dual core compatible hosts?

Audio Plugin Hosts and other audio software applications discussion
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

DevonB wrote:
TeeLangSun wrote:
Mike A wrote:sorry for bringing this post up..
About Cubase SX. I noticed that steinberg advertises only SX 3.1 as being capable of handling dual core. My question is how much is it really an improvement over let's say an equivalent single core cpu?
And how does older versions (sx2 for example) handle dual core?
About 30% on my AMD 3800 (2 x 3200), vs my Single processor 3200. I also have an iMac Core Duo running Windows XP that positively smokes both of them while operating with 1/3 the ram.
Weren't you the one who was having problems with performance with the off-the-shelf HP box though? I have seen a 300%-500% improvemement in perfromance between my 2.53Ghz Intel to my 3800+ X2 processor. Projects that were hitting 100% now max around 30-35%.

Devon
Yes I did post about the performance loss with the dual core AMD 3800, but works well with the dual core box. It's Reason, FL Studio, and Orion Platinum that suffered and I assumed that it must be because none of them are able to make full use of the dual core processor and other reasons which I'll explain here.

It doesn't seem to make sense, but there's something that I can point out that might shed some light on this situation. If you right click on "My Computer" and get properties, you can see the speed at which your processor is running. I have 3 machines close by. The Athlon 3200 single processor machine reads 1.99Ghz (All the time and doesn't change regardless of what I'm doing) which I believe is the actual speed of the processor. The iMac reads 2.0Ghz which is exactly the speed of the Intel Core Duo processor, again, all the time and doesn't fluctuate regardless of processor load. The Amd 3800 X2 box reads 994Mhz at the moment. What's also interesting is that this number fluctuates depending on what I'm doing on the machine. Yesterday it read 887Mhz or something close. When I tested it in the past, I got all kinds of different numbers as I loaded the processor with more tasks. I've also read that with these dual core boxes, the processor speed doesn't run at the full speed of the equivalent single processor because of heat problems. I'm not an expert in any of this, but I read this on the net somewhere. The Intel Core Duo is different in that it is the first chip built with this new 65 nanometor process that allows it to achieve better performance with less power consumption and less heat of course. Again, I'm no expert, but this does seem to sort of corroborate my story of loss of performance compared to my AMD 3200 box which has a single processor that's exactly one of the cores of the dual core box. So the way I'm seeing this is, if the single core of a dual core processor is running at 994Mhz instead of the full 2.0Ghz, and the program is only able to use a single core, then the performance of that application would understandably suffer greatly which is what I saw with Reason, FL and Orion.

Post

TeeLangSun wrote: It doesn't seem to make sense, but there's something that I can point out that might shed some light on this situation. If you right click on "My Computer" and get properties, you can see the speed at which your processor is running. I have 3 machines close by. The Athlon 3200 single processor machine reads 1.99Ghz (All the time and doesn't change regardless of what I'm doing) which I believe is the actual speed of the processor.
Correct. AMD is using their own 'speed comparison numbers' between chips, and not the actual speed in mega/gigahertz.
The Amd 3800 X2 box reads 994Mhz at the moment. What's also interesting is that this number fluctuates depending on what I'm doing on the machine. Yesterday it read 887Mhz or something close. When I tested it in the past, I got all kinds of different numbers as I loaded the processor with more tasks.
You, my friend, have a problem with your box. I have a custom built AMD 3800+ X2 system. Mine is at 2,000 Megahertz. It fluctuates a few hertz, but is right at 2000.
I've also read that with these dual core boxes, the processor speed doesn't run at the full speed of the equivalent single processor because of heat problems.
That sounds like horse poo to me. The AMD X2 runs pretty darn cool. Mine runs at around 115 degrees F all the time. The Intels run around 140-150 Degrees F, at least for the Pentium 4's. You got temps on the Core Duo? I am VERY curious actually.
The Intel Core Duo is different in that it is the first chip built with this new 65 nanometor process that allows it to achieve better performance with less power consumption and less heat of course.
...just like the AMD chips. Less power and less heat. Not at 65 nm though.
Again, I'm no expert, but this does seem to sort of corroborate my story of loss of performance compared to my AMD 3200 box which has a single processor that's exactly one of the cores of the dual core box. So the way I'm seeing this is, if the single core of a dual core processor is running at 994Mhz instead of the full 2.0Ghz, and the program is only able to use a single core, then the performance of that application would understandably suffer greatly which is what I saw with Reason, FL and Orion.
No, you have a problem with your box, period. That processor should not be running at half speed. What does cpuZ have to say about your setup?

http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php

Seriously, I'd like to see your box fixed. I'd be pissed myself if mine ran like that. ;)

Devon
Simple music philosophy - Those who can, make music. Those who can't, make excuses.
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!

Post

Is your processor running in 'cool & quiet' mode?
I remember hearing that there had been problems with that & that is was advantageous to disable it, I could be well ot there though.
Also what power scheme is your pc set to?

Post

diverdee wrote:Is your processor running in 'cool & quiet' mode?
I remember hearing that there had been problems with that & that is was advantageous to disable it, I could be well ot there though.
Also what power scheme is your pc set to?
I'm trying to figure out why people are checking off the power settings that are designed for laptops mostly?

Oh, also, Make sure you have the hot fix for Windows XP for multi core support as well.

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=896256

Devon
Last edited by DevonB on Sun May 07, 2006 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simple music philosophy - Those who can, make music. Those who can't, make excuses.
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!

Post

This is all very interesting, I'm looking at going to Dual-Core, maybe even Dual-Core Dual Processor... I currently have a 3500+, thinking about going to a Dual-core 4200+ or something.. I"m currently overclocking my 3500+ bout 300Mhz, will I be able to do that with my Dual Core?

Post

diverdee wrote:Is your processor running in 'cool & quiet' mode?
I remember hearing that there had been problems with that & that is was advantageous to disable it, I could be well ot there though.
Also what power scheme is your pc set to?
Maybe I'm missing something here. I checked the power scheme which I normally set by hand to only the monitor turns off at in 20 Minutes. Everything else is set to never turn off. I just clicked on one of the "Presets", "Always On" which visibly has the same settings, but something else apparently changed under the hood. My Computer was showing 994Mhz moments before. Now I checked it and it's pegged at 1.99Mhz and doesn't seem to be fluctuating. I downloaded and used the cpuZ and it's showing 1899.8Mhz for both cores. The only thing I changed in that few minutes was the Always On scheme. I opened up FL Studio and played the demo tune and it's definately performing better than it had been but I can't say that it's performing any different than my single processor AMD 3200+ box. I've always read that you shouldn't see any different performance than single processor applications that didn't make use of dual cores which would make sense now. I'm gonna pop the dongle in and see if Cubase, which already showed a 30% advantage over the single processor box, is doing even better now, or still the same. Be nice if it's even faster now.
Last edited by TeeLangSun on Sun May 07, 2006 4:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post

Yeah a 3200 single & 3800X2 should perform pretty much the same with no dual optimized hosts.
Only difference would be when you have multiple applications open/using optimized hosts etc.
Weird about the power scheme - I was thinking more along the lines of ensuring that you weren't running in laptop mode, as DevonB alluded to.

Post

System ERA wrote:This is all very interesting, I'm looking at going to Dual-Core, maybe even Dual-Core Dual Processor... I currently have a 3500+, thinking about going to a Dual-core 4200+ or something.. I"m currently overclocking my 3500+ bout 300Mhz, will I be able to do that with my Dual Core?
You'll have much better luck with the Opterons if you want to overclock, but yes you can.

Devon
Simple music philosophy - Those who can, make music. Those who can't, make excuses.
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!

Post Reply

Return to “Hosts & Applications (Sequencers, DAWs, Audio Editors, etc.)”