How to Optimize PT for CPU.

[aylavid]

Dear darbyclash34,

Thank you for the reply. You have a great experience!

Regarding the issue of CPU, I feel it is most of the time depending on Intel's design. I don't know how you feel about it, but as I was reading your text, I started to remember when I spoke to Intel about CPU.
They told me that what they do is just design the CPU, and other chips and rest are depending on how the each computer companies design the computers. And what I know is they use Windows Machine for development.

Do you know the meaning of error message of AAE 6101?

So are you finding better potential on custom PC for the future?
If so, what do you think about using Samplitude Pro or Sequoia?
I know it is more common using PT in U.S, but they look very sophisticated and seems sounds great. (I have never experienced listing directly from monitors yet)

I am getting sick and tired of Apple changing OSX too often come with bugs. They care about graphical aspects like 4K, 5K rather than sound and music aspect, also moving toward to iOS compatibility.

Although we consider switching back to Windows PC, we have some concern about Thunderbolt option with UAD and all other things, it takes time and budget because all system was built for the Apple computer.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by aylavid

I am getting sick and tired of Apple changing OSX too often come with bugs. They care about graphical aspects like 4K, 5K rather than sound and music aspect, also moving toward to iOS compatibility.

Although we consider switching back to Windows PC, we have some concern about Thunderbolt option with UAD and all other things, it takes time and budget because all system was built for the Apple computer.

There's no need to use the latest version of OSX when Apple comes out with it. Remember that those that live on the bleeding edge are doomed to get cut by it. If you have a system that works - leave it alone.

As to UAD and Thunderbolt be aware that they have a firewire version of the Apollo for those that don't have TB ports (like a lot of Windows users).

[Dudiester]

You seem to be very organized with your list of windows optimizations, is there any chance you could share your list with us? I had a pretty good list years ago that I had collected but switched to Mac 6 years ago, was great until about 2 years ago and now I find the Mac is way too unpredictable. I did have awesome success with windows back in the day with a fair bit of carefully done tweaks. At least it was tweakable. Thanks!

Originally Posted by darbyclash34

I'm flattered you thought so, but I'm not a computer scientist, although I worked with a bunch of really smarts at a certain fruit company... Most of this comes by doing and reading, when my parents got my brother and I a 486 dos box, no one else was gonna figure out how to use it and fix it. When I started recording bands at about 15 or 16, doing it on a computer seemed like the way to go, but I was also lucky enough to train and intern at a really awesome tape based all analog studio, so I got the best of both worlds in my opinion. Nowadays a lot of my business is installing, configuring, and support recording systems, so I read voraciously to stay current and find new tricks.

The Core 4 phenomenon is definitely not an issue with Apples scheduler, as I get the same thing here. So one thing to keep in mind, and I'm not sure exactly when this changed, but hyperthyroid for isn't quite the same as it once was. On a modern quad core, most of the components are there for 8 cores. The difference is each pair feeds into a shared execution unit, which for a real time process, having to wait can carry a fairly heavy penalty. But for all intents and purposes it's equally OK to send the work to core 3 or 4, depending on which one is busier. This isn't the way it's always been, in the older hyper threading using the virtual instead of "real" core was a hit. A lot of programs still tend (either for backwards compatibility, the necessary code would be too difficult too thread properly or isn't all that threadable in the first place) code as if cores aren't equal, and tend to try to pile into the "real" cores (as much as the scheduler with allow). So my guess is that they're trying to grab a core that no one else is going to request, and since they share execution units, they'll ultimately wind occupying most of 3&4. I could be way off about this, but it's behavior that has occurred across multiple versions and across Mac/PC.

There is a lot about Avid's transparency that needs improvement. Myself and others have asked over and over again for an explanation of the dual buffer/dual latency domain system introduced in 11, advertised through a couple of versions of 12, and then all mentions seemingly vanish. From my tests, it CAN work, but it is not possible to use the feature as described by Avid. Blatantly false. If anyone out there can mix a song, then do a last minute overdub, all without changing your buffer, I'd love to look at the session. The feature is so limited as to be useless, and was definitely falsely advertised. But that's another rant.

About 6 months I guess I switched to Windows 7 from OS X 10.9.5 using a Hackintosh. I had been having very hard to isolate problems so I decided to take the variable of running an unsupported OS, plus DAWBench has found Windows outperforms at low latency. So I made the jump. My really weird problem actually came out to be a voltage and ram timing issue, I had replaced the ram but never loosened the RAM timings. Anyway, they both get the job done. I greatly prefer OS X in everyday usage, but my recording machine I look at as an appliance. I turn it on, record, turn it off. I really only see Pro Tools most of the time. I can't say if it's really more efficient all being equal, but the flexibility it allows in building and designing my machines, as well as the tweak ability of both hardware and software, is such a huge boon, I can't imagine buying an Apple desktop machine in the future. At the same time, my personal list of optimizations for Windows 7 for Pro Tools is pretty extensive (much beyond the Avid list), whereas on a Mac I basically just follow the Avid guide. So I think it depends on how computer friendly you are. I want a car that I literally never open the hood of. Others want to get in there and tweak. Different strokes for different folks.

As far as core count versus clock speed, for the sessions you're describing I would think higher clock and higher instructions per cycle would win out over core count. It's easier to keep channels on a single core versus doing the first insert on one, the second on a different core, etc because that doesn't parallel very well. Insert B needs to know the result of Insert A before it can start working, and if it's trying to do that on a second core, there's cache penalties to deal with, all sorts of stuff. Some virtual instruments spread across cores to some degree, but to my knowledge, an instance of any given plugin on any given channel is being processed on one core along with all the processing on that channel. So for you, I would probably go for the fastest 4 or 6 core. 8 or 12 I don't see helping you much. That's one area a custom PC kills the Mac, this summer I'll be upgrading from a quad core sandy bridge Core i7 2600k, stock it runs at 3.4ghz, I've got it at 4.2. I'm gonna go to whatever 8 core chip comes out with the summer refresh, liquid cool it so as to hopefully get em at 4.0ghz, and have the best of both worlds.

Long story short, most tasks prefer high clock speed and IPC over core count, but more cores are huge as you get into bigger sessions.

[The Weed]

For Windows, have a look here.

And the i7 Thread too.