| Author
|
Does Cubase SX support multiple processors?
|
Djones
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
267
Posts :
1766
Posted : Aug 24, 2006 13:22
|
|
Soth_MfK
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
19
Posts :
261
Posted : Aug 24, 2006 14:07
|
|
afaik, cubase sx 3 doesn't support it ... pity ! |
|
|
Djones
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
267
Posts :
1766
Posted : Aug 24, 2006 14:44
|
|
dtd
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
17
Posts :
490
Posted : Aug 24, 2006 17:55
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-08-24 14:07, Soth_MfK wrote:
afaik, cubase sx 3 doesn't support it ... pity !
|
|
it does. even on my sx2 i can fully use both my cores (the cpu load gets distributed). now comes the question: is there a difference between multicore processors and using physically 2 different (single core) processors? since the os abstracts away from these details and presents two 'processors' to the application layer, they won't notice if there is a dualcore processor or really 2 different single core processors. |
|
|
|
Djones
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
267
Posts :
1766
Posted : Aug 24, 2006 18:06
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-08-24 17:55, dtd wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2006-08-24 14:07, Soth_MfK wrote:
afaik, cubase sx 3 doesn't support it ... pity !
|
|
it does. even on my sx2 i can fully use both my cores (the cpu load gets distributed). now comes the question: is there a difference between multicore processors and using physically 2 different (single core) processors? since the os abstracts away from these details and presents two 'processors' to the application layer, they won't notice if there is a dualcore processor or really 2 different single core processors.
|
|
Is there a big difference between a Duo/Dual core system and a single core system? |
|
|
|
Soth_MfK
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
19
Posts :
261
Posted : Aug 24, 2006 18:22
|
ok was too unspecfic here .. again:
of course cubase uses both processors, but the real advantage would be if it'd use the results of the one processor for the other. with the current solution, time is sliced for single tasks like there would be one very fast processor, but the calculations take place on two machines.
the benefit of paralell processing is that either processor uses the results of the other. so u have two (slower) processors which are able to work on 2 different things.
b00m ! |
|
|
|
dtd
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
17
Posts :
490
Posted : Aug 24, 2006 21:55
|
ok, i understand what you mean!
but any multi processing capable os (like e.g. xp) distributes the threads of a process onto those two cores/processors. (here, the Cubase SX application running is the process, which posesses many (check: task manager > processes > choose columns > number of threads) threads). so in fact, two threads of the Cubase SX process can (and will) run in parallel, both doing potentially different things (depends on the function of the thread) and using results of the other core/processor if necessary. |
|
|
|
xaBBu
xaBBu
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
161
Posted : Aug 25, 2006 12:42
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-08-24 18:22, Soth_MfK wrote:
ok was too unspecfic here .. again:
of course cubase uses both processors, but the real advantage would be if it'd use the results of the one processor for the other. with the current solution, time is sliced for single tasks like there would be one very fast processor, but the calculations take place on two machines.
the benefit of paralell processing is that either processor uses the results of the other. so u have two (slower) processors which are able to work on 2 different things.
b00m !
|
|
Sorry for being offtopic a little , but just had to add this:
The problem in parallel programming is that the developer has to avoid exactly the situation where two cores have to communicate in order to do some parallel calculation as this would imply message passing between the cores. This operation takes more time/cycles of both cores, thus making the code inefficient. If the code produces a too high percentage of these operations then there will be an impact on the speed of the application again. There is a difference between the amd x2 and the core 2 duo processors in this matter. The Amd x2 processors use an individual cache for each core. This means if the cores want to transfer data to its partner it really needs to open a "communication channel" and tell the other core there is data to exchange. On the core 2 duo there is one big shared cache for both cores. This means that the one core can just leave a date in the cache and put a flag on it for the other core to be able to access it. Still this is in the L2 cache which is waaaay slower then the real small but fastest l1 cache of each core. So its still less efficient then trying to have as little communication between cores as possible.
As Amdahl's Law says, the speedup of an application when run on more than one processor is not linear. This means code will not run twice as fast just because you are using two calculation units. This is because code always consists of a sequential/serial part (this can not be done in parallel) and a parallel part (this can be done independently on more cores). The Ratio between those two measures gives an indication on how much the
"SpeedUp" will be.
Dont want to go into details to deep here now, but if you want to know more, pm me.
|
|
|
|
dtd
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
17
Posts :
490
Posted : Aug 25, 2006 15:02
|
you're right, xaBBu, so you too took a course or more in computer architecture 
for all who want to know more details without enrolling in computer science studies, here is a recommended book
J.L. Hennessy, D.A. Patterson: Computer Architecture, A quantitative approach.
(sorry if i'm offtopic now, i will shut up  ) |
|
|
|
Tomos
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
981
Posted : Aug 29, 2006 16:54
|
I'd just like to add that I bought a new Core2Duo intel chip last week and my productivity has increased by about 10x.
I have 20 z3etas open, 5 camel spaces, 12 vanguards, all eq'd with effects and the CPU is at less than 20%. This thing is unbelivable.
I don't have to bounce at all any more unless I want to do something with the audio.
|
|
|
|
ecsmix
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
20
Posts :
68
Posted : Aug 30, 2006 01:04
|
|
It 's awesome the core2duo, mine was way more than 10%...unbelievable if u guys have problems with your cpu u should save money and upgrade it's worthy. |
|
|
|
Get-a-fix
Getafix
Started Topics :
147
Posts :
1441
Posted : Aug 30, 2006 01:35
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-08-29 16:54, Tomos wrote:
I'd just like to add that I bought a new Core2Duo intel chip last week and my productivity has increased by about 10x.
I have 20 z3etas open, 5 camel spaces, 12 vanguards, all eq'd with effects and the CPU is at less than 20%. This thing is unbelivable.
I don't have to bounce at all any more unless I want to do something with the audio.
|
|
Woah..Hold on a minute..How fast is your processor?
I've got a Duo 1.6 & i'm struggling with 6 vsti's..What's wrong with my freakin laptop?!!
 http://www.soundcloud.com/getafixmusic |
|
|
|
Tomos
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
981
Posted : Aug 30, 2006 03:02
|
Duo is the older processor, Core2 (duo) was released last month. (July 06 for people reading this in the future, which by then something even more silly will have been released, incidentally I bought the Gigabyte DQ6 motherboard which will support Quad core at the end of the year)
I got the E6600, I've overclocked mine to 3Ghz on stock cooling with a bit of Artic silver and the temperature at load is about 42C.
Ghz means nothing these days as its more about the architecture and how much actual work the chip can do within those clock cycles. My last chip was a P4 3.2 Ghz and Core2 eats it for breakfast with room for cake.
Laptops also might use slower ram, or have a lot of stuff travelling through the bus. I got a really cheap pci-e graphics card to keep the system bus lean and some Ballistix ram to make sure the system can keep up.
To make my upgrade I didn't have to save all that much, total was about £500 for everything (same hard drive, case, monitor, etc.. just swapped the mobo, ram, gfx and chip) My first pc upgrade in 3 years, totally worth it. I'm overjoyed at how much easier it is to produce without cocking about with bouncing all the time. |
|
|
|
Tomos
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
981
Posted : Aug 30, 2006 03:03
|
|
Just to add.. project just hit 40 vsts, with effects and eq, Cpu load ~35%. |
|
|
|
acidkills
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
26
Posts :
431
Posted : Aug 30, 2006 12:04
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-08-29 16:54, Tomos wrote:
I'd just like to add that I bought a new Core2Duo intel chip last week and my productivity has increased by about 10x.
I have 20 z3etas open, 5 camel spaces, 12 vanguards, all eq'd with effects and the CPU is at less than 20%. This thing is unbelivable.
I don't have to bounce at all any more unless I want to do something with the audio.
|
|
Man u make me jelous, why do u have to show off.. When I open SX3 with my one procesor @ 1.8 Ghz I have 100% CPU use although its nothing open in Cubase.. And I can open only 4 decent VSTs.. I dont know, maybe its some problem.. When I open Reason its 1% CPU use so..
Quote:
|
On 2006-08-30 03:03, Tomos wrote:
Just to add.. project just hit 40 vsts, with effects and eq, Cpu load ~35%.
|
|
What? U want me to hate u? http://www.myspace.com/djacidkills
http://soundcloud.com/acidkills/dropbox |
|
|
|
