I don't understand why an Able-person hasn't just stepped in to answer this question?Daim wrote:Well.. i didn't find any really proper answers or an answer by some ableton employee. That's why i started this thread.
Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
Re: Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
Re: Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
that's from the 2nd of those 3TobiasHahn wrote: L7 supports up to 8 cores on a Mac. L8 will support up to 64 cores on a Mac.
Re: Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
I recall that when Live went multi-core capable (v6), it was tested with 8 cores and worked fine. The issue is that each track is mapped to one core. So if you overload that one core with like 100 inserts on a track, then the other 7 cores won't get much use. In all likelihood, this is a very rare situation. You should be ready to kick some ass with an 8-core machine.
Re: Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
So it really comes down to how you use Live. I think for me it's more useful to get the 8 core version since i'm mainly using audio tracks or one synthplugin with only a few native effects after it. And i usually have more than 8 tracks I think.
Propably Live 8 will have better use for an 8 core Nehalem Machine than Live 7 because it is 'seeing' 16 cores due to Intel's hyperthreading technology.
Propably Live 8 will have better use for an 8 core Nehalem Machine than Live 7 because it is 'seeing' 16 cores due to Intel's hyperthreading technology.
Re: Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
^ I won't speculate on what Live 8 can or can't do, aside from what we know from the Betas. Also, not a good idea to speculate about new technologies like the new intels. Last time they tried hyperthreading, it was a horrible idea. Bottom line is that if you do a lot of multitracking, the more cores the better.
Re: Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
here are some benchmarks.. don't really make the decision between 2x2,26 and 1x2,93 easier


Re: Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
Yeah, I've been checking it out. Think I'm gonna pull the trigger on the 2.26 Octo tomorrow.....Daim wrote:here are some benchmarks.. don't really make the decision between 2x2,26 and 1x2,93 easier
Re: Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
How much RAM will you get? I wonder how Nehalem handles 4x2GB in comparison to 6x1GB.
Trichannel access is faster but when does it happen? Will 4x2GB be handled like 2x2dual channel (which would make 6x1GB a better decision) or like 1 trichannel + 1 single channel.. so many questions..
Trichannel access is faster but when does it happen? Will 4x2GB be handled like 2x2dual channel (which would make 6x1GB a better decision) or like 1 trichannel + 1 single channel.. so many questions..
Re: Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
Daim wrote:How much RAM will you get? I wonder how Nehalem handles 4x2GB in comparison to 6x1GB.
Trichannel access is faster but when does it happen? Will 4x2GB be handled like 2x2dual channel (which would make 6x1GB a better decision) or like 1 trichannel + 1 single channel.. so many questions..
I'd like to get 4x2GB so I have 4 slots free, but then I have to wait 3-5 weeks. Still waffling on that.......
Re: Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
Hm after those latest results I think i'll go with the 6x2GB option. Propably it could be a bit cheaper to get the 4x2GB version and upgrade it afterwards with another 2x2GB but I'm too lazy for that.
Re: Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
For the 2009 Quad stick 3 x 2Gb stcks and you'll run the ram at full bandwidth (26Gb/s)
For the 2008 8 Core stick 6 x 2Gb stcks and you'll run the ram at full bandwidth (26Gb/s)
Fill the 4th and it only runs at 8Gb/s
Fill the 7th and 8th they only run at 8Gb/s
So the others are a major waste of money especially for Live or Logic for that matter as they are only 32bit apps
For the 2008 8 Core stick 6 x 2Gb stcks and you'll run the ram at full bandwidth (26Gb/s)
Fill the 4th and it only runs at 8Gb/s
Fill the 7th and 8th they only run at 8Gb/s
So the others are a major waste of money especially for Live or Logic for that matter as they are only 32bit apps
Re: Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
I'm thinking the same thing now. You'd save $50-60 by buying 4x2 from Apple and the rest from Crucial, but I may just bite the bullet and get it all from Apple.Daim wrote:Hm after those latest results I think i'll go with the 6x2GB option. Propably it could be a bit cheaper to get the 4x2GB version and upgrade it afterwards with another 2x2GB but I'm too lazy for that.
Re: Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
Why save money when you don't have to! Give it to Jobs!rbro wrote:I'm thinking the same thing now. You'd save $50-60 by buying 4x2 from Apple and the rest from Crucial, but I may just bite the bullet and get it all from Apple.Daim wrote:Hm after those latest results I think i'll go with the 6x2GB option. Propably it could be a bit cheaper to get the 4x2GB version and upgrade it afterwards with another 2x2GB but I'm too lazy for that.
-
tw1nstates
- Posts: 1127
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:00 pm
Re: Does Live take advantage of 8 cores?
nebulae wrote:I recall that when Live went multi-core capable (v6), it was tested with 8 cores and worked fine. The issue is that each track is mapped to one core. So if you overload that one core with like 100 inserts on a track, then the other 7 cores won't get much use. In all likelihood, this is a very rare situation. You should be ready to kick some ass with an 8-core machine.
It's not that rare once you get into sends.
It happens to me a lot. . .
*BOO*
The killers are - Minimonsta or the Arturia V collection stuff, then amp modelers, especially when you have 4 or 5 running in parallell (split down into stereo racks so you atre actually talking about 8 or 10).
That's your puter finished
I slipped into a daze, whilst I was there I heard the most startling music, it was at once familiar and alien, reassuring and unsettling.
https://soundcloud.com/fearoftherave
https://soundcloud.com/fearoftherave

