The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
The MONUMENTAL shift in CPU power
Old 28th September 2019
  #31
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
A good configuration does not have such issues. Some DAWs have/had issues with a strong load on the first core, no matter what the project looks like, but generally, at least on Windows, a good configuration causes excellent spreading.
Yeah, but given people have browsers and what not loaded, may have inadvertently scheduled other things to run at time when they make music, competition from other processes or other applications is a real thing. If one such process get launched on a core when the DAW is idle and the DAW then asks the OS for a lot of resources, what's left on that core may be sufficient until event "X" and at that point this processing can't be moved to another core. Even if it could those other cores might also be busy.

That's some config and good spreading won't help, when you hit the wall on either of these cores. If you use lower latencies, you will go up against this much more often. As I'm sure you know.

When you control your processes in more detail, the cores are free to do DAW work and those other apps and processes can be run another time.

I'm amazed what I can keep going at the same time, but I also know there are limits to everything. I'm not suggesting one needs to deep dive into the OS and get rid of everything in background, but it certainly helps to be aware what is running when you're using the machine for real time applications. At least this is is my personal experience with finding the culprits and making sure they don't run when I make music.
Old 28th September 2019
  #32
Lives for gear
 
cashewcupcake's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer v2 View Post
I reckon that once that happens the CPU will no longer be a limitation in audio. Period.

In three years the game has changed for DAWs in a very, very good way.


What do you reckon the outcomes of this monumental shift will be (other than really cheap hdx/uad cards!)?

Ha! Only when I actually can run unlimited plugs sure the CPU won't be a limitation.

As for cheap uad cards?? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA UAD chips are already like $5 at cost. $/performance UAD cards are the most expensive computing platform in existence.

Sorry if I sound trollish. It's bitterness.

Last edited by cashewcupcake; 28th September 2019 at 04:36 AM..
Old 28th September 2019
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post

So the only way this gets improved is:
.....using a daw farm.

After all, a Hoover loaded with a 2000hp motor still won't suck up that brick sitting there on the carpet.
Old 28th September 2019
  #34
Gear Maniac
 

We would need a DAW benchmark mixing sofware instruments and DSP processing. This would be a better approximation of what most people do on their computer.
Old 28th September 2019
  #35
Gear Head
Just give me ma threadrippaaaaaa!!
Old 29th September 2019
  #36
Gear Maniac
 
OwDU7's Avatar
 

We need OSes to create an API that gives exclusive control to the daw of a number of cores. This way the resource is available immediately. The power of today’s cores is more than enough to replace any sharc or dsp processing.
Old 29th September 2019
  #37
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
When people here discuss threads, they mean the Intel naming. Everything else is just confusing and irrelevant to most readers here, IMO.
Yep, keeping it simple seems to be lost on some, LOL !!

Intel list number of Cores / Threads on any and all their CPU listings , so its pretty common to refer to max number of Logical Cores as Threads !!

i9 9980XE Spec : Here

From some recent interactions with trusted colleagues , my understanding is those that take issue is because "threads" has a different designation at code level, than how we have been more commonly using the word to represent in layman's terms.

The bottom line is that for as long we have been navigating the ongoing evolution of multiprocessing performance in regards DAW's, ( we being the DAW builders and general music tech community ) have used the term threads to signify the max number of cores that the respective DAW's can load balance across.

Is the terminology technically 100% correct, no, but we have been using it for approaching 2 decades without noses getting out of joint , and without confusion of what is being discussed.

Well at least for most.


Last edited by TAFKAT; 29th September 2019 at 11:48 PM.. Reason: *Amended Typos
Old 30th September 2019
  #38
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponzi View Post
Bottom line is that when folks talk about a track or plug in running on a core, that's not how it works. Since people hear all sorts of things on the internet, I lay out my reasoning. Those who try and follow it will learn something they did not know before. If they are not interested, they are free to not read it.

A core is not a thread. A thread runs on a core. I do not recall intel as calling a core a thread. Is my 9700k listed as a 8 thread cpu?
Absolutely correct, aside from the Intel statement. Vin explained it above and linked to the site, it always shows logical cores as "# of threads", and this is how the audio community, even inside development teams (and yes, even some coders) name logical cores. That is why I stated it is confusing to use the correct terminology. The average DAW user doesn't care about the few thousand threads running...let alone understand what they do and how they work.
Old 30th September 2019
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
Yeah, but given people have browsers and what not loaded, may have inadvertently scheduled other things to run at time when they make music, competition from other processes or other applications is a real thing. If one such process get launched on a core when the DAW is idle and the DAW then asks the OS for a lot of resources, what's left on that core may be sufficient until event "X" and at that point this processing can't be moved to another core. Even if it could those other cores might also be busy.

That's some config and good spreading won't help, when you hit the wall on either of these cores. If you use lower latencies, you will go up against this much more often. As I'm sure you know.

When you control your processes in more detail, the cores are free to do DAW work and those other apps and processes can be run another time.

I'm amazed what I can keep going at the same time, but I also know there are limits to everything. I'm not suggesting one needs to deep dive into the OS and get rid of everything in background, but it certainly helps to be aware what is running when you're using the machine for real time applications. At least this is is my personal experience with finding the culprits and making sure they don't run when I make music.
Well, external applications indeed may interfere with core balancing although I have witnessed little issues myself.
I always made a habit out of it to keep other apps down although this comes from the days when XP had more issues handling it all on a single core and with 2Gb RAM.
I know Chrome can hit hard but then again, I don't see why anyone wants to use it in the first place...
Old 30th September 2019
  #40
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwDU7 View Post
We need OSes to create an API that gives exclusive control to the daw of a number of cores. This way the resource is available immediately. The power of today’s cores is more than enough to replace any sharc or dsp processing.
Such as Pyramix' MassCore, which has been around for over a decade. That technology can be licensed by other DAW developers, which nobody did so far. Probably for a reason.
Old 30th September 2019
  #41
Gear Nut
 
snoskit's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Probably for a reason.
proprietary lock-in


The use of more generic co-processor boards would be nice; but as you where mentioning earlier, new algorithms for audio processing needed to make this possible

Sling in something like an X-Phi or a Tesla and your daw of choice picks it up and shells out plugin processing to it
Old 30th September 2019
  #42
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoskit View Post
proprietary lock-in


The use of more generic co-processor boards would be nice; but as you where mentioning earlier, new algorithms for audio processing needed to make this possible

Sling in something like an X-Phi or a Tesla and your daw of choice picks it up and shells out plugin processing to it
Correct, although the parallell processing focus of these processors does not seem to be usable for realtime audio. IMO the Phi could be an option but it is not a viable platform for any audio developer to program for.
Old 30th September 2019
  #43
Gear Maniac
 
OwDU7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Such as Pyramix' MassCore, which has been around for over a decade. That technology can be licensed by other DAW developers, which nobody did so far. Probably for a reason.
That only works on their own HW no?
You cannot use Pyramix on a mac (Native I think they name it), with a “normal” Apogee or RME aes/ebu interface can you? I don’t know I am asking. Even a aes67 interface with only native version on mac would not work like that yes? So not taking advantage of the exclusive core use.

The Masscore HW probably works on an oem windows they altered. The problem with this solution is that it only works for big studios with certified techs. You could not rent the studio and work with other daws like in Cubase, reason (even pro tools)...etc...
You would need another system altogether.

The main reason I suppose other daw manufacturers don’t opt in is because they would be locked into the Ravenna/Pyramix ecosystem, forcing their users to buy in as well. Much like Avid does.
Old 30th September 2019
  #44
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwDU7 View Post
That only works on their own HW no?
You cannot use Pyramix on a mac (Native I think they name it), with a “normal” Apogee or RME aes/ebu interface can you? I don’t know I am asking. Even a aes67 interface with only native version on mac would not work like that yes? So not taking advantage of the exclusive core use.

The Masscore HW probably works on an oem windows they altered. The problem with this solution is that it only works for big studios with certified techs. You could not rent the studio and work with other daws like in Cubase, reason (even pro tools)...etc...
You would need another system altogether.

The main reason I suppose other daw manufacturers don’t opt in is because they would be locked into the Ravenna/Pyramix ecosystem, forcing their users to buy in as well. Much like Avid does.
No, it is different.
It currently only is used by Pyramix in our DAW world, but the tech behind it can be licensed by other software developers AFAIK. So its use is always tied to the software supporting it. So indeed you cannot use it with any other DAW.
You can use it on a regular Windows version, the installation process is slightly more complex but can be done by anyone who can install Windows. Even I managed...
No need for big sudios with techs, once it runs well it is set and forget (assuming you lock Windows, autoupdate seems a risk here).

But TBH, I don't see this as a reason to use the Pyramix software, which IMO, is not for everybody.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #45
Gear Addict
 
Hammer v2's Avatar
I figured this thread deserved a bump after AMD nailing it recently with the 3950,3960 and 3970.

It's forcing intel to drastically reduce their prices...


T'is a good time to be alive!
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump