Bitwig drops the CPU Bomb!

[Machinesworking]

I'm sure that test dont tell the whole story. But the numbers are still impressive and at least when it comes to Diva, Bitwig is winning. But these days I'm not even sure if Diva is the biggest resource hog anymore. Certain patches in particular aren't that much different than typical softsynths.

It is still hoggy but Repro 5 seems more hoggy and programs like Massive X, and Pigments can be hoggy as well now.

Diva isn't the biggest resource hog, you don't really want the biggest resource hog, just one that doesn't take 100+ plug ins to bog the CPU down. Personally I don't care about 10-20% differences, I care about 30% + differences so I don't need it to be more than 15-40 plug ins to get results. Conversely though, a plug in that can almost 100% knock out a single CPU isn't what you want either.

This is something anyone can test themselves, especially a straight Live VS Bitwig shoot off since both of them are available as full featured demos.

[8E]

Unless you actually know how Bitwig is programmed you cannot draw such conclusions, I explained my reasoning above

I don't think you should know how each software is programmed in order to draw these conclusions. Almost all available tests do not include that knowledge.

Guess what Live does? it uses only one of the two possible threads a core can use, in Activity Monitor every other thread is empty, and each CPU is only at about half filled before Live seems to bog down.

^^^THIS^^^

[Artcutech]

Guess what Live does? it uses only one of the two possible threads a core can use, in Activity Monitor every other thread is empty, and each CPU is only at about half filled before Live seems to bog down.

I was always told this is how DAW's work and get over it haha what a joke, in my cpu window only the first slot of each core is filled half way and the second slot maybe an 1/8 before live takes a crap, if Bitwig has figured out to utilize 90 to 95 percent of cpu usage as shown in the cpu usage window I'm in Awe!

sorry about this stupid question but maybe somebody can shed some light, so i demo'd Bitwig yesterday and only had a sec to tinker with it but I noticed right away that loading the same nexus 3 patch and hitting the same note at default came in quite a bit lower than Ableton, I eventually gain stage everything lower and properly regardless just wondering why Bitwig at default would be -16 db and Ableton around - 7db? Loaded a new blank project and it doesn't seems like there's anything on the track or buss effecting the level but will have to look deeper, like I said I eventually stage everything properly but just found it a lil strange that the same plug-in comes in 9 db lower at default

[steko]

Multi-core CPU handling FAQ – Ableton:

What is hyper-threading?
Hyper-threading is a feature of certain processors which allows them to further subdivide cores so that two concurrent threads can be handled per core. Hyper-threading is enabled by default in Live for computers with multi-core processors. In Live 9, if your computer only has a single-core processor, hyper-threading is automatically disabled in order to preserve the correct order of the threads to be processed.

How many threads are used per Live track?
Live uses one thread to process a signal path. A signal path is a single chain of audio flow. In tracks where instrument or effect racks are used, with multiple chains in parallel, Live may use one thread per chain depending on how CPU-intensive each chain may be. If two tracks are "chained" by routings, for instance by a side-chain routing, a track being fed to a return track or any tracks being fed into each-other, they are considered dependent tracks and count as one signal path. Any dependant set of tracks will use one thread each.

...

[Artcutech]

Multi-core CPU handling FAQ – Ableton:

What is hyper-threading?
Hyper-threading is a feature of certain processors which allows them to further subdivide cores so that two concurrent threads can be handled per core. Hyper-threading is enabled by default in Live for computers with multi-core processors. In Live 9, if your computer only has a single-core processor, hyper-threading is automatically disabled in order to preserve the correct order of the threads to be processed.

How many threads are used per Live track?
Live uses one thread to process a signal path. A signal path is a single chain of audio flow. In tracks where instrument or effect racks are used, with multiple chains in parallel, Live may use one thread per chain depending on how CPU-intensive each chain may be. If two tracks are "chained" by routings, for instance by a side-chain routing, a track being fed to a return track or any tracks being fed into each-other, they are considered dependent tracks and count as one signal path. Any dependant set of tracks will use one thread each.

...

Not trying to chime in like I know what I’m talking about as I really don’t but I know what I see in the cpu isuage window, I think your agreeing that live cannot utilize multi core properly as bitwig is, because even if you did the same test with live with no side chaining or inner track dependency as the bitwig test your not gonna fill up past half of the first slot on a core, I’ve never in any situation seen live let me fill up past half the first slot on a core and just barely give me an 1/8th or 1/16th and most times nothing on the second slot in cpu usage window, the OP stated that he’s getting 90 to 95 percent full in the cpu usage window, something I’ve never seen live be able to even come close to doing, without getting into terminology and things I don’t know much about that’s the simplest way I can explain what the difference is. Are you saying that if there was some side chaining going on or inner track dependency that the cores would only fill up half way on bitwig?

I’m using Live 10 with 8-core iMac Pro with 64gb or ram and live doesn’t go past half or 55 percent if you want to get technical I haven’t measured the meters in the first slot of core usage

[steko]

I say nothing. Just pointed to the official Ableton statement. Which makes it look odd Machines 2009 Mac Pro doesn't (seem to) use hyper-threading at all.

Could have many reasons… 2009 Mac Pro + Diva in Live, 2009 Mac Pro+ Diva in Live + 3rd party mouse driver etc. etc.

Or maybe Bitwig is just awesome…

[Artcutech]

I say nothing. Just pointed to the official Ableton statement. Which makes it look odd Machines 2009 Mac Pro doesn't (seem to) use hyper-threading at all.

Could have many reasons… 2009 Mac Pro + Diva in Live, 2009 Mac Pro+ Diva in Live + 3rd party mouse driver etc. etc.

Or maybe Bitwig is just awesome…

I feel ya man, could be so many different things but I’m all in on finding out now, I was looking at Geek bench single cores for the 28 core Mac Pro and they’re the same as as my 8-core IMac Pro! I think they both come in at 1074, That’s ridiculous, and the 10-core iMac Pro beats my 8-core iMac Pro and the new 28-core Mac Pro and also scores better than the 18-core iMac Pro for single core rating, just confuses the hell out of me(I’m sure if I read up on it would all make sense but haven’t) and Ableton and other Daws from what I’ve experienced and heard seem to only be able to utilize multi-core in a limited way, or should I say spreading the load evenly across all cores. If what machines working(op) posted is actually true and holds in general in more common situations and arrangements/workflows, that would mean upgrading to bitwig for $299 would give me better or same results than with Ableton if I upgraded my current i Mac Pro to a 28 core Mac Pro which holds the same single core score as my iMac Pro(or should I say 16-core or 18-core Mac Pro as it’s closer to double and I would be utilizing 90-95 percent on my IMac pro with bitwig and Ableton would only use half of a core or less on new Mac Pro setup) now I know there’s some extra love with the multi core in Ableton plus 20 more cores haha so the 28 core would be better but really by how much?

Sorry for rambling but I’ve constantly been told this is how DAWs work and they are complicated, and nothing short of some new break through could allow for all cores to be utilized fully and not on a track by track basis, and apparently bitwig just did it, and if that’s the case this is a NUCLEAR CPU BOMB!

I’ll try and do some tests later and see how it holds up

[[jur]]

Although I rarely use 3rd party plugins, I always felt like Live and Bitwig are quite equal in this CPU domain, empirically.

So I did a similar test using Diva "init" patch, the same 1/8 notes 1 bar midi clip in Live and Bitwig, 256 samples, 48Khz, no midi controller connected.
On a 2009 MacPro here (6core xeon).
I did 2 tests actually.

One yesterday, where I could see similar results as the OP, i.e around x4 more instances/tracks in Bitwig.
I'm not sure I've used the exact same Diva preset, although I think I was...

So, I just did a test again today:
results is I can use around the same amount of Diva instances/tracks in both DAW: around 54 tracks. At this point both DAW give me crackles but no audio drop out and their respective CPU meters show some headroom left.
I then re-perform the same test but with Diva's internal multicore option activated this time = no difference in Live (54 tracks, starts crackling but no audio drop out and still stable...), but Bitwig was very unstable at 48 tracks and was actually freezing my whole system.

[steko]

Thanks for clearing everything up!

[Artcutech]

ShelLuser is right that test is flawed

I was able to get up to 200 Omnisphere instances in Ableton playing the same c note in a 2 bar sequence and would have been able to add more but decided to stop there, Ableton showing 65% cpu hit and still very healthy, activity monitor cpu usage window for the first time ever showed all slots around 60-65%, was quite surprised to see those second slots register so high along with the 1st slots

so I then opened a full project we just finished up, with all different types of instruments and plug-ins doing all types of different things, and we actually had to freeze quite a bit in order to get all the way through the mastering chain, I think the project peaked at 83% cpu hit in Ableton just getting ready to start breaking down with pops and crackles, but in activity monitor the highest 1st slot was at 30% and the other 1st slots were in between 15-25%, and all the second slots were barely registering, clearly in a real situation the cpu usage is quite different

when I went over and tried to do the Omnisphere test in Bitwig it crashed and restarted my computer somewhere before 192 instances, Ableton held up fine at 200, the cpu bomb turned out to be Bitwig crashing my computer before getting to where Ableton was running fine, I bet other people will have different experiences, but this was mine

[Machinesworking]

Although I rarely use 3rd party plugins, I always felt like Live and Bitwig are quite equal in this CPU domain, empirically.

So I did a similar test using Diva "init" patch, the same 1/8 notes 1 bar midi clip in Live and Bitwig, 256 samples, 48Khz, no midi controller connected.
On a 2009 MacPro here (6core xeon).
I did 2 tests actually.

One yesterday, where I could see similar results as the OP, i.e around x4 more instances/tracks in Bitwig.
I'm not sure I've used the exact same Diva preset, although I think I was...

So, I just did a test again today:
results is I can use around the same amount of Diva instances/tracks in both DAW: around 54 tracks. At this point both DAW give me crackles but no audio drop out and their respective CPU meters show some headroom left.
I then re-perform the same test but with Diva's internal multicore option activated this time = no difference in Live (54 tracks, starts crackling but no audio drop out and still stable...), but Bitwig was very unstable at 48 tracks and was actually freezing my whole system.

I think there's obvious reasons for this. Bitwig seems to be better at multi threading, but the multicore function of Diva and Repro 1-5 is a selection and not a permanent feature for a reason, in certain circumstances with various DAWs it will not work as well.

I'm not sure how you're getting more tracks than me though? that's pretty nuts. I'm being really conservative with the testing though, if there's even a single possible glitch over a two minute period I roll back. One guy got 80 tracks in another forum, but he was turning off the Plate reverb in Diva's INIT patch thinking that it wasn't part of the INIT patch somehow?

Also wanted to add in that I did a few more tests with Live and Bitwig with a large selection of heavy CPU plug ins, Pigments, Falcon, Repro-5, Diva, Cypher 2, MPC2, Altiverb etc. to try and see how they all hold out under those circumstances. Bitwig still did better than Live, but not markedly better than Digital Performer or Reaper in those circumstances.

I think it's safe to say under decently spread out plug in counts, Bitwig can do extremely well, under circumstances with heavy CPU plug ins, bitwig fares about as well as good CPU saving dinosaur DAWs.

What I really get from this is that Live just doesn't do that well in general. It takes a lot more resources than other DAWs, and I'm not saying that because I hate it or have an agenda, it's just acknowledging something that's consistently been an issue with Live, that it scores at about 70% of what DAWs like Logic, Reaper and DP etc. can do.

Barring a bit of spiking from Falcon though, Bitwig scores as good as the rest of the crowd and under some circumstances insanely good. Due no doubt to it running plug ins outside of the main DAW engine and allowing the OS to take control of allocating threads to them.


It's also worth pointing out that Bitwig had an audio engine rewrite around 2.5, I tested it a lot before then and it was always scoring on par with, or slightly worse than Live.

[RedSkyRoad]

So, in a thread on another forum about various DAWs and CPU usage I was prompted to run a performance test again. I'll come back to this thread with Lives results, but we were talking about Logic, Digital Performer, Reaper and Bitwig.
Running a simple test of the INIT patch Diva instance playing an eighth note run for four measures cycled.
OSX Mojave, 2009 Mac Pro 3.33ghz 12 cores, at a 256 buffer in all four DAWs.
This is a classic "to failure" test. You add tracks until the audio starts messing up then back off.

Logic 10 instances
DP 11
Reaper 12
Bitwig 25

Live has always performed worse than Logic every time I've ever done this test in the past, and unless something has changed it will be the same.

Bitwig just killed everyone, literally wipes them off the map. They talked about improved performance but I didn't expect this! In the Activitly monitor in OSX it shows Bitwig running a separate process to the OS for every instance of the plug in, thereby giving the OS the task of allocating resources for the plug in, and just destroying all other DAWs in the process. I have no idea why they aren't shouting this from the rooftops?

For the first time since Bitwig came out I'm seriously thinking of switching.

[edited for spelling]

Thanks for pointing out this alternative. I'm fed-up with Ableton's useless CPU performace. My project is only halfway and I dont get through 10 minutes of playback when all hell breaks loose and CPU spikes to 130% and all i can do is save, close, and launch it again. I made a post with a video showing what I'm experiencing. I've even replaced 80% of all 3rd party FX plugins with Ableton stock but that did not help anything...

And support does not even respond!

Regards,
B

[Dane John]

The last time I checked Bitwig it was still running at 32bit floating point, where as logic, reaper and Live(sort of) run at a 64bit floating point algorithm. Was that factored into the results when testing?

[baseinstinct]

Here is a comparison I did.

Codex synth by Waves, c2 note played repeatedly for the whole bar, 'welcome to codex' preset.

Result?

Bitwig did 17 tracks with just a single chuckle on start. 18 saw significant degradation of playback integrity.
Ableton did 22, but went goofy at 23.

This alone means that selecting a different setting may lead to radically different results.

Better than that, after the test, it turned out that ableton used system settings for asio, which is latency 256, whereas bitwig his own settings for this same asio - latency 512(!!), which implies that with equally high latency, ableton could handle much more tracks than bitwig.

It might be that all newer systems may systems suffer from the drawback you guys are describing, but on my windows 7 64 bit thinkpad x230 with i5 processor over clocked, ableton kicks Bitwig ass.

[Sean_Clarke]

I use both Bitwig 3.2 and Live 10.1 - I find Bitwig faster generally (loading, scanning VSTS etc) and I get better results with Bitwig in terms of CPU and latency with the same buffer size (I am on Windows 10 64 bit i7 SSD). Bitwig has improved a lot 'under the hood' since V2.