|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Performance difference between Native and HDX
Quote:
Quote:
MADIrouting is making a decision requiring quite the investment. Your generalized statements aren't all correct and also relate to HD on Mac, not HDX on PC. We have a responsibility to post accurate information, especially when such a large investment is being considered by a fellow user. Shane
__________________
Pro Tools Power User Editing Give your plug-ins a facelift...and skin 'em! __________________ "Music should be performed by the musician, not by the engineer." Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM __________________ Pro Tools|HD Native 9.0.1 | Pro Tools|HDX 10.2 | Studio One | REAPER 4.22 | HD OMNI | HoboMac Pro 2.26Ghz Quad-Core | W7 Ultimate 64-bit |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Performance difference between Native and HDX
Quote:
Thank You again. I see that the thread issue has been resolved with PT10 for this individual. I am going to turn off ECC to see what performance improvement I see. I had an i7 930 with 12GB of RAM on a GIGABYTE board. For me, I couldn't perceive a significant difference in performance or reduction in error rates when switching to the Xeon system. Yet I also wasn't running a standard test. From the thread you'd sent there appears to be a Dverb test that people use to gauge their system performance. I will see what I can achieve with my setup. Thanks again for the helpful responses. I am grateful! Jay |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Performance difference between Native and HDX
Quote:
Shane
__________________
Pro Tools Power User Editing Give your plug-ins a facelift...and skin 'em! __________________ "Music should be performed by the musician, not by the engineer." Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM __________________ Pro Tools|HD Native 9.0.1 | Pro Tools|HDX 10.2 | Studio One | REAPER 4.22 | HD OMNI | HoboMac Pro 2.26Ghz Quad-Core | W7 Ultimate 64-bit |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Performance difference between Native and HDX
Quote:
SYSTEM PC: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit / ASUS P6X58-E WS / Intel Xeon W3680 @ 3.33 GHz / 24GB RAM MEM [4GBx3 CRUCIAL_CT3KIT51272BA1339 ECC Non-Buffered; 2 kits] / Gigabyte nVidia GTX 470 1280MB |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Performance difference between Native and HDX
Quote:
**Edit - Here's some more Xeon info from our local resident Xeon user. I gave mykhal_c a shout and he fired off that link to me. Hope that helps.
__________________
Pro Tools Power User Editing Give your plug-ins a facelift...and skin 'em! __________________ "Music should be performed by the musician, not by the engineer." Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM __________________ Pro Tools|HD Native 9.0.1 | Pro Tools|HDX 10.2 | Studio One | REAPER 4.22 | HD OMNI | HoboMac Pro 2.26Ghz Quad-Core | W7 Ultimate 64-bit |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Performance difference between Native and HDX
Quote:
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Performance difference between Native and HDX
Quote:
Here's 256 tracks in HDX with barely a dent in DSP resources: Here's 256 tracks in HDN with barely a dent in CPU resources: There is no guarantee, and never has been, that a hard drive can stream back 256 tracks of audio in a 48k session all at the same time, just because a DSP and Native system can easily create those amount of tracks in a session. In fact it cant, as no drive can handle all that audio bandwidth simultaniously without disk based DAE errors long before you even get close. That's why Pro Tools has Disk Allocation, which was created for exactly this reason. The new Disk Cache will also alleviate the disk streaming stress entirely. Avid's supported track count per one 7200rpm firewire drive is 24 tracks at 24-bit/48 KHz. Obviously this will vary greatly on drive type and now Disk Cache. Guaranteed audio playback is determined more so from the Hard Drives bandwidth, not DSP or CPU as many seem to promote incorrectly and call it "guaranteed track count". I'm not trying to dig into you here so please dont take offence. This has nothing to do with what "I say", as it's simply how Pro Tools functions and I posted Avid references to support this. People seek precise information when making this type of very costly investment, and they deserve to have it. MADIrouting moved his inquiries to email as he needs very accurate info before laying down the cash. He even wants to make sure his type of sessions and workflow will perform and do what he needs. I know it will, but I'll still demonstrate this to him unbiased, so he can make a better informed purchasing decision. I see no problem with this. We're all on the same team here. Shane
__________________
Pro Tools Power User Editing Give your plug-ins a facelift...and skin 'em! __________________ "Music should be performed by the musician, not by the engineer." Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM __________________ Pro Tools|HD Native 9.0.1 | Pro Tools|HDX 10.2 | Studio One | REAPER 4.22 | HD OMNI | HoboMac Pro 2.26Ghz Quad-Core | W7 Ultimate 64-bit |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Performance difference between Native and HDX
Quote:
I don't have an HD native system but I believe that for very large 5.1 sessions, the HDX system takes a good load off the CPU. In your example, the difference is only 7% (HDX mix engine using less than 2 dsp chips) but it seems, and I might be wrong, that all 256 tracks are bussed to the same output. My 5.1 sessions use about 4.5 dsp chips for the complete mixer routing. It's not that much but the mix engine is something less the CPU have to deal with...
__________________
Serge Hamel Mixer / Sound Designer http://www.netpostproduction.com http://immersivesoundvr.com/ |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Performance difference between Native and HDX
Quote:
Shane
__________________
Pro Tools Power User Editing Give your plug-ins a facelift...and skin 'em! __________________ "Music should be performed by the musician, not by the engineer." Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM __________________ Pro Tools|HD Native 9.0.1 | Pro Tools|HDX 10.2 | Studio One | REAPER 4.22 | HD OMNI | HoboMac Pro 2.26Ghz Quad-Core | W7 Ultimate 64-bit |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Performance difference between Native and HDX
And even with sessions that may not be too much for Native, but do come close to that threshold, HDX can make things a little simpler and faster. So, if you have the bucks to spare, why not go with the Ferrari?
__________________
~ tom thomas Formerly hobotom Pro Tools Ultimate 2024 HDX Hybrid HD Omni and 192 I/Os Windows 10 Intel Hexcore i7 All Samsung Pro SSDs Ampex MM1200 2" 24 trk tape Outboard: UREI, Eventide, Lexicon, Yamaha, TC Electronics, Orban, ART, EchoAudio, Dolby, Hughes, API, Neve, Audio Arts, BBE, Aphex, Berringer, MOTU, dbx, Allison, etc. Plug-ins: Too many to talk about. www.metrostudios.com |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Performance difference on Macbook Pro | lampmusic | Pro Tools 11 | 3 | 08-05-2013 03:55 AM |
Performance difference? | adflaker | macOS | 2 | 01-14-2012 06:59 AM |
Has anyone noticed a performance difference with PT 8? | postprosound | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 0 | 12-21-2008 11:37 AM |
Much performance difference between PCI and PCI-X? | PhilBuckle | Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) | 10 | 01-27-2006 03:44 PM |
16 VS 24 Bit. Performance Difference? | a2zproductions | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 10 | 06-07-2001 11:36 AM |