A PCU test: PT Vs Reaper with pretty incredible result
 

Firstly I want to say that before doing this test I moved all third party plugin away from pro tools aax folder, except for Softube Modular as I needed to have a common plugin to test in Reaper. Also, modular is very heavy on cpu and easy to stress the computer with.
It is to notice that I did not removed any plugin in Reaper. Both buffer were set at 1024.
Of course I opened the same instances (3) of modular with the same sounds. As I've used a templates I can say that the session were very similar.

So, I took a screenshot at the peak of the stress. In the screenshot is shown both the internal cpu metering of the daw and the computer one. Difference of such degree were totally unexpected.

Now, I cannot go further than this not being a tech guy and so, I will encourage some comments about it.

https://imgur.com/a/oF6PXES

Re: A PCU test: PT Vs Reaper with pretty incredible result
 

It's not unexpected at all. I haven't tried this particular test, obviously, but during my own simple tests I got about double the plugins with Reaper compared to PT.

One likely explanation is that Reaper has a feature called "Anticipative FX Processing" which appears to pre-calculate some FX processing. It works really well and doesn't affect real time processing at all that I can tell.

Someone wrote that Studio One has added a similar capability, but I can't confirm it, and I have no idea how well it works.

Re: A PCU test: PT Vs Reaper with pretty incredible result
 

I do hope when they say, about the 2019, they will rewrite playback engine, this implies also filling the gap of a such a poor performance!
But, I have to say, having brought the most famous and expensive daw to such an incredible difference of performance from the other daws is unforgivable, and makes really wonder if my switch to PT hasn't been a complete mistake.

Re: A PCU test: PT Vs Reaper with pretty incredible result
 

Again, I think Reaper's "Anticipative FX" feature might be the difference. A couple of years back I did some simple tests with several DAWs using FX that I use quite a bit (not trying to do benchmarks, simply trying to get a feel for how they work for me) and PT was on par with an earlier version of Studio One (v3.1 if memory serves) and a little better and more reliable than Samplitude. So it's not bad at all.

If you think about it, there should be minimal differences in DAW FX performance with standard usage, since the bulk of the work is done by the plugin itself. If the tested DAW uses memory wisely and manages the FX properly, the differences between DAWs should be minimal. And that was what I saw with PT, S1, and Samplitude. They were all very close, with Samplitude lagging a little behind the others. I haven't tried it, but from what I have read, if you turn off Reaper's "Anticipative FX" algorithm it is in the same ballpark as the others. Obviously I want as much plugin power as possible so I leave it on, and I let it pre-calculate as much as it will.

Re: A PCU test: PT Vs Reaper with pretty incredible result
 

Roughly thinking about my test my computer is performing with PT 20% of the power it does with Reaper. By feel, I would say that Studio 1 stands close to reaper and so does logic.
Now, besides the technical curiosity with your gentle explanation, this would not make me choose Pro tools...all the other way.

Weird thing is that they are focusing on voices...what voices are they talking about with such poor performance? I also went back to read the few lines that talks about the playback, between lines, it doesn't seem to be an increased of performance, they would have probably announced it.

I'm starting fearing that I will be the shortest PT subscriber of their history...problem is...I only have cubase to go.

Re: A PCU test: PT Vs Reaper with pretty incredible result
 

And so Dean, do you use Pro Tools at all or Reaper.
And how do you manage to have a decent amount of plug in the session?

Re: A PCU test: PT Vs Reaper with pretty incredible result
 

So, 250 users looked at this and had nothing to say.

Now I don't know what to think, whether you guys don't have this problem, you don't feel it or what.

I'm currently working on a song with about 15 audio tracks no virtual synths and no plugins as the few ones open are from uad, and it stops continuously...surely I won't be able to mix it.

How do you guys do??? Do you all have hdx and mix with internal plugs? seems unreal to me!

Please help me understand it!

Re: A PCU test: PT Vs Reaper with pretty incredible result
 

And why is this thread in this general off topic section?!?
This thread definitely belong to 2018 if not 2019
Was my mistake or it was moved here???

Re: A PCU test: PT Vs Reaper with pretty incredible result
 

This and all other shortcomings are easily explained by the fact, that the coding staff Avid has pointed to work on Pro Tools consists of a donkey and a chimp training that donkey. This is why there is little to no progress.
Mystery solved.

Re: A PCU test: PT Vs Reaper with pretty incredible result
 

And are you using it?