Definitive answer needed on Host Processors settings

[Bill Denton]

Where this seems to have really been an issue is with systems running lots of virtual instruments.

So it appears that there is a "floating" sweet spot.

Probably the best idea is to leave at least one core for system processing tasks, then 'speriment to find your own system's sweet spot...

[GordonFreeman]

Originally Posted by Bill Denton

Where this seems to have really been an issue is with systems running lots of virtual instruments.

So it appears that there is a "floating" sweet spot.

Probably the best idea is to leave at least one core for system processing tasks, then 'speriment to find your own system's sweet spot...

Yep, that's what I'm learning with this experiment :) Still curious to know where that sweet spot would be for 8-core Mac Pro owners, tho.

That would address a lot of technical mysteries, since they have exactly double the cores and threads I have.

[CME]

Pro tools does see virtual cores also. So if the CPU has hyper-threading, it will show twice as many "processors" as cores it has. So a quad-core w/HT will show as 8-cores. And a dual 6-core system w/HT will show 24-cores.

The rule of thumb of selecting one-less than available is to allow that unused core to run non-realtime code that the OS, some plugs/VI's and other apps are running in the back ground. While the rest of the cores are used for the audio engine.

Running non-realtime and real-time (Real Time Audio Suite aka RTAS) code on the same processor can lead to errors. And if you're running lots of VI's or other back ground apps, you may need to use even less cores for the audio engine. Just depends on what you're doing as to what setting will work best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GordonFreeman]

Originally Posted by CME

Pro tools does see virtual cores also. So if the CPU has hyper-threading, it will show twice as many "processors" as cores it has. So a quad-core w/HT will show as 8-cores. And a dual 6-core system w/HT will show 24-cores.

The rule of thumb of selecting one-less than available is to allow that unused core to run non-realtime code that the OS, some plugs/VI's and other apps are running in the back ground. While the rest of the cores are used for the audio engine.

Running non-realtime and real-time (Real Time Audio Suite aka RTAS) code on the same processor can lead to errors. And if you're running lots of VI's or other back ground apps, you may need to use even less cores for the audio engine. Just depends on what you're doing as to what setting will work best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yay, captain obvious is back! =D

Yes, I think everyone here knows all that. My question had to do with where the sweet spot will be, since I just found out that the "rule of thumb of selecting one-less than available" is incorrect.

[CME]

And that's why I said it depends on what you're doing. However since that's so obvious I'll shut up and move on

Sorry to have wasted your and my time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GordonFreeman]

Originally Posted by CME

And that's why I said it depends on what you're doing. However since that's so obvious I'll shut up and move on

Sorry to have wasted your and my time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry! Didn't mean to offend, I was just being humorous!

It does seem like the rule of thumb is not a rule at all. I have been using it for years now, only to find (thanks to a pro tooler friend who noticed that once) that the optimal configuration on a Quad is to give pro tools only 2 cores (4 processor threads). That means a lot of people following the "rule of thumb" could be missing out on valuable CPU performance :P

[CME]

But for me all but one is the sweet spot. At least with my quad-core w/HT hack. However these days I'm only editing/mixing audio that's recorded on a seperate system (Allen and Heath iLive feeding a Mac mini via Dante).

With my dual-core MacBook pro, which I use to start editing, I have to run all processors (all 2 of them) to get by. And honestly it does a lot more than I ever thought it would and is super stable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danlaurens]

Hello !
Some news about the CPU Host Usage system ?

It's the same for me :
Best performance with 8 processors than with 16.

No Answer about that ?

thank you very much

[Drew Mazurek]

This issue is non existent since PT12 handles CPU/core uses in the background now.

[Sledmo]

In 12 usable cache memory is tweakable. Avid recommends leaving it at 'normal' but what does that actually mean? If it's optimized for everyone's system why make it adjustable?