Dual core support

detroitechno · Post by **detroitechno** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:12 pm

The new protools 7 came out a short while ago and my performance saw an entire 5 times improvement! Unreal!

Unfortunately, live only uses 1 cpu. The amount of increase supporting dual core is beyond any 'tweak' possible in software...

eddu · Post by **eddu** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:15 pm

This is a must

john gordon · Post by **john gordon** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:45 pm

ver 6 i hope.

marky · Post by **marky** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:56 pm

I concur.

Marcos8293 · Post by **Marcos8293** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:55 pm

detroitechno wrote:The new protools 7 came out a short while ago and my performance saw an entire 5 times improvement! Unreal!

But is that not a bit risky?

radeon · Post by **radeon** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:21 pm

I say yes to this but THEY MUST optimise Live before adding dual support or it is waste of time.

tylast · Post by **tylast** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 12:56 am

Dual support WOULD BE optimizing Live. This definitely needs to be #1 on the magical list.

EDIT: Thinking about this more. When I moved all my projects from my Laptop (2 year old intel 2.4GHz CPU 566MHz bus) to my desktop (dual AMD OPTERON 800MHz bus) last month, I noticed THE most significant difference in performance. No more drop outs, slow downs, or lockups. Shit, I now think Live is just ahead of it's time. Hell, LIVE is doing quite a bit more than any other program out there, otherwise users would be going elsewhere. Alas, there is nowhere else to go. If it were multi threaded (more than the 2 threads it has) would just make it more powerful than it already is.

forgie · Post by **forgie** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:18 am

And lets not forget that most (all?) of the new Mactels are going to be dual-core minimum......

Single core GHz are at the end of their evolution, progress is to be made in the direction of parallel processing. This will most likely require a hefty chunk of re-coding from the Abes.... which may just be too much for them while they have all the unfixed bugs in v5. I actually haven't had that many probs with v5, but I have noticed that it's CPU hungry. VERY CPU hungry.... the v4 demo was nowhere near as CPU hungry as v5.

If the Abes can't make v5 faster, then I think it could be the beginning of the end for the product. After using v4 I was willing to recommend Live to all my friends, whereas now I'm only willing to recommend it with a performance disclaimer, something along the lines of "cool concept, but it's not very CPU efficient".

el sangrios · Post by **el sangrios** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:28 am

recently got a dual G5, still kept my p4 laptop (multi-platform is a bonus!)

cant say i've noticed much of a performance increase.. annoying as Live is central to everything I do!

radeon · Post by **radeon** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:26 pm

This is must have. I dont see ableton do this in Live 6. They can do it for pc but wont because they wait for being able to do it for Mac. This is always the problems with softwares that have mac and pc version. Nobody win everyone lose but no need for that

kettensaege · Post by **kettensaege** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:00 am

radeon, sorry, but I don't see how this could be the case. There are enough cross platform thread libs that they could use. Even rolling your own isn't that much of a challenge. I guess the main task is changing the audio engine so that it supports multithreading at all.

LOFA · Post by **LOFA** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:32 am

I wonder if any of us have any idea what ableton are thinking right now. Realistically they are wise to benefit from such methods as introducing new features in paid updates, but it really seems like the big move would be to support multicore/processors. It has to be possible.

As a small, but developing company, I am really interested in many of the decisions the are making. I really feel like somehow, intrinsically, their decisions are made based on taste. I see this in the way they limit their merchandise, and their behavior on this forum, or rather how they participate in this community. I can't help but think that perhaps there is a certain aesthetic attachment they may have to their code, and the fact that it is all done with one processor. For some reason, and I really hate to pull out the Ayn Rand (

) I feel like they are pulling a Howard Roarke on us:

Here is the construction... if you alter the skins I will dynamite it!

I completely understand the reluctance to respond to the new hardware options, especially if it could mean revamping the tried and true, current product. I wish I knew what they were thinking.

I should wait out my purchase of a laptop until 6 comes out.

jmshepherd · Post by **jmshepherd** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:59 pm

Live will be dead meat without "Universal" code support for the new MacIntel dual core lines. They should be able to do one multithread implementation lib that will work on either XP/Vista or OSX 10.4.4. given the same processor architecture. Not a trivial undertaking, but at least they only have to do it once. Of course, to do it right means that it also works just as well on AMD multi-core, multi-processor lines, which perhaps yps the complexity. I haven't done any MT programming for a few years, so I'm not familiar with current toolsets / libraries.
What I do know is that implementing MT for multiple OS's/Processor lines can sometimes be a real drag.

hoffman2k · Post by **hoffman2k** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:50 pm

LOFA wrote:I wonder if any of us have any idea what ableton are thinking right now. Realistically they are wise to benefit from such methods as introducing new features in paid updates, but it really seems like the big move would be to support multicore/processors. It has to be possible.

As a small, but developing company, I am really interested in many of the decisions the are making. I really feel like somehow, intrinsically, their decisions are made based on taste. I see this in the way they limit their merchandise, and their behavior on this forum, or rather how they participate in this community. I can't help but think that perhaps there is a certain aesthetic attachment they may have to their code, and the fact that it is all done with one processor. For some reason, and I really hate to pull out the Ayn Rand ( ) I feel like they are pulling a Howard Roarke on us:

Here is the construction... if you alter the skins I will dynamite it!

I completely understand the reluctance to respond to the new hardware options, especially if it could mean revamping the tried and true, current product. I wish I knew what they were thinking.

I should wait out my purchase of a laptop until 6 comes out.

Ableton is well aware of it. Because they gave the Intel switch as a reason not to implement altivec.
I guess this will be something for Live 6 if they can get their hands on a macbook soon enough.
We can only hope... (and bump this thread)

kettensaege · Post by **kettensaege** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:12 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mu ... _libraries

Dual core support

Dual core support

risky?

Now that Apple's Intel release is official...