|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mac Octo 2.26: Almost no difference between 2 Cores and 8 Cores
I'm fairly new to the high powered Mac thing running native (been on HD with G4's for a while).
I'm confused because it doesn't seem to make much difference at all how many cores I select for the RTAS engine. 2 cores give me the same, maybe even better performance than 8 cores. Above 8 cores (16 show up), performance actually goes down (both according to the system useage meter and amount of performance before I get glitching). I'm not sure if there's some kind of optimization I'm missing, or if this is normal behaviour, but I definitely feel that I'm not getting the performance I would expect from this machine. Any ideas? MacPro 8-core 2.26 / 6 GB / 10.6.4 / PT 9.0.1 / Lynx Aurora 16 - AES 16e |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Mac Octo 2.26: Almost no difference between 2 Cores and 8 Cores
How are you testing this btw?
I'm on HD and therefore not pushing my CPU that much, but when toying around with settings I did find a similar thing, running a same session and choosing less cores resulted in lower CPU usage in system CPU monitor section when compared to choosing more cores. At the same time PT internal CPU monitor showed less stress on system with more cores. Go figure. Generally it s considered to be a good way to choose as many cores as you have minus one. So in your case it should be 15. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Mac Octo 2.26: Almost no difference between 2 Cores and 8 Cores
In my case, as I increase cores, the Mac system meter shows increasing stress, but much more than the PT meter.
And the strange thing is, that anything over 8 cores gives diminishing performance, both on the PT meters and in actual amount of processing available before glitching occurs. 15 threads gives worse performance than 8. There is also a big discrepancy between the Mac meter and the PT meter. On the session I'm working on right now, if I select 2 threads, the Mac meter shows 7%, but the PT meter shows about 40%, peaking up to 50%+. Also, the PT useage meter seems to show almost no change as I decrease cores all the way down to one or two. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Mac Octo 2.26: Almost no difference between 2 Cores and 8 Cores
Quote:
of course you should expect awesome performance with the machine you have. I know how annoying it is. may be if you share more details about the session you are running, plugins and so, more users will jump in to help?!
__________________
MacPro 2008. 2 X 2.8 Quad. 4GB RAM. MacbookPro 2.4 C2D. 4GB RAM OSX 10.6.6 Protools 9.0.2. 003R. Ableton Live Suite 8.2.1. Reaper 3.74 CA Alchemy. M-Audio Axiom 61 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Mac Octo 2.26: Almost no difference between 2 Cores and 8 Cores
Quote:
Plugs: Running a QT Video (scoring session) 1x Stylus RMX (3 slots) 1x Hybrid 1x Vacuum 1x Xpand 2 1x Structure (1 slot) Decapitator (stereo x 3) Tremolator Filterfreak TL Space (stereo X4) Filterbank (x5) AIR lo-fi (x3) L2007 Compressorbank (x2) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Mac Octo 2.26: Almost no difference between 2 Cores and 8 Cores
Quote:
__________________
www.mikeslatermusic.com PTHD9 Certified Operator 15" MBP 10.7.2 Pro Tools 10.0 Apogee Duet M-Audio BX5A's |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Mac Octo 2.26: Almost no difference between 2 Cores and 8 Cores
I have the same computer as you. 2.66 mac pro. Did lots of test and on my system (pt hd3) I find that using 7 cores (pt reads 14) is the best. 1 core for the system and the rest for Protools. Hope that helps
__________________
http://www.ricardomosca.com Hackintosh, 3,7 GHz 10-Core Intel i9, 64 GB 3200 MHz DDR4, OSX Catalina 10.15.7, PT HDX 2023.9.0, SSL 4040G+, tons of outboard Mac Book M1 Pro, 16GB RAM, OSX 23.6, PT Studio 2023.9.0 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Mac Octo 2.26: Almost no difference between 2 Cores and 8 Cores
Sure, I set 7 or 8 threads which gives better performance than 15 or 16 (which makes it appear to me that PT9 is not using hyperthreading at all, or if it is, it's not using it properly). I just don't understand why I don't seem to be getting better performance from 8 threads than from 2... I mean I'd expect to see large performance gains if the RTAS is moved from 2 threads to 8, but I don't.
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Mac Octo 2.26: Almost no difference between 2 Cores and 8 Cores
Have you guys tried disabling multithreading from BIOS? Or is that something jailed/locked on Macs?
You might find interesting what I found in this tread. I'm on Windows, but for me disabling multithreading actually gave me better performance on ProTools. HTH Francisco |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Problems when using all 4 cores vs. 3 cores | hopelessennui | macOS | 1 | 02-03-2012 06:54 AM |
better performance from 7 cores than 15 cores? | stevesound | macOS | 4 | 03-30-2011 11:48 AM |
Oh where oh where are my cores? | yamlan | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 20 | 05-08-2010 10:13 PM |
using 7 cores instead of 8 | stevedresser83 | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 6 | 02-08-2010 03:00 PM |
for those of you that want 8 cores | Craig F | Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) | 0 | 04-04-2007 12:00 PM |