HD cards vs CPUs

[JonHallur]

Hi all.

In this post I'm assuming a lot of things, and if I'm wrong this whole post will also be wrong and not to be taken seriously. All these numbers are from and AMD Opteron 270 Dualcore computer running a HD1 system.

After reading about Fairlights Crystal Core card it got me thinking about specialized DSPs vs Generic DSPs. They claim 230 Channels with 8 bands of EQs and 3 stages of dynamics and 72 buses. That all sounds fine, but I'm not interested in switching work enviroment.

I'm assuming that RTAS and TDM (48bit vs. 32bit) quality difference is negligable (I know it isn't but for simpicitys lets assume it)

I'm assuming that if I add another Dualcore CPU to my computer my RTAS capabilities will at least double.

ProTools HD Accel 4,995 $ (Googled price, may not be accurate)
AMD Opteron 270 277 $ (Googled price, may not be accurate)

Price difference 18 fold.

HD card: 36 more Dverbs (60 Dverbs in total with the ones I can run on my HD card)
AMD 270: 72 Dverbs (144 Dverbs 2x Dual Core AMDs plus the 24 (168 Dverbs) I can run on my HD card)

Cost per extra Dverb 138 $ on HD1 system
Cost per extra Dverb <4 $ on AMD Opteron

Price difference per Dverb 34 fold


So I ask you dear HD1 owners, if you wanted to double your processing power which one would you choose. (Limited of course by RTAS plugins)

An accel card for 4,995 $ or another CPU for 277 $ (and live with the quality loss of RTAS and save 4,718 $) ?

Thank you very much for reading.

[GeneOuse]

First, you can find an Accel card waaaaaay cheaper that $4,995 and for the money left you can buy few nice bundles of plugins.
I find that the more cards and less CPU (less RTAS) the more stable the system is. Lately I'd rarely use RTAS since the TDM plugs do sound better and the rig is rock solid when using TDM.
Another thing, Accell card has almost twice the power of the Core card or an HD card and if you work at 48k a HD Accel 2 system should cover all your needs unless you have really huge session with tons of plugins. At 48k I rarely go over the 1 accel card.
One last thing, Accel card gives you more track count than a single core card or an additional HD card would.

Now, you didnt say anything about what type of sessions you work on, so we dont really know what your need. May be an additional processor will do just fine in your situation.

[MDog]

IMO, the *quality* of the plugins, delay compensation and latency issues also seperate the two systems. I have an M-Powered setup on my laptop at home, which is great, but I would hate to have to depend in a professional setting. On the hardware side, the 192 has pretty decent D/A converters. If you're going native you'd have to factor in the cost of an Apogee D/A or something along those lines.

Just my opinion, native may work perfectly for your situation.

[nikki-k]

This is a scenario pondered by many I would guess...especially in light of the power of multi-core, multi- cpu systems.

Sheer DSP power for running plugins is only a single aspect of the full picture. HD/TDM is an Enviornment. Building that Enviornment on DSP chips is akin to an actual, physical digital mixer...but far more flexable. The host computer becomes the "heart," simply pumping blood..or, audio data streaming from drives. Yes, it also provides for the GUI. With extra power to spare, it can then also be used for running virtual instruments, and also for extra effects. While this may seem a bit underwhelming, one could simply see it as that, or begin to grasp the larger picture.

IMO, an HD1 system is worthless. It could barely supply the foundation for the "digital mixer + TDM Enviornment" I would require. For audio @ 24 bit and 44.1k or 48k, less htan 64 tracks, and stereo mixes only, plus minimal bussing with Aux Ins and not much TDM plugin use, it could suffice. My habits preclude that, without spending time to force new work habits. I would consider an HD2 Accel minimal, unless there would be less than what I outlined. An HD2 Accel would be comfortable IMO. For film, 96k+ and 5.1 work, HD3 Accel.

OTOH, LE or MP + Musicians Production Toolkit would provide for 48 tracks, a decent number of busses and Aux Ins...but the lack of Delay Compensation would stop ne dead in my tracks, and cause me to alter course.

The HD software also has many features I would be without, and that would also cause me to choose from another developer. Unhappily.

If you go with XP and a dual core dual cpu system to house an HD2 Accel system, I would grab used HD Core and Accel cards. Should be able to be had for under $5k. Add a 96 I/O for now...or grab Apogee or Lynx solutions for your ADC/DAC.

I sold my XP HD4 Accel system not long ago. I purchased a Mac Pro, and then put an HD2 PCIe Accel system in it. While it lacks a bit TDM-wise, I can get by quite happily, and I now have the native power for virtual instruments all in one box now, instead of the two it took previously. I would be even happier if I could simply buy the HD software, and use a DSP-less HD Core with an I/O. I love the Digi 192, and think it is an excellent value. I do not feel the same about the HD cards however. My host system is more than up to the task...

[Rock_Artist]

HD and Native power is still isn't perfect.
LE/MP has some advantages especially with RTAS.

However,
Native power is IMHO trickier.
You cannot trust native power. you can have a session with x plug-ins of RTAS that one day will start throwing error messages due to plug-in denormalized.
sometimes the plug-in overload during specific passage is higher and you just discover it during recording of a performer...

And last but not least,
Latency - on LE/MP if the plug-in has own short latency it should work just fine. on TDM the bridge from CPU<->TDM adds great latency.

CPU Performance:
Multicore Processors are far from delivering an exact performance/number of cores value.

Don't expect 2Ghz Dual Core to bring twice as 2Ghz Single Core.

1st, they use the same cache usually (even if it's bigger).
2nd, stated also by digidesign here. each core requires a new thread to provide "sync" with the main app thread.
Usually you get about 30% - 60% from each core.

To sum it up

For mixing scenarios native power will be helpful as long as hardware buffer is big enough. you'll get the power you want.

What to buy:
I'd suggest looking for Quad Core CPUs as they will become cheaper. unlike Accel Cards. you can't add a cpu just like that to get more power. DSP cards has that advantage so purchasing a cpu should be done with hope to get the best performer for the budget with future (1-2 years ) in-mind.

[bigbadhenchman]

Well, first lkets get rid of the 'TDM plug-ins sound better" myth.
I've done phase cancealltion expe4riments, and the same signal processed by both versions of plug-ins, cancels out comnpletely.

Now, also, take into account that JonHallur has said he is already using an HD1 set-up.

So, with those 2 facts, I would say, get an extra processor. I do tons of naive stuff and tons of DSP stuff. I find zero differences between the 2 when mixing. Wether it's stability or sound quality.

If you want zero latency for tracking, just refrain from using RTAS plug-ins, while recording and use TDM plug-ins only.

Personnaly, I find I use most plug-ins when mixing, so who cares about the latency with ADC, right?

[bigbadhenchman]

Don't expect 2Ghz Dual Core to bring twice as 2Ghz Single Core.


I'd suggest looking for Quad Core CPUs as they will become cheaper.

Uum, he already stated he's running a Dualcore machine, and wants to add another dual core.
AFAIK, yes, you will at that point double your plug-in count.

[MDog]

Well, first lkets get rid of the 'TDM plug-ins sound better" myth.
I've done phase cancealltion expe4riments, and the same signal processed by both versions of plug-ins, cancels out comnpletely.

I should have said "there are some HD plugins that aren't available for RTAS that sound better". Specifically ReVibe, but there are others.

[Brandonx1]

Uum, he already stated he's running a Dualcore machine, and wants to add another dual core.
AFAIK, yes, you will at that point double your plug-in count.

Hey Hench,
Sorry to always be posting after you. I have a great deal of experience with this. Which is to say, I owned a hd 1 and a HD 2 with a dual dual. For the most part, you have DSP out the butt. The only real drawback, and it's really a showstopper in my book, is you kind of lose the PT flexibility we all bought PT for. You're very quickly going to run out of voices and DSP for ADC and DSP for the mixer. On even small sessions, the PT mixer takes up two DSPs, the voices take up another two for 96 voices. leaving you with 5 left. Now here comes ADC. It will probably take up most of the remaining DSP chips. You may have one left. With this kind of DSP situation, your really going to have to manage your DSP and session. This is a very small session. If you want to do anything in surround, forget about it. Just my experience. I hope this helped someone.
Peace,
Brandon

[bigbadhenchman]

Hey Hench,
Sorry to always be posting after you. I have a great deal of experience with this. Which is to say, I owned a hd 1 and a HD 2 with a dual dual. For the most part, you have DSP out the butt. The only real drawback, and it's really a showstopper in my book, is you kind of lose the PT flexibility we all bought PT for. You're very quickly going to run out of voices and DSP for ADC and DSP for the mixer. On even small sessions, the PT mixer takes up two DSPs, the voices take up another two for 96 voices. leaving you with 5 left. Now here comes ADC. It will probably take up most of the remaining DSP chips. You may have one left. With this kind of DSP situation, your really going to have to manage your DSP and session. This is a very small session. If you want to do anything in surround, forget about it. Just my experience. I hope this helped someone.
Peace,
Brandon

So, what you're saying is, if you want to do anythiugn seriouse in surroiund, you relaly need an HD3 system?
The Post facility I work at is lookign to re-outfit one of our mix rooms.
We do everything in 5.1, and in generel use numerous 5.1 busses.
If wanting a 10 band eq on 8 band eg on every channel, as well as limiters on the 4 mix busses, variuous 5.1 reverbs and Efefcts, woould you say an HD3 would be a necessity?