Monterey OSX Testing (Rosetta Of Course)

[M2E]

Hey guys, I just noticed Pro Tools 2021.12 is only seeing 8 cores on the Macbook Pro M1 Pro. Logic Pro and Studio One both see all cores.
X-Form won't load. I really need that. Argh, that really sucks.
Everything else is working but I really hope Avid takes 100% advantage of the Apple Silicon processors. If it's running like this now, I can't imagine how much better it can be if Avid will make it run hopefully, 50% to 75% better, stable, snappier, smoother, etc.

Marc

[Sardi]

I believe Pro Tools doesn’t show the 2 x efficiency cores so you’re only seeing the 8 x performance cores.

Clearly other DAWs are different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Johnny Hulst]

Originally Posted by M2E

I really need that. Argh, that sucks Marc

If you really need this so bad, Im wondering why youre on a system which is still in development.
M1 is too soon at the moment.

[Emi]

Avid tries to sell us the only performance cores thing but it's clear that using all cores is more powerful.

[dominicperry]

Originally Posted by M2E

Hey guys, I just noticed Pro Tools 2021.12 is only seeing 8 cores on the Macbook Pro M1 Pro. Logic Pro and Studio One both see all cores.
X-Form won't load. I really need that. Argh, that really sucks.
Everything else is working but I really hope Avid takes 100% advantage of the Apple Silicon processors. If it's running like this now, I can't imagine how much better it can be if Avid will make it run hopefully, 50% to 75% better, stable, snappier, smoother, etc.

Marc

X-Form is part of the Avid Complete Bundle which doesn't work with Monterey. So, M1 Pro is the wrong platform if you need that, because you cannot run anything other than Monterey on an M1 Pro.

[dominicperry]

Originally Posted by Emi

Avid tries to sell us the only performance cores thing but it's clear that using all cores is more powerful.

In what way is it clear?

There's plenty of sense in the design decision to use the performance cores for the active application (ProTools) and leave the efficiency cores for system processing - things like disk and network IO, indexing etc.
You get predictable performance from all the performance cores being the same and you let system/OS operations run without impacting application performance.
Whether that design decision results in better overall and/ or more predictable performance overall is another question, but as a design choice it makes perfect sense.

[Emi]

Originally Posted by dominicperry

In what way is it clear?

There's plenty of sense in the design decision to use the performance cores for the active application (ProTools) and leave the efficiency cores for system processing - things like disk and network IO, indexing etc.
You get predictable performance from all the performance cores being the same and you let system/OS operations run without impacting application performance.
Whether that design decision results in better overall and/ or more predictable performance overall is another question, but as a design choice it makes perfect sense.

I understand the theory and maybe it's true. But when it was using all the cores I could use more or less 40% more of plug-in instances than with only performance cores. And it was very stable. I'm not a scientist but, maybe now it's more stable (thing that I didn't notice) but it was more powerful.

[dominicperry]

Originally Posted by Emi

I understand the theory and maybe it's true. But when it was using all the cores I could use more or less 40% more of plug-in instances than with only performance cores. And it was very stable. I'm not a scientist but, maybe now it's more stable (thing that I didn't notice) but it was more powerful.

I don't doubt your measurement, but that's a big increase which is hard to explain by having just 2 more low-powered cores. I think something else must have changed in the code to make such a huge difference.

EDIT: I see you are on an M1, not an M1 Pro or Max. That explains it. Earlier versions of PT used all 8 cores of the M1 - which is 4 performance and 4 efficiency. At some point, the use of the efficiency cores for PT was removed, leaving you with only 4 performance cores. So yes, for an M1 chip, a 40% difference in plugin numbers is perfectly feasible and very frustrating, I'm sure.

Dominic

[strawb]

embarrassing for avid to be this slow. anyone who buys a brand new macbook pro (released in oct 21) cannot use protools ultimate with confidence.

[M2E]

Originally Posted by Sardi

I believe Pro Tools doesn’t show the 2 x efficiency cores so you’re only seeing the 8 x performance cores.

Clearly other DAWs are different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah OK. They must have changed this lately. Sounds fair.

Thanks, Marc