The new “Standard” CPU specific test for PTLE

[Diginique]

Sorry, I was referring to supercell.

[guitates]

I appologize in advance, Butt...Flames Ahoy.......

cwhite...Please enlighten all of us to your background and Vast knowledge?

I say that plug size in kb is Very significant. Are you suggesting that 500,000 more bytes of data, means Nothing to our processors?

My Realverb size is 2.7 MB and I could only open 2 of those with my 733 DA. I could open about 6 dverbs. See a patern here???

You just dismiss this as absurd, and I Chalange you on that Sir ! We will meet in the forest at Dawn!!!

[cwhite771]

cwhite...Please enlighten all of us to your background and Vast knowledge?

I say that plug size in kb is Very significant. Are you suggesting that 500,000 more bytes of data, means Nothing to our processors?

My Realverb size is 2.7 MB and I could only open 2 of those with my 733 DA. I could open about 6 dverbs. See a patern here???

Actually, having worked with computers for about 2 decades now and dealing with various forms of code in my day to day work-- I have a pretty good idea of how things work, thank you. If you read my post again, you might actually understand what I was trying to say (then again, maybe not).

But firstly, your comparison is thoroughly rediculous. Comparing Realverb to dverb is like comparing a Honda to a Ferrari-- though they are both cars, they are not even close to being the same thing. The Honda gets far better gas mileage, but even though the Ferrari looks and performs a lot better, its gas mileage sucks. The user interface alone in Realverb probably uses as much processing power as a dverb. I'd also say that the quality of the reverb being produced is of much higher quality than dverb because it uses completely different alogorithms which are likely more processor intensive as well. Realverb also provides more options for processing, all of which would account for the difference in processing power you see.

Now let's review:
My original point was/is that different processors require different code. The reason they use different code is because each processor uses/recognizes specific instructions. Some processors also have specific optimizations that allow them to handle some functions more efficiently. If the code written to take advantage of these things is well done, the actual size of the app itself should have little or no effect upon performance of the app itself. These are just some of the things that explain the big difference in platforms/performance.

Also, I never dismissed it as absurd, and even hinted to the possibility that indeed, the code could just suck. If you review my previous post again:
"unless of course they are really, really bloated from a ton of bad or inefficient code, which I would doubt is the case (but who knows)."

Thanks for your concern. At least you started out by apologizing... I guess I'll accept.
---
c

[Tom Ptacek]

Also, could the reason that the D-verb plugin size for PC is 480KB as opposed to 986KB for Mac be that the D-verb plug in was cobbled together and ported over to the PC in a hurry for commercial reasons and that the Mac's D-verb algorithm is more sophisticated and may even sound twice as good. It makes sense considering Mac is by far the choice of professional studios running ProTools around the world. By the way, isn't this a Mac forum. I use plenty of PCs (over 10) and several Macs in my business, even an Apple III that emulates an Apple 2c in my main business (since 1982) and have no specific preference, however using a Mac for ProTools is by far the overwealming choice by the studios that I deal with, and I think that a more scientific approach to comparing PCs to Macs is needed here. In fact, here's what I will do. I own a Pentium 4 1.4 ghz and a Mac G4 867 ghz that I am putting a sonnet 1.4 processor in the next few days. I will test various plugins and compare file sizes and post the results here. Both machines are single processors and have a gig of ram. Even then, the results will be subjective and scientifically meaningless, but they will be unbiased and truthful.

[clorox]

I appologize in advance, Butt...Flames Ahoy.......

cwhite...Please enlighten all of us to your background and Vast knowledge?

I say that plug size in kb is Very significant. Are you suggesting that 500,000 more bytes of data, means Nothing to our processors?

Actually, that's 100% right. A program could be 10 times bigger, and still be 10 times faster.

It's just a fact. In fact, optimizing code sometimes means making it BIGGER so you can put in all the nifty shortcuts, case statements, etc. to speed things along.

Larger code size doesn't mean it is slower or more poorly written.

[cwhite771]

In fact, optimizing code sometimes means making it BIGGER so you can put in all the nifty shortcuts, case statements, etc. to speed things along.

Exactly... thank you clorox.

[technician]

Tom Ptacek. the reason nearly all studios run mac isn't because "they sound better" or "twice as good" as you stated. although I find that extremely funny, but regardless... when daw recording started out years ago, pc's were definitly lacking in the audio/video department. your only option for computer recording was mac. the ruled the multimedia world! as time went along, pc's started to play "catch-up". without getting into detail, we are where we stand now. side by side, neither being "superior" in the multimedia department. the reason most studio's use mac is for a few reasons.
1. they (the studio) has been brought up on mac from back when pc wasn't an option. why learn a new os and start over from the beginning again when you can stick with what you know.
2. mac has a "name" from when multimedia first started out. most people assume you use a mac if your running audio/video since mac started out this entire thing. the name has never died out over the years for multimedia use
3. people unfamiliar with the actual recording process and how things work rarely know much about computers and like answer #2 assume mac is the way to go. if they saw the studio running of pc's they'd think differently of the studio. which makes mac's a visual comfort layer to the clients. (this is exactly why I have a mac in my studio, but the entire studio is run off a pc).
4. mac is easy to use. it's like a 10 year old's computer. you plug something in, and it works. everything just "works". if you don't know computers well, this is great! also, if you don't have time to learn computers, this is also great. but where this sucks, is when for some reason it just doesn't "work". what do you do? you really can't do anything. pc's are customizable as far down as your knowledge brings you. I've been working with pc's for 10+ years, I know how to write basic code and have written a driver or two in my life also. something completely impossible on a mac.
5. the new G5 has been labeled by mac "the worlds fastest personal computer" which is complete bulls**t. as this post shows, the pc side is winning the dverb test by very far. but with mac labeling this as the fastest computer, the buying public who always want "the best" and "the fastest" will go out and buy this thinking they have the fastest machine available, because that is what they heard. But in reality, they could have spent $2500 less, and had a faster computer.
6. macs "look cool". yes, it's sad. but some people care more about looks than usability. and sadly I know a few people who fall into this catagory.

I could write on for ever about this topic. instead of the mac users making excuses for there computers being so slow and blaming it on the size of the plug in, use any plug-in you'd like, eq, reverb, delay, whatever you want. the pc will beat the mac, in every protools department. we don't need to complain about file size, or code program. the pc will beat the mac eitherway, like always. with windows xp stability and usability, owning a mac is like using cassette tapes. your holding onto the past, to weak to let go of what you like and are comfortable with. Let it go, wake up and face the fact macs have had there day, and have been passed. there is simply no use in having a mac compared to back in the day. the pc is the future of computers. mac has seen there day, and it's about time for them to fade away. when all the users wake up and realize, these conversations wont take place any longer.

until then, enjoy the slow computing!

[Lucky]

34 dverbs on my dual G5 with 4 GB RAM - I don't care if PC get 300 Dverbs I will stick with stability and interface that makes sense. Feel free to love your PCs, I don't have a problem with that but I will NEVER believe that any Windows based machine is better than my Mac. I am not blindly saying that the Mac is perfect - it isn't. It is more stable and for me it is more comfortable.

I have never and will never use anywhere near 30 Dverbs in a session - the test is not real world but I can run what I need without even a hiccup. I really like my Dual G5 and PTLE 6.2.3. I hope that the PC trolls are honestly as happy with their machines as I am.

It is intersting that Microsoft has dumped the CISC processor for the RISC processor in the new X-Box. The X-Box developers got new Mac G5s that run a RISC version of Windows NT to create and test X-Box applications. Is the wind changing directions.....

[technician]

Lucky, 34 dverbs on your dual G5 with 4gb ram. Nice. We'll, I went to www.apple.com and priced out your computer. 17" screen, with 4gb of ram (which is on sale for $700 off) and an airport card and it came to $$4,847.00 including the $700 off.
My pc, which cost under $700 + $300 for a 17" screen so under $1000 got 36 dverbs. I got two more instances of dverb, and saved myself about $4000.00 in doing so.
You talk about your stability and interface. I've had my protools computer running for 6 days strait without a "hiccup" once. As for the interface, protools is nearly the same on both platforms.
You've paid an extra $4000.00 for a computer that looks cool! I hope it was worth it.

Just think, if you took that $4000 and put it towards some useful things. Like high end mic's, high end pre's. whatever you want. instead you dropped almost $5000 for a computer that's slower than a $1000 computer.

and about an xbox. that has no relevance towards pc's. it's a videogame system! weather they choose intel, amd, motorola it really means nothing. maybe they can get them in 10,000 units cheaper than cisc's? who knows, and when it comes down to it, who cares?

[stoogee]

17 on my 1.6ghz G5.

Was expecting more, but still. CPU was at 85%. It locked up at 1.03 minutes, which was also a shame, but completed the test?

Any tweaking tips?

SG