PT11 cpu usage metering

[musicman691]

I love that PT11 demo shows each core in a computer and it's respective usage. It's also being touted that PT11 is more efficient at processing than PT10. Presumably an individual can tell that by playing the same session in 10 and 11 on the same computer.

Here's where I see a possible problem: in PT10 vanilla there's only one cpu meter (I know there's cpu clip but that's not what I'm talking about here) and I'm assuming that is the composite of all the cpu cores in said computer. If this is true, then except for the changes in cpu usage in PT11 due to dynamic processing (which should be turned off when doing the comparison), wouldn't the numbers be the same if you added up all 8 lines (quad core hyperthreaded cpu) as it would be in the single cpu usage line in PT10?

If this is true than how can one make a legitimate comparison between processing usage between the two versions of PT?

[mykhal c]

Originally Posted by musicman691

I love that PT11 demo shows each core in a computer and it's respective usage. It's also being touted that PT11 is more efficient at processing than PT10. Presumably an individual can tell that by playing the same session in 10 and 11 on the same computer.

Here's where I see a possible problem: in PT10 vanilla there's only one cpu meter (I know there's cpu clip but that's not what I'm talking about here) and I'm assuming that is the composite of all the cpu cores in said computer. If this is true, then except for the changes in cpu usage in PT11 due to dynamic processing (which should be turned off when doing the comparison), wouldn't the numbers be the same if you added up all 8 lines (quad core hyperthreaded cpu) as it would be in the single cpu usage line in PT10?

If this is true than how can one make a legitimate comparison between processing usage between the two versions of PT?

i'm havin' a hard time following you but these are 2 totally different engines...DAE and AAE. the best way to compare is throw up a session that can be processed 'fully' by 10 and 11...especially if it's a seesion that stresses your system in PT10. in fact what about the PT11 demo session...have you brought that up in PT10? if so, how does usage compare? and if i'm missin' your point then my apologies.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by mykhal c

i'm havin' a hard time following you but these are 2 totally different engines...DAE and AAE. the best way to compare is throw up a session that can be processed 'fully' by 10 and 11...especially if it's a seesion that stresses your system in PT10. in fact what about the PT11 demo session...have you brought that up in PT10? if so, how does usage compare? and if i'm missin' your point then my apologies.

You are totally missing what I'm asking about. I know they are two totally different engines and that the PT11 engine is supposed to be more efficient than the old one. But how do you make a valid comparison between the two when the cpu usage meters in both engines are different from each other?

The session itself doesn't matter - it can be the demo version or it can be one of your own. As long as the same plugs are up in both you should be okay with the comparison. If you play the same session on both you should be able to compare the cpu usage. Using a session that stresses on PT10 but plays okay in PT11 isn't going to disclose the actual efficiency unless you compare numbers but you need to know what those numbers are based on. Avid says the new engine is more efficient but I want to know how much more efficient not just some nebulous words to that effect.

[mykhal c]

Originally Posted by musicman691

You are totally missing what I'm asking about. I know they are two totally different engines and that the PT11 engine is supposed to be more efficient than the old one. But how do you make a valid comparison between the two when the cpu usage meters in both engines are different from each other?

The session itself doesn't matter - it can be the demo version or it can be one of your own. As long as the same plugs are up in both you should be okay with the comparison. If you play the same session on both you should be able to compare the cpu usage. Using a session that stresses on PT10 but plays okay in PT11 isn't going to disclose the actual efficiency unless you compare numbers but you need to know what those numbers are based on. Avid says the new engine is more efficient but I want to know how much more efficient not just some nebulous words to that effect.

yeah that might be hard to nail down i would think. just as we now have 2 different engines, i'm sure that the usage meters have been optimized and fine tuned also. for example, the cpu clip gain meter that does not exist in PT11 was not just a meter that said cpu 'might' have been maxed out but also that a plugin didn't meet your playback buffer setting's time schedule. but it showed itself via cpu clip gain. anyway, i'm sure that one of the devs will chime in after the holiday to explain the usage metering's optimizations.

[guitardom]

Stress test it. Run the dverb test in 10 till you get errors, not just in the "red" then open the same session in 11. The differences are still there that are not adjustable in 11, but It would give you a good idea. Also 11 will utilize cores more if the plugins are spread out. So 5 dverbs per track would yield better overall than say 10 per track. I don't think it matters in 10. Also skipping the recording process of the test would not work as in 11, the plugs would not be using CPU power.

[mykhal c]

Originally Posted by guitardom

Stress test it. Run the dverb test in 10 till you get errors, not just in the "red" then open the same session in 11. The differences are still there that are not adjustable in 11, but It would give you a good idea. Also 11 will utilize cores more if the plugins are spread out. So 5 dverbs per track would yield better overall than say 10 per track. I don't think it matters in 10. Also skipping the recording process of the test would not work as in 11, the plugs would not be using CPU power.

turinng off dynamic plugin processing durin' the recording test would put the plugins back into action during record tho, correct?

[musicman691]

I'm NOT talking about doing a stress test and I do know about the dverb test. All that would do is tell me how much the processing differs between the two PT versions.

What I'm asking about is how can one compare the cpu usage numbers of a session from PT10 to the cpu usage numbers of that same session in PT11 (with dynamic processing turned off) when the metering is different? Vanilla PT10 has one cpu usage line and one for cpu clip. PT 11 does away with the cpu clip line but has lines for each core (and hyperthreading). Does one just add up all the lines to get the same info that the aggregate number in PT 10 shows? I understand you won't come up with the same number because of the audio engine differences and THAT'S what I'm trying to pin down.

Keep in mind this is for non-HD use.

[Chief Technician]

Originally Posted by musicman691

Vanilla PT10 has one cpu usage line and one for cpu clip. PT 11 does away with the cpu clip line but has lines for each core (and hyperthreading).

Don't use elastic audio or clip-based gain in your test session. This should make the CPU (Clip) meter read zero.

[guitardom]

Originally Posted by musicman691

I'm NOT talking about doing a stress test and I do know about the dverb test. All that would do is tell me how much the processing differs between the two PT versions.

What I'm asking about is how can one compare the cpu usage numbers of a session from PT10 to the cpu usage numbers of that same session in PT11 (with dynamic processing turned off) when the metering is different? Vanilla PT10 has one cpu usage line and one for cpu clip. PT 11 does away with the cpu clip line but has lines for each core (and hyperthreading). Does one just add up all the lines to get the same info that the aggregate number in PT 10 shows? I understand you won't come up with the same number because of the audio engine differences and THAT'S what I'm trying to pin down.

Keep in mind this is for non-HD use.

Also, 11 properly (or at least more so) utilizes all the cores. This was an issue with 10.

Why would you turn dynamic processing off? Just leave it on as that is the way you will be working most any of the time. Might as well make the test "real world" also difference between the 2 will always be variable, never a consistent %. As instated earlier just changing how your plugins are inserted will change the CPU usage in 11. Testing the upper limits of the machine is the closest you get to consistent.

Or just use the task manager and see your cpu usage.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by guitardom

Also, 11 properly (or at least more so) utilizes all the cores. This was an issue with 10.

Why would you turn dynamic processing off? Just leave it on as that is the way you will be working most any of the time. Might as well make the test "real world" also difference between the 2 will always be variable, never a consistent %. As instated earlier just changing how your plugins are inserted will change the CPU usage in 11. Testing the upper limits of the machine is the closest you get to consistent.

Or just use the task manager and see your cpu usage.

I know PT10 didn't properly use all the cores. This isn't about core balancing but total core usage.

Why would I turn off dynamic processing? Because PT10 doesn't have it. Same set of givens per PT version. And it gives me a relatively steady metering without having the usage jump up and down because there's no plugin process going on versus when it is happening.

I'm not changing plugins with this comparison. Using the same plugs in both versions of PT. It's the same session on both with no changes - get it?

Don't have task manager - I'm on a Mac. I know the Mac version but that's just an overall of how the system is running. I want to make the comparison STRICTLY within PT given the metering PT has.