• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: CPU Usage difference
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CPU Usage difference


  • Subject: Re: CPU Usage difference
  • From: tahome izwah <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 15:44:50 +0100

Well, if you ask me the reviewers at "Sound on Sound" aren't exactly
known for their competence... and I would like to think that after all
those years they should be able to do better than that and provide
some hard facts when they review products, but apparently not...
"overload indicator started flashing"... how ridiculous is that.

Anyway, like you said it is interesting and agrees with my observation
that most products aren't really optimized to run on multiple kernels.
But then again isn't this what Snow Leopard is supposed to take care
of automatically in the future...?

--th


2009/3/6 Richard Dobson <email@hidden>:
> tahome izwah wrote:
>>
>> Yes but you have multiple cores so it's not a big issue, right? It's
>> no secret that noone is optimizing code too much these days...
>>
>
> You may be right... the current (March) issue of Sound on Sound has a review
> of Cubase 5, and includes a small panel on the "Reverence" reverb. The
> reviewer writes:
>
> "I did encounter a slight performance issue when running the surround
> version.. on my test computer, an older but still powerful dual quad-core
> Xeon...at 2.66GHz and 16GB memory. Cubase's red CPU  overload indicator
> started flashing and the audio output became garbled. This would
> happen...with only one 5.1 track and only Reverence loaded....the stereo
> version worked fine..and seemed quite efficient"
>
> One observation at the end of the review indicates strongly that the
> reviewer was using Tiger, but it is nowhere stated explicitly.
>
>
> I have just written to SoS to ask why on earth they did not use Activity
> monitor to  view the work on each CPU. But the above could easily be
> explained if both reverb formats had but one core to run on, so that despite
> the machine having eight of them, a plugin will only be able to use one of
> them. On the face of it, such a machine should have no trouble whatsoever
> running a single 5.1 convolution reverb - but only if said plugin has
> multiple cores available, or the plugin is maximally optimised to run on
> one.
>
> So it may be that optimisation techniques remain relevant, however many
> cores a machine has.
>
> Richard Dobson
 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Coreaudio-api mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: CPU Usage difference
      • From: Richard Dobson <email@hidden>
References: 
 >CPU Usage difference (From: Alex ROUGE <email@hidden>)
 >Re: CPU Usage difference (From: tahome izwah <email@hidden>)
 >Re: CPU Usage difference (From: Alex ROUGE <email@hidden>)
 >Re: CPU Usage difference (From: tahome izwah <email@hidden>)
 >Re: CPU Usage difference (From: Richard Dobson <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: CPU Usage difference
  • Next by Date: How to Access and change mAudioData??
  • Previous by thread: Re: CPU Usage difference
  • Next by thread: Re: CPU Usage difference
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread