Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community (http://duc.avid.com/index.php)
-   Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Win) (http://duc.avid.com/forumdisplay.php?f=97)
-   -   Why Native vs. DSP Cards? (http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=300038)

justindbutler 04-28-2011 09:56 AM

Why Native vs. DSP Cards?
 
Can someone break this down for me? Or point me towards a thread that explains this more thoroughly? If I have a pretty powerful processor in my computer (Intel Core i7-930 2.8Ghz 8M LGA1366) would it be advantageous to use a Native card vs. core/core accel cards? Can I add in extra process cards in addition to the native card later on down the line?

Please advise, and thank you in advance.

Bill Denton 04-28-2011 11:31 AM

Re: Why Native vs. DSP Cards?
 
It would help to know what you're doing, i.e. mixing and/or tracking, audio and/or post, large commercial studio vs project studio.

No personal knowledge, but from what I have read HD Native performance is better for mixing than for tracking, although a lot of people seem to be getting quite low latency when tracking.

And no, you can't add process cards with the HD Native card.

Shan 05-03-2011 09:15 PM

Re: Why Native vs. DSP Cards?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by justindbutler (Post 1787901)
...If I have a pretty powerful processor in my computer (Intel Core i7-930 2.8Ghz 8M LGA1366) would it be advantageous to use a Native card vs. core/core accel cards?

Yes. After using my HD Native system for almost a solid 8 weeks, I loathe going to a slow clunky TDM system. One couldn't pry it away from me. There's definitely a lot of false myths out there with native. A topic for a whole new thread.

Shane

Filmusic 05-20-2011 09:11 AM

Re: Why Native vs. DSP Cards?
 
i'm reading the results for folks who have taken the Native Card solution, all sounds impressive

i'm just trying to get my head around why a Native Card running HD9 is any better then PT 9 on a computer

I understand there are a handful of difs between 9 and HD 9 as far as options go

but this question is being asked for the purpose of attempting to gain an understanding in terms of performance - in the 'brute strenght' category (comparing the number of tracks and plugs performance between the two...as well as general responsiveness of the two systems)

i'm reading reports of folks flying (no doubt a comment of the positive general responsiveness of a native card)...i'd like to know what extra umph comes with a native card ...over a non-card PT 9 solution

any help anyone would care to offer will be greatly welcome

nst7 05-20-2011 09:47 AM

Re: Why Native vs. DSP Cards?
 
From what I understand, the Native card handles the I/O of the session, and apparently that's a bigger deal than it sounds in terms of taking load off the computer. Some people have posted that their power increases vs. running the exact same session off firewire or usb. The fact that it's PCI based apparently also increases stability and responsiveness.

Hopefully more users will jump in here.

Filmusic 05-20-2011 09:55 AM

Re: Why Native vs. DSP Cards?
 
this is what i'm looking for - as i'm certain others are as well

learning of the 'stuff' that makes a native card different in performance from an older tdm system will be really be helpful as well

filosofem 05-20-2011 03:26 PM

Re: Why Native vs. DSP Cards?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Filmusic (Post 1796378)
learning of the 'stuff' that makes a native card different in performance from an older tdm system will be really helpful

Is the difference between HD Native and HD TDM processing power?

HD Native offers the same I/O Hardware as HD TDM. HD Native offers the same Peripheral Support as HD TDM. HD Native does not offer however the same HD TDM I/O. HD Native is limited to 64 I/O. TDM Plug-Ins?

Simplistically, apples verses apples, what does HD TDM DSP Cards offer over HD Native host processing power? Is host processing power reliable? Is it stable? Avid believes so. There would not be a HD Native solution otherwise. Can host processing power guarantee performance?

What about latency? We're not running year 2000 Pentium 4 Processors with 400 MHz Front Side Bus (FSB) speeds anymore. If anybody can detect latency at a Hardware Buffer Size of 32 Samples then perhaps they should be pioneering the final frontier without a spaceship, no?

Can host processing power deliver session performance whilst maintaining a 64 Sample or lower Hardware Buffer Size? Yes.

HD Native is only getting better.

albee1952 05-26-2011 09:21 PM

Re: Why Native vs. DSP Cards?
 
I sat thru a nice little demo tonight(thanks to Marshall Graphics and Kurt Howell) and came away with a new desire for HD/Native. From what I understand, the HD/Native card has some processing onboard that handles the mixer and IO, which takes a serious load off the CPU. They also explained that USB and firewire are much slower due to the fact that they move data in packets and are always doing double duty because they are constantly sending everything twice to make sure the data really went. That slows them both down a lot as compared to PCIe. Another cool option(if you have the cash) is that you can add the PCMCIA port to your desktop machine and keep the Native card in the baby Magma chassis, which allows you to grab and run when you want to go portable with your laptop, but still patch it to your studio/desktop system quick and easy, with no change in performance(other than the difference in computer horsepower when going with a laptop. They demo'd a 165 track session with video on a MBP i7 at a 128 buffer(about 65 plugins). Pretty darn impressive:rolleyes: When funds permit, I'll sign up:D

nst7 05-26-2011 09:47 PM

Re: Why Native vs. DSP Cards?
 
And sometime this summer, when Sonnet comes out with their PCIe to Thunderbolt chassis, you can use it this way on the new Macbook Pros and new Imacs (and, I assume, the new Mac Pros whenever they come out).

filosofem 05-26-2011 11:13 PM

Re: Why Native vs. DSP Cards?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by albee1952 (Post 1798725)
They demo'd a 165 track session with video on a MBP i7 at a 128 buffer(about 65 plugins). Pretty darn impressive:rolleyes:

Sampling Rate 48K Dave? And on what hardware I/O? OMNI. And IIRC Mix is a host duty.

p.s. any word on CPTK2 +hardware upgrade path?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:04 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com