#NUENDO 12 INSTAL THE NEW FOR MAC PRO#
#NUENDO 12 INSTAL THE NEW FOR MAC PC#
#NUENDO 12 INSTAL THE NEW FOR MAC MAC#

The Cubase results seem in line with your experience on the 2013 MP. I definitely don't remember Logic being so limited at 1024 on Sierra. What the hell is with Logic's performance in this at higher buffers? And why does it seem to stabilize at 128.I'm very curious if this was happening in Sierra before I updated to Mojave and 10.4.5 as well.

#NUENDO 12 INSTAL THE NEW FOR MAC PRO#

Samples coming off a Crucial MX500 in an attached USB3 enclosure.įocusrite Saffire Pro 40 Firewire interface Results:Ĭubase 10.0.2, Kontakt 5.8.1, ASIO Guard on Highģ2 - 66 instances Logic 10.4.5, Kontakt 5.8.1, Process Buffer Range: Large

I duplicated that with the same midi/patch for every instance. I tested with the Spitfire Chamber Strings Cello Performance Legato patch, with a ~16bar midi melody with just modulation data.

I always felt that Logic outperformed Cubase, but the tests had some very weird and surprising results.

#NUENDO 12 INSTAL THE NEW FOR MAC MAC#

That is a rather huge difference! I have the same Mac Pro, and out of curiosity did some similar tests in Cubase vs Logic. If anyone has any input or similar findings, post them here! Or let's talk about this. Even Logic Pro X performs insanely well in comparison on the same machine.Īlso note, there is overclocking headroom on the X99 build to warrant a few more instances possibly (CPU & RAM) since the CPU is on water. There is definitely some under the hood work Steinberg needs to do on the macOS side, because there are numerous forums reporting the same thing. the 5960X is better, but not by an insane amount. that is a HUGE difference in loss of performance on the MP side.Įven IF, I installed macOS on the X99 build, I highly doubt it would be the same as the Windows results.Įven then, the 1650v2 and the 5960X aren't that crazy off in performance anyways. * I COULD have loaded more, but my RAM was maxed out 100% on the X99 build If i went down to 32 samples, instances went down only slightly to 224. X99 Build: 258 tracks/instances of Kontakt! (same libraries/patches as the mac and yes after the 82 track mark, i added more patches) 128 samples! Nuendo felt extremely sluggish while playing too. AT 2048 samples! Anything more, and it would just click, and no samples played. That was ALL I was able to squeeze out of the MP. Here were my findings: Mac Pro: 82 tracks/instances of Kontakt 2048 samples (max buffer) Samples loaded from a Team Group T-Force Delta 1TB SATA SSD Interface: Samples loaded from a Sabrent Rocket 1TB NVMe via a Sonnet Echo TB3 enclosure X99 build:ģ2GB of 3200MHz DDR4 Corsair Dominator Platinum RAM BUT dumbed down to 2133MHz for a slightly better comparison)ĥ12GB NVMe Samsung 970 Pro boot drive in m.2 slot on mobo Vega 64 8GB GPU (via a TB3 Razer Core X eGPU enclosure)

Here's the specs of each machine: 2013 Mac Pro:ĥ12GB NVMe Samsung 970 PRO boot drive with adapter (to fit in Apple's proprietary slot) Also, I understand these machines aren't exactly similar in specs, but even if they were closer to spec, the difference I noticed wouldn't be made up I feel, on the macOS side. Now, this is by no means a formal test, more so a 'let's see what happens' kind of test lol.

#NUENDO 12 INSTAL THE NEW FOR MAC PC#

So, I conducted a small test today on the performance of Nuendo 10.0.20 on my 2013 Mac pro (trashcan) in comparison to another PC I own that i use for work.

I'm not shocked because most of us know the performance hit we take using Cubase or Nuendo on macOS but I AM shocked at the difference in performance loss/gain.

Nuendo 12 instal the new for mac