Reason 8.1 & above CPU Stress Test (songfile included)!

[mcatalao]

I wonder what those 12 core mac pros do on this test? Anyone got one or know someone who does who would let you install reason for... Science??

In the other tests there was a user with a 6 core, who got more or less what i had, and with this test i'm goint trough 57 sec to 1:02 min (I7 4790k). 

I'd say with a 2x6 core you would have to increase the project!

Unfortunately there aren't any mobo's with dual 1120 chips, or that would be my next upgrade!

[MirEko]

I wonder what those 12 core mac pros do on this test? Anyone got one or know someone who does who would let you install reason for... Science??

In the other tests there was a user with a 6 core, who got more or less what i had, and with this test i'm goint trough 57 sec to 1:02 min (I7 4790k). 

I'd say with a 2x6 core you would have to increase the project!

Unfortunately there aren't any mobo's with dual 1120 chips, or that would be my next upgrade!

yes only the Xeon can run in dual cpu.

I would love to see how the macpro does though, as it's very fast throughout.

I see 12core xeons going really cheap all the time, I've been tempted to just buy one to see if reason really uses all those cores and if it makes a big performance difference

[zyberbob]

With Newest version of R8, stops playback after 1:03:569

CPU usage limit set in Reason 8 = 95%
Sample rate = 44,100 Hz
Buffer length = 1024 samples (max )

Hardware: 
CPU i7 3930K @ 3.2 Ghz Turbo mode 3.6 Ghz
RAM 16 GB running in Quad channel 1600 Mhz, CL9
Bose companion 5 Soundcard

[mcatalao]

zyberbob,

Great setup and performance with a 3 year 6core! Makes me think if I should have invested the notch up to the 6core!

[mcatalao]

yes only the Xeon can run in dual cpu. I would love to see how the macpro does though, as it's very fast throughout. I see 12core xeons going really cheap all the time, I've been tempted to just buy one to see if reason really uses all those cores and if it makes a big performance difference

Well, imho and since Macs are now Intel, i guess performance will be very much the same on simmillar build either apple or windows.

Aah and that just reminded we are working on 2 2x6 Xeons at work on the production sites of the client... I wonder if they let me instal reason just to try it! lol

[zyberbob]

Yeah that old 6 core cpu is quite effective, and can be overclocked quite easily, I have run it at 4.0 Ghz for some time but it made some more noise because it made some more heat, so i turned it down, so the cooling is more quieter.

I also use it for 3D graphics and after effects, and it rocks.

[Puckboy2000]

Today I got my new whizbang shiny iMac and I'm broken - test file run only 0:00:36:734 (position 19.2.2.209). Hey! This machine has hyperthreading! 

iMac 27
8 gb ram
i7 3.5 ghz
44.1
1024 bufor
Focusrite Saffire Pro 24 DSP

Reason and Safari with two tabs

You're lucky - I only get to bar 13 (24 seconds) with my 3.4 mHz i7 iMac from a few years back. :frown:

So the new iMac isn't that optimal for Reason? Is windows better for CPU? I have a 2 year old MacBook Pro and was thinking of going to a desk top for a faster system (due to more REs , just got Melodyne and soon will set Studio One). If I get the highest grade iMac, is it worth the money??? Would a regular PC with windows give better performance ???

[Gaja]

Puckboy, seligs iMac is from a few years back, I'm guessing around 2012. In my experience iMacs deliver great results both in performance and usability. The question about the money remains. I personally am not willing to buy windows based machines that I seem to be able to destroy with my sheer presence (last time I owned windows based computers I owned and utterly and irreparably damaged three of them in a 18 months or so which turned out to be more expensive than a mac based system), mainly because it is important to really dive into your computer and really understand what's going on in there. If that is something you enjoy, you should certainly get a windows machine. The thing about mac is the longevity of their products. I have a 2005 iBook that still works (can't run modern software of course) a 2008 mac book still in use (and great condition) and a mid 2010 27" iMac that still runs like a charm. I have not seen any windows based laptop last this long (not to say it doesn't exist, just haven't seen any), so I will always go that route.
I have seen expensive windows systems with 16GB Ram, SSD, and 8core i7 take ten minutes to start up, but my iMac had that too once. So performance really depends on the system you build. With mac you have hardware that is carefully selected to work together really well, and the OS is written around these parts, so it is possible that a mac delivers better performance at lower specs, given that a selfmade win based rig might potentially not be the best compilation of hardware.

[Puckboy2000]

Thanks Gaja. The last Windows based computer I had was a Toshiba Satelite laptop. I think it must have been around Reason 3 or 4 in terms of time reference. Once I went Mac I haven't looked back. I was just curious because it seems there are a lot of windows users on the board. My band mate uses Windows but he he is still on Reason 6.5 and only has a couple of REs. I thought the Toshiba gave pretty good performance at the time but it got infected and was useless. I was ready for a new computer anyways and moved to the MacBook Pro.

[mcatalao]

I think we can't expect the same performance from a Laptop CPU against a Desktop/Server CPU.

For starters, the CPU's are way slower, they cannot achieve the same speed because of temperature limitations.

One good thing this and the other tests have shown is that reason Performance in either platform (Windows and Apple) is pretty much the same for simmilar CPU's.

PS.: Selig, those 15 bars are really nice, my Core2duo laptop doesn't play 1!

BTW, one problem with this test (and the other too) is that the load is too big for older cpu's. My point is that most of those hundreds of tracks are eating ram and cpu cicles in void. I don't know how Kategra does it but he has a talent to find nasty patches.

[mcatalao]

Puckboy, seligs iMac is from a few years back, I'm guessing around 2012. In my experience iMacs deliver great results both in performance and usability. The question about the money remains. I personally am not willing to buy windows based machines that I seem to be able to destroy with my sheer presence (last time I owned windows based computers I owned and utterly and irreparably damaged three of them in a 18 months or so which turned out to be more expensive than a mac based system), mainly because it is important to really dive into your computer and really understand what's going on in there. If that is something you enjoy, you should certainly get a windows machine. The thing about mac is the longevity of their products. I have a 2005 iBook that still works (can't run modern software of course) a 2008 mac book still in use (and great condition) and a mid 2010 27" iMac that still runs like a charm. I have not seen any windows based laptop last this long (not to say it doesn't exist, just haven't seen any), so I will always go that route. I have seen expensive windows systems with 16GB Ram, SSD, and 8core i7 take ten minutes to start up, but my iMac had that too once. So performance really depends on the system you build. With mac you have hardware that is carefully selected to work together really well, and the OS is written around these parts, so it is possible that a mac delivers better performance at lower specs, given that a selfmade win based rig might potentially not be the best compilation of hardware.

IMHO i think this is not the right thread to do this, but i have a Asus laptop working as a media server, is a machine from 2005. I have a little file server that is a dual Pentium from 2010. My last Studio PC, was a 4core Q6600 that last for 6 years, and broke because of a power surge. The Laptop where i'm writing this post is a 5 year laptop that has never been reinstalled, and still runs Reason 8.2. I'm sorry to say, and with all respect, when i see a mac user talk like this he is either uninformed or completely delayed in time. 

Anyway, i really do not like to talk about Mac vs PC,for two reasons. First i think i'm a little cooler than the suit guy (though i often suit up for my day job) and second, some years ago, i had an altercation with an obnoxious mac fanboy that stated some music sounded better because it was made in an apple computer. It was amazingly hard to try to explain that everything important about making music was around the computer and not inside it (and it was excruciating to try to explain that besides Logic audio - and simply because Apple bought the guys-, every single DAW had Mac and Windows versions, that worked and performed exactly the same). 

[Gaja]

I'm not stating mac is better, but I have made better experiences with them in every regard so far. Glad to hear you're having a better experience with your setup. Uninformed is probably the right word. I'm not interested in knowing how a computer works, or how to optimize one that doesn't. I don't want to know these details because they distract me from doing the stuff I want to do.
I understand you had bad experiences with apple fanboys and some of them are obnoxious as fuck, but it's not like everyone who uses apple is that stupid, just like you are cooler than the dude in the ads
Also you are right about this being the wrong thread for this topic, so I'd like to apologize for derailing the tread.

[Puckboy2000]

I think we can't expect the same performance from a Laptop CPU against a Desktop/Server CPU.

For starters, the CPU's are way slower, they cannot achieve the same speed because of temperature limitations.

One good thing this and the other tests have shown is that reason Performance in either platform (Windows and Apple) is pretty much the same for simmilar CPU's.

PS.: Selig, those 15 bars are really nice, my Core2duo laptop doesn't play 1!

BTW, one problem with this test (and the other too) is that the load is too big for older cpu's. My point is that most of those hundreds of tracks are eating ram and cpu cicles in void. I don't know how Kategra does it but he has a talent to find nasty patches.

Lol about that Mac fanboy comment. . Hilarious. But to clarify, you are saying I would, or should, get better performance from a desktop than a laptop? (As a general rule?). And is so, is it a lot better performance??? Thanks.

[EnochLight]

you are saying I would, or should, get better performance from a desktop than a laptop? (As a general rule?). And is so, is it a lot better performance??? Thanks.

Most laptop CPU's - at least the mobile version of their desktop "counterpart" - are optimized for power savings while balancing performance.  On a desktop, while you can certainly optimize your CPU for power savings versus performance, out of the gate they tend to be faster.  In some cases, a lot faster.  As they don't need to run off a battery, there's really little need to underclock the CPU and otherwise cut performance.

That said, there are some laptops that offer desktop-like performance, at the cost of crappy battery performance.  Too many options to list.

Spend some time and compare CPU performance here:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/mid_range_cpus.html

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/midlow_range_cpus.html

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/low_end_cpus.html

[Puckboy2000]

you are saying I would, or should, get better performance from a desktop than a laptop? (As a general rule?). And is so, is it a lot better performance??? Thanks.

Most laptop CPU's - at least the mobile version of their desktop "counterpart" - are optimized for power savings while balancing performance.  On a desktop, while you can certainly optimize your CPU for power savings versus performance, out of the gate they tend to be faster.  In some cases,

a lot

faster.

 As they don't need to run off a battery, there's really little need to underclock the CPU and otherwise cut performance.

That said, there are some laptops that offer desktop-like performance, at the cost of crappy battery performance.  Too many options to list.

Spend some time and compare CPU performance here:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/mid_range_cpus.html

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/midlow_range_cpus.html

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/low_end_cpus.html

Awesome! Thanks for the clarification and info.

[gak]

you are saying I would, or should, get better performance from a desktop than a laptop? (As a general rule?). And is so, is it a lot better performance??? Thanks.

Most laptop CPU's - at least the mobile version of their desktop "counterpart" - are optimized for power savings while balancing performance.  On a desktop, while you can certainly optimize your CPU for power savings versus performance, out of the gate they tend to be faster.  In some cases,

a lot

faster.

 As they don't need to run off a battery, there's really little need to underclock the CPU and otherwise cut performance.

That said, there are some laptops that offer desktop-like performance, at the cost of crappy battery performance.  Too many options to list.

Spend some time and compare CPU performance here:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/mid_range_cpus.html

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/midlow_range_cpus.html

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/low_end_cpus.html

DRASTIC diff between the "high" end and everything else.

funny, when I built this the 4770 3.5 (which I have) was the defacto chip (price/performance) it's amazing how much faster they are now (and that was only about 20 months ago)

[gak]

Today I got my new whizbang shiny iMac and I'm broken - test file run only 0:00:36:734 (position 19.2.2.209). Hey! This machine has hyperthreading! 

iMac 27
8 gb ram
i7 3.5 ghz
44.1
1024 bufor
Focusrite Saffire Pro 24 DSP

Reason and Safari with two tabs

You're lucky - I only get to bar 13 (24 seconds) with my 3.4 mHz i7 iMac from a few years back. :frown:

So the new iMac isn't that optimal for Reason? Is windows better for CPU? I have a 2 year old MacBook Pro and was thinking of going to a desk top for a faster system (due to more REs , just got Melodyne and soon will set Studio One). If I get the highest grade iMac, is it worth the money??? Would a regular PC with windows give better performance ???

I wonder if SSD doesn't play a part in this. TTBOMK, imac doesn't ship with SSD yet. Would be interesting to hear thoughts on this.

[Kategra]

SSD has no impact on the R8 Benchmark, other than maybe loading the project faster. It does not matter while it plays it.

Regarding MAC vs PC, as far as i know, lots of PC users overclock their CPU's which delivers more performance versus the same CPUs at stock speeds in the MAC.

I am one of those PC users

Anyway, computers with same CPUs model, GHz core speed and minimum RAM, and good audio interface drivers should perform in Reason almost the same regardless of MAC or PC.

[mcatalao]

DRASTIC diff between the "high" end and everything else.

funny, when I built this the 4770 3.5 (which I have) was the defacto chip (price/performance) it's amazing how much faster they are now (and that was only about 20 months ago)

Gak, careful with that conclusion... 

First of all, there are about 2 or 3 editions of the I7 4770 ( normal, c, k). The normal and v are the same, except that one is only the chip, the other is a case with the chip and cooler. then you have the k version with the CPU Clock, Bus Speed, and Voltage unlocked. These are the ones we use for overclocking. 

So at the time you bought your 4770, there might even be another version a tad faster.

Check that also the 12000+ performance machines in that graph are 6+ cores CPU's and your CPU is a 4 core. This being said, and I'm not always on top of what gets out, you might still have one of the best 4 Cores around because i bought my 4790k about a year ago and that was the only CPU faster than the 4770k.

BTW, as Kategra said, there shouldn't be a direct relation with DSP performance and the use of an SSD. Still, if better load times, and the capability of recording more and more channels is important for you, they do make a difference! And that will make a whole difference if/when (hopefully) we get HDD streaming.

[gak]

I'm not sure I follow. I'm not saying anything pos/neg about mine other than at the time there were not many chips available that were better (and they cost MUCH more money) and that the one I got was really popular.

Anyways, I'll do the stress test later.

[gak]

• CPU: Intel i7 4770 @ 3.5GHz (no overclocking)
• RAM: 16 GB 
• Soundcard: Focusrite pro 14 (FW)
• 44100Hz, 1024 buffer
• CPU usage limit @ 95%

Stops at 18.3.3 or roughly 36 seconds.

Not good imho. 

I'm starting to think I have viddy problems.

[Kategra]

• CPU: Intel i7 4770 @ 3.5GHz (no overclocking)
• RAM: 16 GB 
• Soundcard: Focusrite pro 14 (FW)
• 44100Hz, 1024 buffer
• CPU usage limit @ 95%

Stops at 18.3.3 or roughly 36 seconds.

Not good imho. 

I'm starting to think I have viddy problems.

Don't know what the meaning to "viddy problems" is, but 36 seconds for a stock 4770 is ok. Even though 4790K has a better result 1 min+  it's not actually double in Reason performance. That is because all devices in the rack consume CPU cycles simply by existing in the rack without processing midi or audio. 
You can test this by deleting some of the last channels completely from the benchmark and then play it, then your i7 4770 machine will pay a good length more than 36 seconds.

So people should interpret results of X = 36 seconds and Y = 1 minute  ======> more like this means that Y is capable of processing a noticeable amount of extra tracks than X, but certainly not double!


PS. When I made this benchmark, I said to my self that I'm going to upgrade my i5 3570k 4.3 Ghz (32 seconds score) to a processor which would finish this test @ 1 min 28 sec or pretty close to that, and will not cost a premium. That kinda of processor is something that I would consider  two times faster that my i5 CPU.

[gak]

I understand, but I was having audio crackles half way through.

BTW, my viddy card is fine, but there is something that is causing CPU issues. On the prowl.....might have some answers soon. 

[Kategra]

I understand, but I was having audio crackles half way through.

BTW, my viddy card is fine, but there is something that is causing CPU issues. On the prowl.....might have some answers soon. 

It's normal to have the crackles midway in the benchmark. We all have it. What is important in the benchmark is the result (where the playback stops). 
I guess only a CPU at least 2 times more powerful than the current top 6-8 cores CPUs would play the benchmark completly and without any crackles, even at good latency.

[dezma]

Recent setup over here:

Win 8.1 64bit
I7 5820k
8GB DDR4 2133MHZ
970GTX

No OC.

Audiocard = external m-audio fast track c600

buffer size = 256
stops at 1.12.382

buffer size = 1024
stops at 1.16.536

New I7's seem to be valid studio companions