Search found 3 matches

Return

Re: C7.5 Multithread processing performance experience?

Why do so many people seem to think the AISO meter indication is any thing to do with the CPU meter in windows?

Hippo

Well I'll quote myself from the post I made in this very thread:

J-S-Q "And yes... I know, the ASIO METER IS NOT A CPU METER because this is the (unhelpful) response that is always posted when this issue is raised. But WHAT EXACTLY is the bottleneck here?"

Well done for being yet another person to post this unhelpful response. Now please explain EXACTLY what it is that is causing Cubase to run out of steam when there is still a lot of CPU power left. Or please explain why, on the same computer, Vienna Ensemble can apparently run 12 instances of Altiverb with no problem when Cubase can only cope with 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsY_5jUoutw
by J-S-Q
Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:31 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: C7.5 Multithread processing performance experience?


Thanks Gus. Some programs just plain don't like overclocking...

I am sorry but as someone who came in with their first post sounding like OP needed to learn about computers each subsequent posting has indicated its quite the opposite. As someone who has worked in IT for decades I appreciate OP methodical and detailed approach.

I'm glad OP is bring attention to this. While I believe Steinberg does a great job, they also need constant feedback on what concerns users have in order to improve and stay competitive. This thread is based upon the thinking that there is no such thing as mystery issues and that there actually real answers for all problems.
by hikarateboy
Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:52 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: C7.5 Multithread processing performance experience?

This topic has been discussed quite a bit lately. You may find some additional food for thought here:

http://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=181&t=52987

I share my thoughts on it, as well.

The short answer to the question is that there is an inherent battle, competing forces, between an architecture that's been built to favor low-latency, and one that's built to "schedule audio tasks" across multiple processors (cores). Each DAW does it differently. Cubase's roots in the low-latency end of this spectrum is why those of us who favor more plugins over low-latency, are feeling unsatisfied.

There are other DAWs that have chosen a different design, that suffer less, but more in other areas and vice versa. Cubase was second in my test of DAWs I own (in multi-core scaling).

VEP on the same machine circumvents the issues because it gets its own cores to work with and has a different audio engine design than Cubase.

Cubase's anwser to all this is ASIO Guard. Clearly, not as aggressive as many of us would like, but it's version 1.0.

Hopefully, awareness, like these posts, will bump it up on their priority list.

I think the future is definitely one that requires ASIO Guard to be in a "Reaper" ballpark of how it schedules audio slices across cores and makes more use of modern, multi-core CPUs. Cubase does use them, but is hampered by its ASIO, ultra-low-latency roots.
by Jalcide
Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:01 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic