Live 12 performance

[Fantomaz]

Hi all,

Live 12 is on the way, this is great news and there are plenty of interesting new features.

Strangely, there is absolutely no info about optimisation for apple M chips or performance in general...

I find this weird...

Please comment!

[[jur]]

Strangely, there is absolutely no info about optimisation for apple M chips

Live is "silicon-ready" for quite a while now!

Generally speaking, L12 is just about the same as L11 in terms of CPU usage.

[Fantomaz]

I was not talking about compatibility, I was asking about optimisation...

[login]

If you see no changes mentioned it is because there isn't any changes

[[jur]]

I was not talking about compatibility, I was asking about optimisation...

You were asking about optimisation for "apple M chips". Live is running natively on silicon macs, so in which way could it "more" optimised in your opinion?

[kleine]

Live is indeed running natively on the Apple silicon chips and furthermore, we'll spend considerable effort during the L12 beta period to optimise performance (on all platforms)

[[nil]]

Hi,

M1,2,3 apple silicon chips today have an architecture composed of performance and efficiency cores. This was known in the past as a big.LITTLE architecture and did not exist on personal computers, only mobile phones. Nowadays it's both on Mac and PC with Intel's latest offerings as well.

This creates a challenge on how a DAW best distributes work to various cores. It's definitely being worked on by our engine team.

[Machinesworking]

Hi,

M1,2,3 apple silicon chips today have an architecture composed of performance and efficiency cores. This was known in the past as a big.LITTLE architecture and did not exist on personal computers, only mobile phones. Nowadays it's both on Mac and PC with Intel's latest offerings as well.

This creates a challenge on how a DAW best distributes work to various cores. It's definitely being worked on by our engine team.

I'm interested in why some DAWs including Live, and Logic, Bitwig etc. are currently excluding or not using the Efficiency cores, but others like Digital Performer, Cubase, and Reaper are? I mean it's probably an impossible question I just personally wonder why they chose not to ignore the Efficiency cores while others did? There are no stragglers or unprofessional DAWs in these ranks so the decision wasn't taken lightly. MOTU who make DP for instance do mention that stacking a single track with Kontakt instruments is often less productive than spreading those instruments across tracks. Basically letting us know that DP allocates cores to tracks etc.

[slow.robot]

not sure how it is now, but for Digital Performer 10, at least, the performance was utter garbage--to the point of being literally unusable with any third-party effects on a relatively beefy 12-core PC. I assume it's better on Mac, and better with DP11, but to the point about decisions not being taken lightly, well, they knew DP was basically an expensive digital paperweight when they released it, so I'm always more interested in real-world performance than what a company states.

anyway, I'm glad to hear Live 12's performance should be equivalent to 11.

also, I saw this thread and got excited thinking 12 had released, so imagine my disappointment...

[cids]

Hi,

M1,2,3 apple silicon chips today have an architecture composed of performance and efficiency cores. This was known in the past as a big.LITTLE architecture and did not exist on personal computers, only mobile phones. Nowadays it's both on Mac and PC with Intel's latest offerings as well.

This creates a challenge on how a DAW best distributes work to various cores. It's definitely being worked on by our engine team.

I'm interested in why some DAWs including Live, and Logic, Bitwig etc. are currently excluding or not using the Efficiency cores, but others like Digital Performer, Cubase, and Reaper are? I mean it's probably an impossible question I just personally wonder why they chose not to ignore the Efficiency cores while others did? There are no stragglers or unprofessional DAWs in these ranks so the decision wasn't taken lightly. MOTU who make DP for instance do mention that stacking a single track with Kontakt instruments is often less productive than spreading those instruments across tracks. Basically letting us know that DP allocates cores to tracks etc.

https://help.ableton.com/hc/en-us/artic ... U-handling

[Machinesworking]

not sure how it is now, but for Digital Performer 10, at least, the performance was utter garbage--to the point of being literally unusable with any third-party effects on a relatively beefy 12-core PC. I assume it's better on Mac, and better with DP11, but to the point about decisions not being taken lightly, well, they knew DP was basically an expensive digital paperweight when they released it, so I'm always more interested in real-world performance than what a company states.

Real world performance is 140 tracks of Diva on an M2 Studio Ultra in Digital Performer 11, compared to 90 in Live 11.
The DP PC users I know do not use most online forums because of the negativity. IMO certain configurations or plugins are really taking DP down on the PC, and for some that's not the case. Over at KVR multiple PC users complain about poor performance in Live, sluggishness etc. Forever Cubase was reportedly better on PC, but lately people are claiming it's better on Mac. IMO dual platform support be like that, and it doesn't help that DP was a Mac only software for decades.

Anyway, my point was that MOTU reps recommend investigating spreading out instruments in Kontakt instances VS just loading up a single instance with 16 instruments, which is somewhat of a statement of how DP handles multi core performance, and I got a link to Abletons statement on the subject.

[nicobi]

Generally speaking, L12 is just about the same as L11 in terms of CPU usage.

This is not true on my machine:

• Macbook Pro M1Max
• Blank default session
• Idle CPU usage - no indexing or analysis (or all indexing and analysis done)

Live 11.3.21 (2024-01-22_5ac24cad7c): 12 % CPU average, 190 reactivations average

Live 12.0b25 (2024-01-19_a21677574c): 45 % CPU average, 226 reactivations average