Dual cores

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:07 am

How does Live 6 make use of dual cores? Does it just work with it's own audio engine and fx/instruments or does it also allocate multiple VSTs more efficiently?

sqook · Post by **sqook** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:21 pm

Both, really.

fdmusic · Post by **fdmusic** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:53 pm

I've had a few dual cores come through my office for setup - on one I installed the Live 6 demo and put in Amplitube 2 and CSR... I ran 15 instances of Amplitube and 10 instances of CSR over multiple tracks and could not get the thing to slow down... It was impressive. (I know this doesn't really answer your question at all, but I can say it works and works very well).

longjohns · Post by **longjohns** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:05 pm

apparently it splits between cores track by track

glu · Post by **glu** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:10 pm

So with Live running on a core2duo, it would start splitting each core per a track, so the first 4 tracks would each occupy a different core? If so, then 16 tracks would have 4 tracks per a core? If this is true, then tracks 1,5,9,13 would be on core 1? So I could monitor that's core's performance by looking at those 4 individual tracks?

longjohns · Post by **longjohns** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:00 pm

i don't know anything that specific - how it decides which tracks go to which processors. i've just read several times on the forum that it's the general way it's set up

slzero · Post by **slzero** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:48 am

longjohns wrote:apparently it splits between cores track by track

Not quite. Tracks do not necessarily get evenly split up between cores for processing. It is based on internal application processes that Live is executing at a given time. Effects and Instruments in Live do get split up between both cores regardless of which track. However, only one core is used when playing audio clips. This was the case even when 24 audio clips were played together. This information is based on SOS Nov'06 issue. They did a test with live 6 and dual-G5 Mac.

glu · Post by **glu** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:12 am

slzero wrote:
longjohns wrote:apparently it splits between cores track by track
Not quite. Tracks do not necessarily get evenly split up between cores for processing. It is based on internal application processes that Live is executing at a given time. Effects and Instruments in Live do get split up between both cores regardless of which track. However, only one core is used when playing audio clips. This was the case even when 24 audio clips were played together. This information is based on SOS Nov'06 issue. They did a test with live 6 and dual-G5 Mac.

Whoa, that's interesting... So, if all my tracks in a set are audio, I will only be able to utilize one core? What if I have a C2D? This is why I want some specific Live 6 tests to see how these multicores run under different circumstances like an all audio set. Not a "performance" thread as much as a comprehensive test thread where we can see just how we can fully take advantage of new processors. Would a duocore run better than a C2D under certain circumstances if the duocore was faster example

duocore 2.4 mhz and the C2D only 1.6mhz

is it possible the duocore could perform quicker or more efficiently?

I don't know if these questions have been answered on the forum, I try to keep up with all the Live 6 stuff because I am about to do a major hardware/software upgrade. More info needed...

slzero · Post by **slzero** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:19 am

glu wrote:
slzero wrote:
longjohns wrote:apparently it splits between cores track by track
Not quite. Tracks do not necessarily get evenly split up between cores for processing. It is based on internal application processes that Live is executing at a given time. Effects and Instruments in Live do get split up between both cores regardless of which track. However, only one core is used when playing audio clips. This was the case even when 24 audio clips were played together. This information is based on SOS Nov'06 issue. They did a test with live 6 and dual-G5 Mac.
Whoa, that's interesting... So, if all my tracks in a set are audio, I will only be able to utilize one core? What if I have a C2D? This is why I want some specific Live 6 tests to see how these multicores run under different circumstances like an all audio set. Not a "performance" thread as much as a comprehensive test thread where we can see just how we can fully take advantage of new processors. Would a duocore run better than a C2D under certain circumstances if the duocore was faster example

duocore 2.4 mhz and the C2D only 1.6mhz

is it possible the duocore could perform quicker or more efficiently?

I don't know if these questions have been answered on the forum, I try to keep up with all the Live 6 stuff because I am about to do a major hardware/software upgrade. More info needed...

I don't have any more details.

In general, according to SOS, overall gain is in excess of 50 percent. Therefore in my opinion, overall calculated cpu gains would be a result of mixed application processes. For example, most songs I would think would include atleast some effects processing on audio and/or midi in addition to vst and vsti's with each of these processes triggering execution of both cores.

mikemc · Post by **mikemc** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:43 pm

right, the question does not have a simple answer. What it boils down tow are that there are some things that are better done from start to finish on a single core, and there are other things that can be switched from core to core, and there are things that make this happen more efficiently that include the tools that generate the code and coding practices.

4am · Post by **4am** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:56 am

in every case i'm not so impressed with my new T7200 (dual core 2 2x2.0ghz) and 2 gb of ram....
the system is much more stable but the cpu peak is higher as expected...
in evey case i haven't experienceda crash yet

Michael-SW · Post by **Michael-SW** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 11:49 am

4am wrote:in every case i'm not so impressed with my new T7200 (dual core 2 2x2.0ghz) and 2 gb of ram....
the system is much more stable but the cpu peak is higher as expected...
in evey case i haven't experienceda crash yet

You have set the power profile to "Always On" I assume?

4am · Post by **4am** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:31 pm

Michael-SW wrote:
4am wrote:in every case i'm not so impressed with my new T7200 (dual core 2 2x2.0ghz) and 2 gb of ram....
the system is much more stable but the cpu peak is higher as expected...
in evey case i haven't experienceda crash yet
You have set the power profile to "Always On" I assume?

ehm... on this laptop not yet
does it make a big difference?
(if you ask i assume yes)
but why?
thanks

deathbysmurf · Post by **deathbysmurf** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:41 pm

Just got a dual core Dell & I've had lag issues when I drag clips into a scene-sometimes complete lockup... No problems with full tracks/MIDI data, etc.

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:28 pm

4am wrote:
Michael-SW wrote:
4am wrote:in every case i'm not so impressed with my new T7200 (dual core 2 2x2.0ghz) and 2 gb of ram....
the system is much more stable but the cpu peak is higher as expected...
in evey case i haven't experienceda crash yet
You have set the power profile to "Always On" I assume?
ehm... on this laptop not yet
does it make a big difference?
(if you ask i assume yes)
but why?
thanks

because otherwise you can't be sure that the processor is going at full speed.
I use a gadget called RightMark CPU Clock Utility, which allows me to regulate the speed of my processor quite freely. Very nice, and it *^will* make a difference.