Originally Posted by ggegan
The HDX hardware makes perfect sense for feature film mixing where you need massive numbers of voices and don't want to link too many multiple machines. An HDX2 provides 512 voices and supposedly the equivalent of an HD10 TDM plus whatever native processing is available. With an HDX3 that increases to 768 voices and a third more card processing.
While even an HDX2 is going to be overkill for the vast majority of users, for those mixing Hollywood features it is cheaper and makes more sense to go with one HDX2 or HDX3 than the equivalent number of HD Native systems that would be required to provide the same number of voices and needed processing. Remember that each Native system will need it's own powerful computer and a Sync HD as well as duplicate licenses for any non bundled plugins. That is a lot of extra expense, nevermind the hassle of dealing with mutiple systems.
The issue of high end native algorithmic reverb plugins is also still a question. There will reportedly be native versions of Revibe and Reverb One coming out, but no one knows how much CPU power they will gobble up.
Yes, for the time being they do make sense. However, the point I was making was that considering HD6 is already outperformed, it won't be long until an HDX3 is outperformed. CPUs improve all the time, it's taken Avid 8 years to upgrade their proprietary hardware. The performance/cost ratio is also much lower when not paying the Avid premium.
GPUs greatly outperform HDX cards in terms of bang for buck, Avid and other companies should utilise these for audio processing instead of making proprietary, locked-in systems. In terms of sheer power, an nVidia Quadro 6000 costs around £3,500 and has a far superior spec to that of an HDX card. If Avid were to utilise OpenCL and/or CUDA, they'd be on to a winner. I/O dealt with by Thunderbolt, audio engine using a multi-core Intel i7 and nVidia GPU.