New Mac Pros - 12 cores

[plantaginate]

can you point me to specific threads/posts where a daw developer says that cpu load balancing works at 1 core=1 track?

[plantaginate]

or better still point me to specific parts of the core audio api which let you send particular processes to particular cores?

[timothyallan]

I don't think you'll find one because that's not the way it works in practise... "Bussing, grouping etc foils all that, plug Logic 9 currently has issues with many cores. GS has a few lengthy threads on it."

[plantaginate]

right. it's one of those true but not true things.
i'm still curious, btw.

[plantaginate]

as to how it all works.

[plantaginate]

just it strikes me that cpu load distribution would be an os thing,
in that it seems unsafe to let an application dictate where and how it runs on the cpu,
but obviously i'm no expert,

[dum]

DAWs offload there tracks on each core, so track 1-8 will go on Core 1-8, 9-16 to back to Core 1-8 and so on.

is this true?
has any daw developers come out and state point blank this is how it works?

yes it's true.
and yep, daw peoples have stated this fact plainly for a long time.
but no, I'm not gonna google some evidence for you.

have you got a multicore machine ?
to demonstrate it on a dualcore machine:

simply create track, load it with FX till your cpu meter reads 10%
duplicate the track.
wow-weee-weee-wow... still reads 10%
duplicate the track again
sad face. reads 20%
duplicate again
wow-weee-weee-wow... still reads 20%
duplicate the track again
sad face. reads 30%
duplicate again
wow-weee-weee-wow... still reads 30%
duplicate the track again
sad face. reads 40%
duplicate again
wow-weee-weee-wow... still reads 40%
duplicate the track again
sad face. reads 50%
duplicate again
wow-weee-weee-wow... still reads 50%

and so on.
logic even gives you a dedicated cpu meter for each core.

[djsynchro]

Reaper is supposed to be the multi-core processing star with its 'Anticipatory FX processing'.

[plantaginate]

DAWs offload there tracks on each core, so track 1-8 will go on Core 1-8, 9-16 to back to Core 1-8 and so on.

is this true?
has any daw developers come out and state point blank this is how it works?

yes it's true.
and yep, daw peoples have stated this fact plainly for a long time.
but no, I'm not gonna google some evidence for you.

have you got a multicore machine ?
to demonstrate it on a dualcore machine:

simply create track, load it with FX till your cpu meter reads 10%
duplicate the track.
wow-weee-weee-wow... still reads 10%
duplicate the track again
sad face. reads 20%
duplicate again
wow-weee-weee-wow... still reads 20%
duplicate the track again
sad face. reads 30%
duplicate again
wow-weee-weee-wow... still reads 30%
duplicate the track again
sad face. reads 40%
duplicate again
wow-weee-weee-wow... still reads 40%
duplicate the track again
sad face. reads 50%
duplicate again
wow-weee-weee-wow... still reads 50%

and so on.
logic even gives you a dedicated cpu meter for each core.

er ok,
that most definitley does not convince me, that "one track=one core"
where are you reading these cpu readings from?


i'm sorry,
i won't believe it until i hear, first hand, from a DAW developer,
that they can arbitrarily assign their applications processing load to one or a number of different cores,

daw peoples have stated this fact plainly for a long time

can you show me?
all i want to see is the evidence,
don't tell me to google it,

the holocaust didn't happen if you don't believe me google it,,
geddit?

[dum]

You don't fully understand my position.... I don't care if you believe me or not

[plantaginate]

you haven't fully stated with empirical precision why your position is correct,


i suspect you don't know why what you're saying you believe to be true,

i don't care about who's saying what, i want to see empirical results,

"one track = one core"


that is the original premise, that is what i want to know,

How does that work?

[dum]

you haven't fully stated with empirical precision why your position is correct,


i suspect you don't know why what you're saying you believe to be true (is true?),

i don't care about who's saying what, i want to see empirical results,

"one track = one core"


that is the original premise, that is what i want to know,

How does that work?

I haven't fully stated with empirical results...because as I said I don't care if you believe me or not.
Besides..that I'm not an electronic engineer has no bearing on the truthfulness of my beliefs. Whether I'm right or wrong I still wouldn't prove it one way or the other in the terms you are asking for, I use computers I don't build them.

I can see that conceptually at least one track = one core. That's enough for me.

electronic-engineering.com is that way
oh, and if you can be bothered searching ableton devs/reps have discussed it on the board. Although maybe not in as much detail as you'd like.

[djsynchro]

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan08/a ... n_0108.htm

[djsynchro]

Reaper's Justin Frankel told me that he routinely does a lot of his development on a dual quad-core Xeon PC, so it's hardly surprising that the default Reaper settings work well with up to eight-core machines, typically offering over 95 percent utilisation of all eight cores. Reaper mostly uses 'Anticipatory FX processing' that runs at irregular intervals, often out of order, and slightly ahead of time. Apparently, there are very few times when the cores need to synchronise with each other, and using this scheme he can let them all crank away using nearly all of the available CPU power. Exceptions include record input monitoring, and apparently when running UAD1 DSP cards, which both prefer a more classic 'Synchronous FX multi-processing' scheme.

[plantaginate]

I haven't fully stated with empirical results...because as I said I don't care if you believe me or not.

lol nice copout,

Besides..that I'm not an electronic engineer has no bearing on the truthfulness of my beliefs.

gold. so you have no intellectual basis whether or not what you're being spun is the truth or not?