KVR Audio

Totolitoto · Post by **Totolitoto** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:53 pm

Hello there,

I just bought a brand new Asus laptop with a core duo 1,73 ghz and I would like to know how Flstudio handles this new technology. Can anyone give me an answer?

jupiter8 · Post by **jupiter8** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:03 pm

FLStudio unfortunatley does'nt take full advantage of dual cores. One core will be used for audio processing and the other GUI and system stuff.

The upside of this is that you'll have a very responsive system at full CPU load but anther host that multicore ready would be able to run more plugins.

That's the theory at least.

Totolitoto · Post by **Totolitoto** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:07 pm

That's what I thought. The CPU load is quite high compared to my PIV 3ghz, with the same plugins... hope it's gonna be implemented soon.... thx anyway

arguru · Post by **arguru** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:14 pm

The upside of this is that you'll have a very responsive system at full CPU load.

I actually prefer this to the ability of run more plugins. In my opinion, is better to keep the audio rendering in 1 single thread.

gassle · Post by **gassle** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:49 pm

arguru wrote:
The upside of this is that you'll have a very responsive system at full CPU load.
I actually prefer this to the ability of run more plugins. In my opinion, is better to keep the audio rendering in 1 single thread.

Why not to use half of the CPU power for audio rendering on a music exclusive computer?

This is a huge waste of CPU power IMO since one usually don't do anything to spend the remaining 50% while composing...

Seems like every other host getting ready for multi processor support except FL.

brambos · Post by **brambos** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:11 pm

gassle wrote:Why not to use half of the CPU power for audio rendering on a music exclusive computer? This is a huge waste of CPU power IMO since one usually don't do anything to spend the remaining 50% while composing.

The user may not be doing a lot, but unfortunately Windows is doing a lot in the background (and most of these things are sudden spikes instead of continuous processes). So reserving sufficient CPU and resources for Windows will most likely result in less audio dropouts and crackles. So there's a lot to say for running audio in a single thread. YMMV though.

gassle · Post by **gassle** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:23 pm

My rough observations on this is:

I can use FLstudio up the 90-95% CPU with no glitches on my P4 3.0 so I assume that background processes don't eat more that %10 of my processor most of the time.

I tested FL on a Duo 1.83 machine... When one core hits 100% the other is looking almost dead, maybe 5-10% peaks at most.

Penis Arcade · Post by **Penis Arcade** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:11 pm

Dismissing various vacuous imopinions - the jury is still out as far as i know if multiple-core processing of plugins is actually beneficial or not.

So far discussions with Gol and Arguru resulted in quite alot of negative flipside to multithreaded mixing.

Are there any test results with real projects (with sufficient interaction between plugins, sends, submix busses, sidechaining) - stuff that causes mutliple threads of mixing to collide and wait on each other?

Which hosts out there distribute mixing among multiple cores? Anything i can try?
I'd be interesting if someone posts some results. What

jupiter8 · Post by **jupiter8** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:17 pm

Penis Arcade wrote:Dismissing various vacuous imopinions - the jury is still out as far as i know if multiple-core processing of plugins is actually beneficial or not.

So far discussions with Gol and Arguru resulted in quite alot of negative flipside to multithreaded mixing.

Are there any test results with real projects (with sufficient interaction between plugins, sends, submix busses, sidechaining) - stuff that causes mutliple threads of mixing to collide and wait on each other?

Which hosts out there distribute mixing among multiple cores? Anything i can try?
I'd be interesting if someone posts some results. What

Cubase shows an almost 100 % raise with dual cores.I've seen tests to that effect but i can't remember the site. I'll let you know if i find it.

So Cubase/Nuendo takes full advantage of multiple cores.
As does Sonar and some other which i don't remember for the moment.Damn,must be getting old.My memory is completly shot.

jupiter8 · Post by **jupiter8** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:20 pm

http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm

Found it.
Beware 'cause you really,really want a Dual Dual Core Opteron when seeing this.Can you afford it ?

Rabid · Post by **Rabid** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:18 am

The major DAW's are providing multi-core support or have it planned with releases in progress. Live promises it with version 6. Sonar, Cubase, Project5 and Acid Pro 6 are the ones I know the support dual core. I'm not sure about Reason. I'm betting Logic does but I don't use a Mac. Gol has stated on the FL forums that he will never support dual core and it would take a major rewrite of the code to do so.

We are going to see more push towards dual core and multi processor systems as physics restricts advances in the speed of processors. To achieve more computing speed and power the choice is to go with multi-core or multi-processors, or come up with an entirely new way to engineer processor chips.

Penis Arcade · Post by **Penis Arcade** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:18 pm

Gol's "statements" are often full of poo. He just hasn't been convinced yet. That's the reason i asked for the tests (thanks for the links!).

softsynth · Post by **softsynth** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:49 pm

Seems nobody has mentioned REAPER. REAPER also supports multiple cores / multiple CPUs and there *is* a big difference.

gassle · Post by **gassle** » Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:39 pm

So only FL doesn't care about multi cores?

Core duo and Flstudio