They would love to see us overbuy rather than make the lowly M3 compatible with an improved Logic Pro, at least for now.
Excellent video with very useful information! Also extra note, your video, lighting and editing are superb. Keep it up. Instant sub
Glad you like the production of my videos! I put a lot of effort into the video side of things.
Thanks for the video, super informative and well made!!!!
A general comment, it does seem that Apple is more focused on the general consumer and video content producers in general. Whilst a reasonably powerful GPU can be nice for GPU assisted DAW/plugin UI drawing, I wish Apple would consider doing a musician focused processor with the minimum required GPU (i.e. minimal 3D support, no deep learning accelerators, no video encode accelerators) and instead give us a chip with many more p-cores.. (GPU based audio acceleration is being worked on by some - but still a way off being mainstream). With each new chip currently they seem to be going for better video performance and battery life.. and the fact there's no option to add/swap RAM and internal NVME HD is frustrating - at least they should provide that on the Mac 'studio' IMO. (I boosted my Intel laptop to 64GB ram and 2TB HD from originally having 16GB and 512GB HD.)
What you said here pretty much resonated with what I had said in my two very popular apple silicon Mac buying guide videos, which is that these M-series chips provide the most bang of the buck for professionals who can really take advantage of the chips' graphic capabilities. For a lot of people in the music or recording industry, we don't really benefit from a ton of GPU cores or the media engines. Many people just need more RAM and not more CPU power. With Apple Silicon Macs, if you want a lot more RAM, you are stuck with paying for really high-end chips that is really designed for high-end graphic/video production.
@@JamesZhan Apple isn't really interested in the relatively small niche Pro Audio / Musician segment of their customers, Video is a HUGE purchasing motivator for BOTH Pro and amateur customers, hence they direct most resources to efficiently align the silicon for the largest potential user base = $$$$
@@RichMoyers To be fair, the M-series chips as they are so far (3 generations), already make Macs a great value for people doing music work, even if we are paying to a ton of stuff we don't need for audio tasks (media engines, GPU cores, crazy memory bandwidth etc). Take the M2 Pro Mac mini for example, it would be impossible to find a PC equivalent that has the same form factor and deliver so much power at the same time.
REAPER GANG 💪
👻
Really helpful video man! I'll be subscribing, brilliant work!
this is exactly what i was looking for. thanks a lot james
Hi nice work
Can you include Luna DAW on you next performance comparison videos please?
Thanks
Very interesting, thanks a lot ! But I can say that I´m breaking my M1 Max with 8 performance cores constantly in almost every mastering project. Working in Logic most of the time and can say that Apple is not able to contribute an equal CPU load over the core for years. Example: Running most of my CPU hungry and oversampled plugins through groups /busses. The problem: All these busses are taxing ONE cpu core only most of the time. So performance core one is on its limit while most of the other cores are having a chilled life. I have experienced the same behavior on my previous Mac Pro 16 core. 15 cores sleeping one core working for all busses. The Mac Pro was the badest invest I ever did. I have learned that the single core performance is much more important, at least in my case and workflow, than the number of multi cores. At least until Apple can fix the bad cpu distribution more balanced in Logic. Resulting question: How does the single core performance differs from these M1/M2/M3 models. Thanks again and keep it up.
Single-Core M3 Taktfrequenzen 4,05 GHz higher then M1 and M2
same here: one core can get maxed while the others are having a coffee.
It s just bad and sadly nobody is addressing that point. It feels the audio engine of Logic has not been updated for ages. They should solve these basics first before adding new shiny features. @@Dudadius
@@mattymenck And you mention mastering, for whatever reason, when I get to the 2-bus mastering phase of my projects is when things always get pegged. I wonder if it is related to how Logic handles the bus routing, and those plugs at the end of the chain not being processed as efficiently as on indivudual tracks? just spitballing…
@@Dudadius It seems that Logic is processing all bus and aux channels on one core only. No matter if you have just one or many busses (like me) ending on the stereo out.
There is one workaround that helps a little.. You can put one instrument in a track without any output routing as ghost track /instrument. Hit the record button (without recording any midi data) and start the song. You should see in Logics CPU monitor that most of the load from the first core is moving to the last core. This helps a little to distribute the CPU load a bit more equal. Not much, but helps a little.
Fantastic video and exactly what I was trying to learn about.
Hey James, thanks for doing this!
Reaper being the GOAT as usual.
There's a reason - superior developers. Willing to bet best in the business today.
Even on x86 i do notice the difference.
If you've been using Logic or Pro Tools for years and have a list of gripes that are inherent to those platforms, REAPER might be the DAW for you. The user molds REAPER around their desired workflow, not the other way around like in every other DAW. I can see it being challenging for someone who's new to audio engineering, but if you're experienced and know what you want, it's absolutely amazing and it can make some of your wildest wishes come true. Also, no copy protection.
This video is amazing thank you for your hard work. You really helped me out
Thank you very much for this video and the work you put in. So helpful.
Hey James, we texted earlier about Live 12‘s use of cores. I finally got an answer from Ableton support, I copy it in here:
Live 11 uses any available core on M CPUs when the processing allows it. The video you are referring to is not accurate. Live 11 can and makes use of efficiency cores as well.
As a general rule, efficiency cores are not made for heavy processing so do not expect any DAW to benefit from efficiency cores as performance cores are what you need.
In this case, an M3 Max will outperform an M1 Max, but an M3 Pro would not outperform an M1 Pro as Apple has decided to lower the ratio of performance cores in the Pro version while adding performance cores to the Max version.
Live 12 is identical to Live 11 in this regard and fully compatible with M CPUs.
Awesome thanks so much for doing this ! The only other DAW I would request be added is Reason(I use with Cubase) ,it's extremely underated and incredibly quick ,in some ways more so than Cubase, so I would be interested in seeing how it would fare in this also🤩
Yup. Bitwig is missing. It's often considered to be a more CPU efficiënt DAW given that it's not as old as some other DAWs, some TH-cam videos also showcasing this when comparing performative with Ableton.
Thanks for this update
This is super interesting. Thanks for making this video!!!
Added DAW versions tested in the description!
If you like this video, definitely watch this next! ➡ The Ultimate M1/M2 Mac Buying Guide for Music Production:
th-cam.com/video/VFpCbT3Rx4Y/w-d-xo.html
f anyone in the comments can please help me? I am thinking of buying a MacBook M3 pro 11 core, 12 core pro or a 14 core M3 Max, 18 GB or 36 would be enough, but I would like to know the difference when running MATLAB, Apple's office page is very ambiguous in the data, gives some graphs without specifying which test was done, and in the end he says little about what he did, such as the number 12 or the numeral 14-- for example 12) Testing conducted by Apple in September and October 2023 using preproduction 14-inch MacBook Pro systems with Apple M3 Pro, 12-core CPU, 18-core GPU, 36GB of RAM, and 4TB SSD, production 14-inch MacBook Pro systems with Apple M2 Pro, 12-core CPU, 19-core GPU, 32GB of RAM, and 8TB SSD, production 14-inch MacBook Pro systems with Apple M1 Pro, 10-core CPU, 16-core GPU, 32GB of RAM, and 8TB SSD, and production 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7-based 13-inch MacBook Pro systems with Intel Iris Plus Graphics, 32GB of RAM, and 4TB SSD. Tested with MATLAB and Simulink R2023b v23.2.0 and Parallel Computing Toolbox using a vehicle dynamics model. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of MacBook Pro.
An amazing value you are bringing to your subscribers! Subscribed! 🙂
Very helpful video. Thanks a lot!
Great video! I appreciate your impartial and detailed tests.
This is very impressive testing, I can see how much you considered what information was necessary for the intended viewer.
Thank you for this video James.
This video is incredibly helpful. Thank you for your attention to detail and focusing on those critical factors we care most about.
Great Info
Thanks Mate
Very important eye opener for me
My man 💪 ... now that is some kick ass comprehensive testing, explained amazingly well as well backed up with proof and specifics. Thank you bro.
Great video, thank you!
Amazing Information, very very useful. Subscribed