Mojave & hyperthreading off

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

Well you at least have the option of stability at very low latency... if you want to mess that up by letting people get what they want and adding plugin latency... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

isn't that what people want? 32 buffer and tons of plugins...

[Emi]

Originally Posted by JFreak

isn't that what people want? 32 buffer and tons of plugins...

And if it would work at 16 buffer even better

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Emi

And if it would work at 16 buffer even better

Why not 1 buffer instead? That is the absolute minimum. It would just mean fewer track/plugin count than ever...

[digiot]

Originally Posted by JFreak

No, just as enabling it doesn't double it. Hyperthreading has always been shaky due to its nature. True, the core might be idle at times, and giving it something else to do is a good idea for OFFLINE work. But if you think Protools and people who like to use 32 buffer instead of 256 for tracking, you need to move those data streams quickly and predictably (which is the #1 reason DSP systems still exist). So, if you want low buffers, hyperthreading doesn't look so good anymore, doesn't it?

Fair enough. I am all for the stability of tracking at low buffers when needed.
However turning of Hyperthreading does cut your amount of CPU's in the System Performance window inside of Protools. In other words I only see 12 CPU's with Hyperthreading off as apposed to 24 CPU's with Hyperthreading on. Regardless of the actual amount of processing being done, Protools now sees only half the core's. I think this is going to confuse a lot of people.

[Dax Productions]

Thanks so much for posting this!! This seems to have cleared up a crashing bug that I was having related to elastic audio! And everything seems to run a little nicer too!

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by digiot

I only see 12 CPU's with Hyperthreading off as apposed to 24 CPU's with Hyperthreading on.

Yes, you only have 12 real cores that do the work. That isn't cutting performance to half. Think of hyperthreading as a worker that is laying bricks with both hands, instead of one. Seems to be a cool idea, right? But who is laying the cement?

If you give up on hyperthreading, all work goes to real cores instead of virtual "left hand". AFAIK those spikes come from the stuff hyperthreading cannot do because the real core is busy. This isn't so much of a problem if the buffer is large enough, but if you want real fast processing (a.k.a. small buffer) you need to get the stuff done on real cores instead of queuing to that.

[Emi]

Originally Posted by Dax Productions

Thanks so much for posting this!! This seems to have cleared up a crashing bug that I was having related to elastic audio! And everything seems to run a little nicer too!

Anytime, that’s this community is all about. Glad to be of any help

[arche3]

Are you alsi using CPU setter for mac OS x?

Originally Posted by JFreak

I can confirm this makes PT usable on Mojave with lowest 32 buffer -- CPU load behaves nicely.

[WorldStudios]

Guys! Thanks for this!!

I am on High Sierra 10.13.3 (because its the last one Avid approves) I am having cpu overloads and stops quite often come mix down/mastering time especially when I run certain native powerslut plugins on the master bus.

I just did a test having disabled hyper threading with the app linked to on page one here in a big, plugin heavy session. I could add Ozone with many processes/features running plus Elevate and Invisible limiter G2 set to quality 5, all running at once. This is perhaps not something you would do in real life, adding 3 cpu hungry limiters in a row, but I did this because these 3 usually give me problems. With hyper threading off, I could run all 3 and the cpu meter maxed out at 80. There were no stops or warnings. With hyper threading on, I can only run Ozone. As soon as I add any of the other 2 it stalls. Forget using both. It goes above 100 already while idle. To think I have been suffering this for years!

Furthermore, without anything on the master bus, but many tracks and many plugins, I can run the session at 512 samples buffer if hyper threading is on but 128 with it off!!!

It somehow feels more solid as well. Perhaps the graphics work better without Hyper Threading?

In conclusion: Hyper threading should be outlawed for protools ultimate HDX 2018.10 on a MacPro 12 core from 2012.

[audiobob]

I find it interesting that Avid's Computer Optimizations guide recommends disabling hyperthreading when using Windows but no mention of it for the Mac OS. I'm not versed enough to know the reasons.

For the record when I was using the Mac OS, disabling HT did help with CPU errors when using low buffers...but it didn't completely stop them. That's why I eventually went HDX.