Is there any host sequencer on Windows that can effectively use 32 cores/64 logical cores?

[antic604]

This is why I am asking about it in particular. My silly man of a husband downloaded the studio one 4.0 demo when it came out, never used it, and now our account says we already activated the demo. It will not even let us try Version 4.5. Do you think there'd be any possibility of account banning if we made a second account to try it?

Pretty sure they'd be glad to have a high-profile client as yourself and would gladly extend the trial period - just e-mail them.

Alternatively, set up a new Presonus account using any other e-mail in your family (including pets, if they have e-mail ) and try it that way. If you'd decide to buy it eventually you can do so from whatever account, incl. your main one

[Amelia70]

I am starting to think this must be a reaper limitation. I am not sure if you know how Pro Tools works (apparently logic and cubase can do it also) but if you arm a track to record, it frees up that core entirely for the armed track, and room permitting, moves everything else on a higher internal buffer rate, 1024 samples I believe, to the other cores. I am certain this is why we have never had an issue even playing large kontakt patches with effects.

It's not a Reaper limitation. Reaper deals with CPU completely differently. It has something called "anticipative processing" for unarmed tracks, where it processes things in advance in order to maximize available CPU. It works much better than whatever PT is doing for multithreaded workflows

not on mac. It's behind, uses more cpu and makes the processor run far hotter for the same track/fx instances. I guess on windows it is different.

[EvilDragon]

Reaper just uses CPU differently. Its intention is to utilize the most of it, and it scales CPU usage way differently than other DAWs. It does have a higher idle CPU load with empty tracks, but once plugins are added it copes with them far better than most other DAWs, at least from my testing. And yes, it is a Windows-first program, so naturally there would be some performance gains there.

[Jim Roseberry]

I am pretty sure the 3970x can do 4 on all cores

FWIW, In testing... the 3970x is nowhere close to sustaining 4GHz across all 32 cores.
Most of those cores are running at 3.7Ghz (sustained).

ProTools isn't the only DAW that uses "Hybrid Buffering".
Studio One uses a similar approach
If you insert a plugin like Helix Native... and play/monitor at 96k using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size, you'll see that it's hitting one CPU core hard. That's with nothing else in the project (Green Z monitoring enabled - 1ms round-trip latency with their Quantum audio interface).
This is a perfect example of why (when) you want highest clock-speed.

Hybrid Buffering:
Tracks that are currently being monitored in realtime are processed using the ASIO buffer size.
All other tracks that are playing back use a much larger buffer size (more CPU efficient)

[EvilDragon]

Yep that's a valid example, Jim, but Amelia here is an orchestral composer, so the Helix example might be pushing it a bit. 32 spls latency is very likely unnecessary here. Amelia, at which latency are you usually working, 128 spls? You already said 48k is your sample rate, which is fine. Halves your CPU usage right there

[Jim Roseberry]

Yeah, I get that...
I was using it as a more exaggerated example of why (even when using "Hybrid Buffering") it's still important to have high clock-speed.

[stamp]

Threadripper 3970x has 3.7 base clock and turbos up to 4.5 and is still Zen 2. If you have a good cooling solution it will for sure keep a stady 4.2/4.3 on all cores beating everything else out there. The 9900k can't keep all cores at 5ghz at the same time.

[stamp]

@Amelia70 have you ever thought of using two machines synced via smpte instead of only one? You could go with 2 Ryzen 9 3950x having 16 cores each with better latency (less numa cores) and less hassle regarding cooling. This way you could probably reach higher single core clock speeds (given good cooling 4.4 maybe 4.5ghz).

[Amelia70]

I am pretty sure the 3970x can do 4 on all cores

FWIW, In testing... the 3970x is nowhere close to sustaining 4GHz across all 32 cores.
Most of those cores are running at 3.7Ghz (sustained).

ProTools isn't the only DAW that uses "Hybrid Buffering".
Studio One uses a similar approach
If you insert a plugin like Helix Native... and play/monitor at 96k using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size, you'll see that it's hitting one CPU core hard. That's with nothing else in the project (Green Z monitoring enabled - 1ms round-trip latency with their Quantum audio interface).
This is a perfect example of why (when) you want highest clock-speed.

Hybrid Buffering:
Tracks that are currently being monitored in realtime are processed using the ASIO buffer size.
All other tracks that are playing back use a much larger buffer size (more CPU efficient)

So it can basically only run it at its base clock speed? That's somewhat disappointing. How about the 24 core, can that sustain 4ghz do you know? What is your experience with the 3970X in real world audio situations?

I do understand hybrid buffers, thanks for letting me know that Studio One follows the same path. Personally, for our use of arming one VI track at a time at 64 buffer, even our current machine has not let us down. Surely even the 3970X would be a drastic leap in single core performance over an old outdated 3ghz ivy bridge? The reason I need a more powerful computer is because I am trying to get out of HDX and the pro tools money trap permanently. We also tend to bounce all virtual synths to audio and work in the audio domain as much as possible, it's just the workflow that suits us. Initially, the composition using the hardware synths will be streamed in realtime with the midi triggering the synths, but as soon as we have the composition down, we bounce those to audio as well.. and unless an actual melody has to be changed, we will edit and arrange the song in the audio domain entirely. I remember there WAS a windows program we dabbled with a LONG time ago, that was very heavily audio track focused and we liked it. I think it was called, Saw Pro?

So..either.. I need a cpu that can handle the monitoring of a large amount of external instrument tracks with effects and be ready to record them in one pass. Also, occasionally to play a VI that will be instantly bounced to audio and referred back to if further editing is required down the road, OR, we get an interface that has it's own DSP like HDX (but not HDX), and in that case, the 9900K would be enough.

I am really almost sorry i asked this.. I know my workflow and it's different to most people. It is designed heavily around a lot of audio tracks on the "higher hybrid buffer" and all I wanted to know is if there was a windows DAW that could properly multithread a large amount of cpu cores..that's it. A DAW besides reaper as per my first post. No one is going to convince me that 8 cores of 5ghz is going to do a better job at this than 32 cores of 3.7ghz will, IF the host program is coded to adequately use all available cpu cores in such a situation. Otherwise we will just find a different DSP solution once again like the RME, or the UAD or something, and get the 9900K to play some VIs and be full circle all the way back to square one, albeit in windows and no longer Avid. No more overpriced computers and ridiculously overpriced software subscriptions.

PS I found some of those DAW bench scores, and even the 3950X is annihilating the 9900K so i really don't understand why this processor seems to be the holy grail. It's beating it in amount of effects, AND amount of virtual instruments. Soundly. This is precisely the workflow that suits us, a lot of tracks spread out.. If Reaper is the only host DAW that can use that many cores on windows, then we might as well be slaves to Avid and at least use software we like and never have a performance issue, ever, due to the HDX cards.

If anyone here (not you specifically) is telling me that a 9900K can replace an entire workflow of a 10 core mac and 2 HDX cards then I guess I will have to see it with my own eyes and right now I am finding it hard to swallow, but I find the idea of a large powerful multi core cpu replacing this workflow a lot more believable. It would need to replace HEAT, so there'd have to be a plugin of comparable quality available to use on between 128 to 400 tracks, as well as handling all the other tasks I have mentioned..

So how about I ask this Jim, if that's ok wth you. A direct, no nonsense question. If the 3970X is not it, WHICH cpu, if any, will allow us to do this, and which DAW besides reaper will be the most efficient in doing so?

[Amelia70]

Yep that's a valid example, Jim, but Amelia here is an orchestral composer, so the Helix example might be pushing it a bit. 32 spls latency is very likely unnecessary here. Amelia, at which latency are you usually working, 128 spls? You already said 48k is your sample rate, which is fine. Halves your CPU usage right there

64 which is the lowest choice in PT HDX.

[Amelia70]

@Amelia70 have you ever thought of using two machines synced via smpte instead of only one? You could go with 2 Ryzen 9 3950x having 16 cores each with better latency (less numa cores) and less hassle regarding cooling. This way you could probably reach higher single core clock speeds (given good cooling 4.4 maybe 4.5ghz).

I have thought about it but we'd be pushed for room, and the noise factor kind of worries me. Appreciate the thought though. Perhaps we are all barking up the wrong tree here and what I need is still a combination of dedicated DSP to monitor those incoming tracks, and a good strong CPU to play VI's when necessary. It just depresses me somewhat as it makes me think of PT HDX all over again, truly. The thing is though, that CPU would have to be able to deal with huge amounts of recorded audio tracks with effects. I know it's hard to believe, but I literally edit and *compose* better with audio tracks once the initial sequences are down, rather than midi. I'm not joking. I create and chop like a samurai with audio files..

[EvilDragon]

The 9900k can't keep all cores at 5ghz at the same time.

Yes it can, with a decent cooling.

[EvilDragon]

The thing is though, that CPU would have to be able to deal with huge amounts of recorded audio tracks with effects. I know it's hard to believe, but I literally edit and *compose* better with audio tracks once the initial sequences are down, rather than midi. I'm not joking. I create and chop like a samurai with audio files..

Once you're in audio track world with your VIs bounced, most any DAW should be quite alright with a gazillion of tracks going on. It's just a matter of how many plugins you can get going simultaneously.

BTW, Cubase DID have an issue when you had more than 28 logical cores in the machine, but they fixed this in Cubase 10 AFAIK.

Studio One got some CPU improvements recently, but it's still not as efficient with Kontakt as Reaper is, from my tests.

[EvilDragon]

PS I found some of those DAW bench scores, and even the 3950X is annihilating the 9900K

Actually that was 3900X that Scan Pro Audio tested, so that's 12 cores, not 16. 3950X DAW benchmarks are still not available.

And I don't see it annihilating 9900K in DAWbench VI test, where 3900X pulls 100 voices less than 9900K at 64 samples buffer. At the same buffer, 3900X only has 3 plugin instances more than 9900K. So 3900X is not really annihilating 9900K, in fact

[Jim Roseberry]

Threadripper 3970x has 3.7 base clock and turbos up to 4.5 and is still Zen 2. If you have a good cooling solution it will for sure keep a stady 4.2/4.3 on all cores beating everything else out there. The 9900k can't keep all cores at 5ghz at the same time.

We've built countless machines using the 9900k... with all 8 cores locked at 5GHz.
Rock-solid...
The machine used to read/write this message is running said configuration.

Ryzen has tested/shown (relatively speaking) low OC headroom (across all three generations).

With both AMD and Intel, the higher the core-count, the lower the maximum clock-speed you can achieve with rock-solid stability.
Run a heavy stress-test with the 109980xe, 9980xe, and 3970x with all cores locked at max turbo frequency. It'll bomb...