PT brings my computer to it's knees...

[slyfichapel]

So why is it that I can run 60+ tracks with some plugins and a reverb in Cubase4 with NO problem on my HP xw8200 (Digi approved computer), but 7 tracks with some plugs and a reverb in PT7.4 brings the same computer to it's knees??

Running Cubase with the recommended MusicXP tweaks (and sometimes the internet in the background!!) and running PT with all the MusicXP tweaks, plus all the additional Digi tweaks (no internet)...

I'm really, really trying to spend more time working in PT, but...

Is PT really that much more of a resource hog??

[slyfichapel]

I know this could sound like trolling, but I'm dead serious. This is the kind of performance difference I'm seeing... just wondering if anyone has any ideas as to why PT is so much more resource intensive? Are RTAS plugs crazy processor hogs? I'm using a fair amount of UAD plugs - is this a bad idea in PT?

Some of my clients want me to work in PT for obvious reasons, but unless the sessions are really small, it doesn't make sense... yes, my computer is old and slow but I'm getting adequate performance using another DAW (and it is a Digi qualified machine)...

[JMS40]

I use both. Yes Cubase is significantly leaner.
It's hard to say how good/bad your computer is, or should be, in relation to Pro Tools without a system report though.

Are you using a separate drive for your PT sessions?
You can get away without it in CB, but in Pro Tools, it's a must.

[slyfichapel]

Originally Posted by JMS40

Are you using a separate drive for your PT sessions?

Yes.

Good to know you've experienced the same thing with C4 vs PT. I had used PT extensively before, but never on the same computer so I always just chalked up the difference to the different computers... Since installing PT on this machine, I've been flabbergasted (!) at how much smaller the sessions have to be to prevent the computer from dying... As I said, my desktop is a single processor old-timer, but in cubase I can run a decent sized mix for a fairly big production record. In PT, I'm struggling to mix 8-10 track live acoustic records I've been doing...

Just not sure why the resource requirements are so high for PT when it's doing so much less... Are RTAS plugs more processor intensive than their VST equivalents? Is the UAD wrapper killing it?

Sandra coming right up!

[slyfichapel]

<<< Computer Overview >>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

< System >
Host Name: HP86252687120
User: Administrator
Workgroup: WORKGROUP

< Processor >
Model: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.40GHz
Speed: 3.40GHz
Cores per Processor: 1 Unit(s)
Threads per Core: 1 Unit(s)
Internal Data Cache: 16kB, Synchronous, Write-Thru, 8-way, 64 byte
line size
L2 On-board Cache: 1MB, ECC, Synchronous, ATC, 8-way, 64 byte
line size, 2 lines per sector

< System >
System: Hewlett-Packard hp workstation xw8200
Mainboard: Hewlett-Packard 08B4h
Bus(es): X-Bus PCI PCIe IMB USB FireWire/1394
Multi-Processor (MP) Support: No
Multi-Processor Advanced PIC (:Yes
System BIOS: Hewlett-Packard 786B8 v2.02
Total Memory: 2.88GB ECC DIMM Registered DDR2

< Chipset >
Model: HP E7525 Workstation Memory Controller Hub
(C4)
Front Side Bus Speed: 4x 200MHz (800MHz)
Total Memory: 3GB ECC DIMM Registered DDR2
Memory Bus Speed: 4x 100MHz (400MHz)

< Video System >
Adapter: NVIDIA Quadro FX 1400 (128MB DDR, 351MHz/
2x598MHz, PCIe 1.00 x16)
Adapter: NVIDIA Quadro FX 1400 (128MB DDR, 351MHz/
2x598MHz, PCIe 1.00 x16, PS3.0, VS3.0)

< Storage Devices >
ST3160828AS 160GB (SATA300, 3.:149GB (C:)
ST3160828AS 160GB (SATA300, 3.:149GB (D:)
Ext Hard Disk 1TB (FireWire/13:932GB (G:)
Ext Hard Disk 1TB (FireWire/13:932GB (H:)
HL-DT-ST DVD-RAM GSA-H55L (ATA:N/A (E:)

< Logical Storage Devices >
SlyPC (C:): 149GB (NTFS) @ ST3160828AS 160GB (SATA300,
3.5", NCQ, 8MB Cache)
Samples (D:): 149GB (NTFS) @ ST3160828AS 160GB (SATA300,
3.5", NCQ, 8MB Cache)
CD-ROM/DVD (E:): N/A @ HL-DT-ST DVD-RAM GSA-H55L (ATA66, DVD+-
RW, CD-RW, 2MB Cache, 192kB Flash)
1TB_2 (G:): 932GB (NTFS) @ Ext Hard Disk 1TB (FireWire/
1394, NCQ)
1TB_1 (H:): 932GB (NTFS) @ Ext Hard Disk 1TB (FireWire/
1394, NCQ)

< Peripherals >
LPC Hub Controller 1: Intel 82801EB/ER (ICH5/ICH5R) LPC Interface
Bridge
LPC Legacy Controller 1: SMSC LPC v1
Audio Device: Mark Of The Unicorn 0004h
Serial Port(s): 1
Parallel Port(s): 1
Disk Controller: HP 82801EB/ER (ICH5/ICH5R) EIDE Controller
Disk Controller: HP 82801EB (ICH5) SATA Controller
Disk Controller: HP LSI53C1020/1030 PCI-X to Ultra320 SCSI
Controller
Disk Controller: HP LSI53C1020/1030 PCI-X to Ultra320 SCSI
Controller
USB Controller 1: HP 82801EB/ER (ICH5/ICH5R) USB UHCI
Controller #1
USB Controller 2: HP 82801EB/ER (ICH5/ICH5R) USB UHCI
Controller #2
USB Controller 3: HP 82801EB/ER (ICH5/ICH5R) USB UHCI
Controller #3
USB Controller 4: HP 82801EB/ER (ICH5/ICH5R) USB UHCI
Controller #4
USB Controller 5: HP 82801EB/ER (ICH5/ICH5R) USB 2.0 EHCI
Controller
FireWire/1394 Controller 1: HP TSB43AB22 1394a-2000 OHCI PHY/Link-Layer
Controller

< Printers and Faxes >
Printer: PDF Complete Converter (2400x2400, Parallel,
Colour)

< Network Services >
Network Adapter: Compact Wireless-G USB Adapter #4 - Packet
Scheduler Miniport (Ethernet, 54Mbps)

< Power Management >
Mains (AC) Line Status: On-Line

< Operating System(s) >
Windows System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional 5.01.2600
(Service Pack 2)
Platform Compliance: x86

[Greg M]

slyfichapel,

Two things that might help some are to disable the wireless adapter and also install SP3.

Greg

[TOM@METRO]

You are right. That system will run Cubase fairly well, while PT will prefer to see more power. It's been a long time since I’ve been okay with PT and a single core.

[slyfichapel]

Originally Posted by Greg M

slyfichapel,

Two things that might help some are to disable the wireless adapter and also install SP3.

Greg

The wireless adapter is always off when I'm working in PT... I only turned it on to download Sandra!!

I'll try SP3...

Thanks for the tips!

[slyfichapel]

Originally Posted by TOM@METRO

You are right. That system will run Cubase fairly well, while PT will prefer to see more power. It's been a long time since I’ve been okay with PT and a single core.

Thanks for your insight Tom. That's the kind of feedback I was wondering about...

Why is PT so resource intensive? Old code? It's not as if PT (LE in particular) is some advanced app with a bunch of technical features that others don't have!!??!!

Again, don't want to offend anyone here, but doesn't it seem crazy to have to invest in new high-powered hardware to run a program with a 48-track limit??? Especially when C4 doesn't even break a sweat with that many tracks on my old-timer HP... Guess I just expected more parity is all...

Here's another question - rather than investing in a new computer to run LE, anyone here think I'd be better to invest in HD to run on this machine? I'm assuming HD would be OK since it uses it's own processing?

[Jason Grooms]

No doubt in my mind - inefficient code in Pro Tools no doubt.

Maybe some day Digi will just scrap their old code base and move into this century. I know that is an expensive and potentially risky venture but their customers would be happy, maintenance costs would go down and they would have a modern code base to work from. The ROI is there. Maybe Pro Tools 10?

I'm a programmer in the real world so I have been through the exact exercise at a company I used to work for. Legacy application with legacy code that management didn't want to invest the money in to rewrite using a more modern approach and take all the learnings that were made writing the software and just start over. We finally convinced them to do it and it was amazing. Our customers loved it, we could more easily manage changes and enhancements and the performance was so much better. Just have to convince the "non-technical" people that there is value in it but they don't understand programming. They just say, "well it works why would we want to do that?". I just laugh everytime I hear that now--clueless.

You really have to wonder if people haven't made such big investments in Pro Tools if it would still be so dominant. It seems every year it shows its age more. At some point its going to get passed up, some would argue it has in some areas.

In the meantime, is what it is.