KVR Audio

jupiter8 · Post by **jupiter8** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:31 am

http://216.153.91.12/fb/asn.aspx?t=5659 ... 71m6529204

Found this. Where Waves claims that in some instances a 2x2.16 core duo Mac is twice as powerful as a 2x2.16 core duo PC.

Ok, so i know some programming,OS stuff etc. but not much compared to some here and i know these matters can be more complex than what you think.

But these nomber simply cannot be true,can they ?
So they don't post any info on what host is used,buffer size etc. It is in the realm of possible if you run for example Protools with 64 samples buffersize on the PC and Logic with 1024 on the Mac.
But still. I smell BS.

What possible interest could Waves having of schewing the results like that in favour of the Mac ?

beej · Post by **beej** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:53 am

Yeah I saw that. Maybe something to do with optimisations and how Windows versus OSX handles audio.

Very interesting.

Alex@ProgressAudio · Post by **Alex@ProgressAudio** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:49 pm

I suspect this is a hoax. For starters, the web address isn't on the waves.com domain. Does the actual Waves website link to this? If not then I'm pretty sure someone has just stolen some graphics off the Waves site and made this

beej · Post by **beej** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:53 pm

I had this info emailed to me, as a Waves customer. It's definitely from them, and it's the same web address that I have (an "if you can't read this email, click here" type thing)

Alex@ProgressAudio · Post by **Alex@ProgressAudio** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:26 pm

beej wrote:I had this info emailed to me, as a Waves customer.

I see, in that case I think it must be a case of optimization. Programs have to be written in a particular way to make full use of a dual-core processor, otherwise what you see is that one core gets used to 100% capacity while the other is doing nothing (I have a MacBook Pro and have seen this happening with some apps).

I assume something like Logic was used for the tests on the Mac, but it doesn't say what PC sequencer was used. If its one that isn't optmised for dual-core processors, then its possible only one core is being used properly, which would definately explain those figures

grandaddy · Post by **grandaddy** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:28 pm

Are you sure its not xp running on an intel mac?

defjamm · Post by **defjamm** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:35 pm

grandaddy wrote:Are you sure its not xp running on an intel mac?

that's what i also !believe!. somebody should ask them.

DevonB · Post by **DevonB** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:04 am

Alex@ProgressAudio wrote:I suspect this is a hoax. For starters, the web address isn't on the waves.com domain. Does the actual Waves website link to this? If not then I'm pretty sure someone has just stolen some graphics off the Waves site and made this

I suspected hoax too, but the IP address to the link above is in the same segment that www.waves.com is in.

Still, I'd like to see what they are comparing? I can make many plugins crush or not crush a machine. Big deal. What's the playing field look like? Could be they can't code worth a darn either.

To me, it makes them look worse.

Devon

Reverse Engineer · Post by **Reverse Engineer** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:10 am

It has always been a dream of mine to run 555 eq's at once, i want a Mac now.

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 5:02 am

Maybe Waves simply does not use GNU C++ when compiling for PC ? Mac OS X uses GNU C++ in their XCode development platform. As far as I know, GNU C++ is capable of some very good optimization - factor of 2 is possible with DSP code.

Of course, it may be the case of dual-core enabled testing VS single core testing. They should have tested under Sonar 5 which definitely makes use of dual core processors.

djanthonyw · Post by **djanthonyw** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 5:35 am

the fact of the matter is that logic is the most cpu efficient host...so its not just about waves plugins. I can load just about double, give or take the amount of plugins in logic compared to protools or cubase on my g5. that being said, I can load about 38% more plugins on my mac than my pc in cubase.

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:34 am

djanthonyw, is your system a double boot Mac/PC one? If not, I do not see your 38% tell anything... Moreover, host efficiency has nothing to do with plug-ins...

OK, (small developer secret here) you can get 15% boost just by aligning stack to 8 bytes - if Mac audio hosts do that then its fine. PC hosts usually do not do that when calling plug-in's processing code. Unaligned double precision processing has its penalties. If plug-in fixes stack alignment itself, there won't be any difference on the same Mac or PC boot - given the same compiler with the same options was used.

This is again some 'esoteric' stuff we have here, I bet its source is Mac community.

_dada_ · Post by **_dada_** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:53 am

Obviously in 5.9 the OSX plugins are optimized, while the XP plugs are still the same old 5.2 code.

Also, it's quite easy to pick a cheap 2.16 CoreDuo XP Notebook, with poor performance ...

And yes, I guess Waves likes Macs ..

bye, Jan

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:43 pm

[DELETED]

beej · Post by **beej** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:03 pm

No it's not, it's legit, and it's just a courtesy link for if you're using a old email reader that can't understand HTML-formatted emails...

Weird Waves Mac vs Pc comparison