KVR Audio

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:29 am

Fix will be non-optional, and actually partial fix is already in 10.13.2 and more work on it will be in 10.13.3. W10 also got their fix this Wed.

Performance hit is negligible for most things - on W10 what got affected the most are SSD 4K read times. Seems there's no impact to ASIO latencies etc.

Daags · Post by **Daags** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:43 am

EvilDragon wrote:Performance hit is negligible for most things - on W10 what got affected the most are SSD 4K read times. Seems there's no impact to ASIO latencies etc.

is that speculative, or are you seeing actual benchmarks (concerning a reasonably encompassing DAW range of activities) ?

the only two anecdotal performance reports I've seen thus far, from DAW people, have not been good.

Daags · Post by **Daags** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:45 am

aMUSEd wrote:They should make the fix optional - I am not crippling my Mac just for something that might remotely happen someday - this is just risk averse scaremongering. I'd rather just keep my Mac off the net.

ya i agree. my DAW/Design machine exists only for that purpose anyway. keeping it off the net, other than to update, would be easy. even keeping it off the net entirely, if needs be.

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:28 am

EvilDragon wrote:Fix will be non-optional, and actually partial fix is already in 10.13.2 and more work on it will be in 10.13.3. W10 also got their fix this Wed.

On Mac it's optional to the extent that I don't have to install updates anymore. They are not forced like on Windows, but it does mean I can't also install updates that might be useful, I can't ignore just this as they are all bundled together and that is wrong.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:37 am

Daags wrote:
EvilDragon wrote:Performance hit is negligible for most things - on W10 what got affected the most are SSD 4K read times. Seems there's no impact to ASIO latencies etc.

is that speculative, or are you seeing actual benchmarks (concerning a reasonably encompassing DAW range of activities) ?

the only two anecdotal performance reports I've seen thus far, from DAW people, have not been good.

People on GS reporting their PT rigs working just fine and as they did before the fix (and you know how PT can be fussy). People on VI-Control (so, orchestral composers mostly reporting no changes, or within margin of error 1-2%). There are now also quite some post-fix benches around, just google.

Anyone with a Haswell CPU onwards should really have marginal impact on performance (because of the PCID instruction that was introduced then, which helps with reducing the performance hit).

Daags · Post by **Daags** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:50 am

EvilDragon wrote:
Daags wrote:
EvilDragon wrote:Performance hit is negligible for most things - on W10 what got affected the most are SSD 4K read times. Seems there's no impact to ASIO latencies etc.

is that speculative, or are you seeing actual benchmarks (concerning a reasonably encompassing DAW range of activities) ?

the only two anecdotal performance reports I've seen thus far, from DAW people, have not been good.

People on GS reporting their PT rigs working just fine and as they did before the fix (and you know how PT can be fussy). People on VI-Control (so, orchestral composers mostly reporting no changes, or within margin of error 1-2%). There are now also quite some post-fix benches around, just google.

Anyone with a Haswell CPU onwards should really have marginal impact on performance (because of the PCID instruction that was introduced then, which helps with reducing the performance hit).

interesting, thanks, I will follow up on those.

fluffy_little_something · Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:31 am

In W7 there was a tool for measuring the performance potential of one^s system configuration, it would yield some value, like 7.2.
Can someone tell me where that feature is in W10? I can't find it. I would like to measure my configuration now and then again after the patch has been applied (so far that has not happened, it seems, judging from the Windows Update list).

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:33 am

https://winaero.com/blog/windows-experi ... indows-10/

This performance index won't show you much after the update. You need to do more adequate benchmarks (like CrystalMark for testing SSDs, or DAWbench for testing if anything impacted your DAW).

Daags · Post by **Daags** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:39 am

fluffy_little_something wrote:In W7 there was a tool for measuring the performance potential of one^s system configuration, it would yield some value, like 7.2.
Can someone tell me where that feature is in W10? I can't find it. I would like to measure my configuration now and then again after the patch has been applied (so far that has not happened, it seems, judging from the Windows Update list).

I think you're talking about the Windows Experience Index (WEI), which was in the system section of the control panel on W7. It was removed since Windows 8 ...

quick google for a W10 equivalent surfaced this:

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/win ... 378?auth=1

honestly, I'd put much more trust in a stress test (specific to whatever process you are interested in, i.e audio or 3d) over some windows diagnostic.

http://www.dawbench.com/benchmarks.htm

Daags · Post by **Daags** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:41 am

EvilDragon wrote:https://winaero.com/blog/windows-experi ... indows-10/

This performance index won't show you much after the update. You need to do more adequate benchmarks (like CrystalMark for testing SSDs, or DAWbench for testing if anything impacted your DAW).

snap!

fluffy_little_something · Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:43 am

Yes, I just read that the Windows index is based on graphics performance to a large extent, which, however, is deliberately almost non-existing on my computer

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:46 pm

So after some encouraging results from people at VI-C and GS, I pulled the patch. I did a DAWbench VI in Reaper before the patch and after, and I'm getting much the same numbers: 820 voices at 128 samples buffer with my RME UFX+, and with the factory library on Samsung 850 EVO. i7-6700K at 4.5 GHz here.

So, it seems that ASIO performance wasn't affected one bit (at least as far as Reaper is concerned). Looks like DAW users fall into "average workload" crowd.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:51 pm

EvilDragon wrote:So after some encouraging results from people at VI-C and GS, I pulled the patch. I did a DAWbench VI in Reaper before the patch and after, and I'm getting much the same numbers: 820 voices at 128 samples buffer with my RME UFX+, and with the factory library on Samsung 850 EVO. i7-6700K at 4.5 GHz here.

So, it seems that ASIO performance wasn't affected one bit (at least as far as Reaper is concerned).

As i mentioned somewhere else, i'm not surprised about that at all... nothing but hot air. They needed a big thing for the new year.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:56 pm

I'm sure some OTHER workloads WILL suffer a much worse fate, targetted benchmarks confirm that.

Jim Roseberry · Post by **Jim Roseberry** » Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:55 pm

Anyone else having flashbacks to Y2k?

Patch will slow down Intel CPUs up to 30%