Try this the next time you run out of CPU.

[Joe.LoDuca]

Folks,

This is going to sound really strange but, it definately works in a BIG TIME sort of way:

I want to tell you all about a change I made today in protools that made a GIANT LEAP FOR MAN KIND in terms of processing power.

Last year, I was using a dual core pentium running PT8 under WIN XP. I use to run tons of audio tracks plus about 2 to 3 Virtual instruments
and the system took all that punishment. Around Christmas of 2010 I decided to upgrade EVERYTHING. So today I have a Intel i950 (3 ghz) with
more memory and for the life of me I couldn't figure out why I could NOT run as many tracks and most importantly virtual instruments. One of those virtual instruments was IK-multimedia's Philharmonik. Its like this plugin was a CPU hog. It made ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE why a more powerful system could not do what the slower/weaker predacessor system could. When I originally set up my new i950 processor running PT10 under win7, I originaly had it set to use 7 or sometimes all 8 processor cores. With this configuration, I usually could NOT get even 1 virtual instrument to operate without getting a "running out of CPU error". So, today I went into protools audio engine, set it up for 4 processors, no go, it didn't help. THen I went to "2 processors".. Yep you read right! 2 processors and the difference is unbelieveable! THis system runs way the hell better than its ever done on 4 or more processors.

The next time you get CPU issues, try this. I would be real curious of others with other systems would see these positive results. I know it flies in the face of logic but this so worked well for me! I am not exactly a windows system guru but what I think this may tell me is, we all know PT is not geared to run in 64 bits, could it be also that it isn't geared to run with any more than 2 cores? That giving PT more than 2 cores just degrades it, thats exactly what I am seeing so far. Just my 2 cents worth..

joe

[YYR123]

I will try it

[Ant B]

http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=310816

[rockridge]

Originally Posted by Joe.LoDuca

...we all know PT is not geared to run in 64 bits, could it be also that it isn't geared to run with any more than 2 cores? That giving PT more than 2 cores just degrades it, thats exactly what I am seeing so far. Just my 2 cents worth..

joe

Interesting thought, but why hasn't Avid realized it?

Wouldn't they say, "Look, Protools is so efficient, you'll only need to dedicate two cores for peak performance!"

[chrisdee]

Iv been doing some testing on this today. Working at 192kHz 2 cores is just not enough to run PT at all on my machine.
But gradually increasing one core at a time untill the buffer size messages goes away actually seems to work better
than starting in the other end with 8, 7, 6 etc.

Even though my CPU activity shows 55% with 5 processors is runs smoother than 6, 7 or 8 processors with the same buffer size (1024).

Good find.

[DigiTechSupt]

Originally Posted by rockridge

Interesting thought, but why hasn't Avid realized it?

This is actually recommended when troubleshooting these 'CPU' errors:

See kb299475

[Zarabozo]

Originally Posted by Joe.LoDuca

Folks,

This is going to sound really strange but, it definately works in a BIG TIME sort of way:

I want to tell you all about a change I made today in protools that made a GIANT LEAP FOR MAN KIND in terms of processing power.

Last year, I was using a dual core pentium running PT8 under WIN XP. I use to run tons of audio tracks plus about 2 to 3 Virtual instruments
and the system took all that punishment. Around Christmas of 2010 I decided to upgrade EVERYTHING. So today I have a Intel i950 (3 ghz) with
more memory and for the life of me I couldn't figure out why I could NOT run as many tracks and most importantly virtual instruments. One of those virtual instruments was IK-multimedia's Philharmonik. Its like this plugin was a CPU hog. It made ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE why a more powerful system could not do what the slower/weaker predacessor system could. When I originally set up my new i950 processor running PT10 under win7, I originaly had it set to use 7 or sometimes all 8 processor cores. With this configuration, I usually could NOT get even 1 virtual instrument to operate without getting a "running out of CPU error". So, today I went into protools audio engine, set it up for 4 processors, no go, it didn't help. THen I went to "2 processors".. Yep you read right! 2 processors and the difference is unbelieveable! THis system runs way the hell better than its ever done on 4 or more processors.

The next time you get CPU issues, try this. I would be real curious of others with other systems would see these positive results. I know it flies in the face of logic but this so worked well for me! I am not exactly a windows system guru but what I think this may tell me is, we all know PT is not geared to run in 64 bits, could it be also that it isn't geared to run with any more than 2 cores? That giving PT more than 2 cores just degrades it, thats exactly what I am seeing so far. Just my 2 cents worth..

joe

You can also try disabling processor multithreading in your BIOS and letting Protools use all of the resulting processors.

For example, I have two processors with 6 real cores with 2 threads each one (meaning 12 threads per processor, 24 total). In a normal way, I see all of my 24 cores in Windows. If I disable multithreading in my BIOS, then Windows sees only a total of 12 cores (6 per processor), but those are real cores, not threads. Setting ProTools to use those 12 cores works amazingly better than enabling threading and letting it use 24 cores. Also, works a lot better than any test I did in the same way you did. Try it.

Francisco

[albee1952]

Everyone really needs to try all the options as it helps(or doesn't help) on a case by case basis(or maybe with certain platforms like Mac, or certain other hardware configurations). My i7 950(freshly tweaked) gives the best performance(Dverb 2 test) with all 8 cores working(90%). Lowering to 7,6,5 or 4 will drop the Dverb count by a significant number Last week with the older BIOS, it performed better with 4 cores out of 8. Things that make you go, "hmmmm".....

[SteveGam]

Albee, here is an interesting update.
on your 950 machine -

8 cores is optimal on this machine PERIOD! Anything less and you cannot run 345 dverbs at 64 sample buffer.
AGAIN eveyone I'm talking about THIS MACHINE ONLY. Your mileage may vary.

pT9.0.0, win 7 no service pack = 345 dverb at 64 sample buffer, cpu meter at 88%. While track plays I can also enable addictive drums on a midi track and play the sample beat with no sound issues to the 1khz tone track ir the drum track.

PT9.0.0, win7 SP1 = 360 dverb at 64 sample buffer, cpu meter at 84%. While track plays I can also enable addictive drums on a midi track and play the sample beat with no sound issues to the 1khz tone track ir the drum track.

PT9.0.6, Win7 SP1 = Unknown dverb. Won't run the 345 dverbs properly even at 1024 samples. Sounds like I would need to kill at least 20 dverbs to get it to run right. Also eats up another 250mb of ram just sitting there doing nothing. CPU meter floats all over, won't lock into a number.

9.0.6 is getting pulled as I write this. Gona try 9.0.3 as I felt it worked best on my Phenom rig.

-still playing!!!

[mbourque]

Originally Posted by albee1952

My i7 950(freshly tweaked) gives the best performance(Dverb 2 test) with all 8 cores working(90%). Lowering to 7,6,5 or 4 will drop the Dverb count by a significant number Last week with the older BIOS, it performed better with 4 cores out of 8. Things that make you go, "hmmmm".....

What is your motherboard and the bios version installed? I have an i7 950 with a gigabyte GA-X58A-UD5 (rev. 2.0) mobo. When I enable hyperthread, I'm losing performance in PT... Maybe I could try to update the BIOS.