Anyone using XEON-based DAWs?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Just wondering how compatible a dual Intel XEON workstation would be with
audio apps like Cubase.

Also, I believe you can run a dual XEON with hyperthreading.. meaning the OS
'sees' 4 CPUs!
Anyone know how compatible this would be to our own niche applications??
Typically these boxes are used for servers.

cheers!

zoop

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Just found this.. looks promising for Audio apps:
http/www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040514/e7505-chipsatz-13.html#audio



"Zooper" <wisma_atria@hotmail.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:hGrLc.10004$K53.3445@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Just wondering how compatible a dual Intel XEON workstation would be with
> audio apps like Cubase.
>
> Also, I believe you can run a dual XEON with hyperthreading.. meaning the
OS
> 'sees' 4 CPUs!
> Anyone know how compatible this would be to our own niche applications??
> Typically these boxes are used for servers.
>
> cheers!
>
> zoop
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You can trust Tom's Hardware. They go through some pretty extensive
testing.

In case you didn't know, AMD has a "Producer's Group" that exclusively uses
dual AMD 64 Opterons and seem to be liking them, but then we don't know
whether these guys actually bought the units or had them supplied by AMD.
I'm running one of my machines with an Athlon 64 and it's doing a good job.
My other system is an XP 1600+ and for audio it does everything I've ever
asked of it.

Somewhere inbetween lies the truth about how any of these would work for
you.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Zooper" <wisma_atria@hotmail.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:3JrLc.10010$K53.3353@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Just found this.. looks promising for Audio apps:
>
http/www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040514/e7505-chipsatz-13.html#audio
>
>
>
> "Zooper" <wisma_atria@hotmail.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:hGrLc.10004$K53.3445@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Just wondering how compatible a dual Intel XEON workstation would be
with
> > audio apps like Cubase.
> >
> > Also, I believe you can run a dual XEON with hyperthreading.. meaning
the
> OS
> > 'sees' 4 CPUs!
> > Anyone know how compatible this would be to our own niche applications??
> > Typically these boxes are used for servers.
> >
> > cheers!
> >
> > zoop
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Zooper" <wisma_atria@hotmail.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:hGrLc.10004$K53.3445@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Just wondering how compatible a dual Intel XEON workstation would be with
> audio apps like Cubase.
>
> Also, I believe you can run a dual XEON with hyperthreading.. meaning the
OS
> 'sees' 4 CPUs!
> Anyone know how compatible this would be to our own niche applications??
> Typically these boxes are used for servers.
>
> cheers!
>
> zoop
>

Offhand, I don't know of any windows based apps that are multi-proc capable.
Anyway, it'd be overkill.

jb


>

 

[Flint]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

If you have the money, a dual CPU machine could make sense even if the
primary application doesn't support dual CPU.

By allowing all the system and background services and activities run on one
CPU and the core application run on the other, you can really improve
performance of the core application. Also, several DAWs run multiple apps at
the same time, such as Gigastudio AND Cubase/Protools. These could be
running on different CPUs.



"reddred" <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Mc6dnWI2WKJNWGPd4p2dnA@adelphia.com...
>
> "Zooper" <wisma_atria@hotmail.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:hGrLc.10004$K53.3445@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Just wondering how compatible a dual Intel XEON workstation would be
with
> > audio apps like Cubase.
> >
> > Also, I believe you can run a dual XEON with hyperthreading.. meaning
the
> OS
> > 'sees' 4 CPUs!
> > Anyone know how compatible this would be to our own niche applications??
> > Typically these boxes are used for servers.
> >
> > cheers!
> >
> > zoop
> >
>
> Offhand, I don't know of any windows based apps that are multi-proc
capable.
> Anyway, it'd be overkill.
>
> jb
>
>
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"flint" <fcflintNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZSzLc.13831$qa2.1154@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> If you have the money, a dual CPU machine could make sense even if the
> primary application doesn't support dual CPU.
>
> By allowing all the system and background services and activities run on
one
> CPU and the core application run on the other, you can really improve
> performance of the core application. Also, several DAWs run multiple apps
at
> the same time, such as Gigastudio AND Cubase/Protools. These could be
> running on different CPUs.

Exactly. Even an ordinary dual CPU helps a lot because one CPU can handle
the hardware interrupts while the other is still available for applications.
Dual Xeon HT servers can really move some data around.

Just got four of these at work, man I'd love to pick one up for recording!
http/h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantdl360/

Sean

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"flint" <fcflintNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZSzLc.13831$qa2.1154@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> If you have the money, a dual CPU machine could make sense even if the
> primary application doesn't support dual CPU.
>
> By allowing all the system and background services and activities run on
one
> CPU and the core application run on the other, you can really improve
> performance of the core application. Also, several DAWs run multiple apps
at
> the same time, such as Gigastudio AND Cubase/Protools. These could be
> running on different CPUs.
>

Do the math and ask yourself if it's worth the money. How long before you
replace the box anyway?

jb

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"reddred" <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message
news6-dnU5qucUeamPdRVn-uA@adelphia.com
> "flint" <fcflintNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ZSzLc.13831$qa2.1154@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> If you have the money, a dual CPU machine could make sense even if
>> the primary application doesn't support dual CPU.
>>
>> By allowing all the system and background services and activities
>> run on one CPU and the core application run on the other, you can
>> really improve performance of the core application. Also, several
>> DAWs run multiple apps at the same time, such as Gigastudio AND
>> Cubase/Protools. These could be running on different CPUs.

> Do the math and ask yourself if it's worth the money. How long before
> you replace the box anyway?

Other things to consider is whether a single CPU is any kind of a serious
bottleneck.

I might imagine that there are more than a few people who go the dual CPU
route, but have a single hard drive.

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>From: "Arny Krueger" arnyk@hotpop.com

>Other things to consider is whether a single CPU is any kind of a serious
>bottleneck.
>
>I might imagine that there are more than a few people who go the dual CPU
>route, but have a single hard drive.

A single CPU is a serious bottleneck. I max out my CPU usage on all but the
most spartan of projects. I'm disinclined to constantly have to apply effects
offline and hope that I don't need to tweak the effect later. I do have 2 hard
drives though! At one point I was using a RAID setup, but found that to be
overkill. The extra HDD throughput simply wasn't needed. Processing power
will always be in a shortage. CPU's will ever increase in power, and plugins
(and users) will increase their demand accordingly.
-John Vice
www.summertimestudios.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John" <jsvice@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040721195141.12124.00002110@mb-m01.aol.com
>> From: "Arny Krueger" arnyk@hotpop.com
>
>> Other things to consider is whether a single CPU is any kind of a
>> serious bottleneck.
>>
>> I might imagine that there are more than a few people who go the
>> dual CPU route, but have a single hard drive.

> A single CPU is a serious bottleneck. I max out my CPU usage on all
> but the most spartan of projects.

You are aware that under some circumstances, 100% CPU does not mean that the
CPU is 100% engaged, but rather that it is engaged in polling?

> I'm disinclined to constantly have
> to apply effects offline and hope that I don't need to tweak the
> effect later.

What software?

> I do have 2 hard drives though! At one point I was
> using a RAID setup, but found that to be overkill. The extra HDD
> throughput simply wasn't needed. Processing power will always be in
> a shortage.

Not necessarily.

> CPU's will ever increase in power, and plugins (and
> users) will increase their demand accordingly.

Are you applying effects during recording?

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>From: "Arny Krueger" arnyk@hotpop.com

>
>> A single CPU is a serious bottleneck. I max out my CPU usage on all
>> but the most spartan of projects.
>
>You are aware that under some circumstances, 100% CPU does not mean that the
>CPU is 100% engaged, but rather that it is engaged in polling?
>

The CPU usage meter is a guideline, not an absolute. I'm talking about the
computer choking on plugins and experiencing dropouts.


>> I'm disinclined to constantly have
>> to apply effects offline and hope that I don't need to tweak the
>> effect later.
>
>What software?
>

Sonar 3 and Nuendo 2.

>> I do have 2 hard drives though! At one point I was
>> using a RAID setup, but found that to be overkill. The extra HDD
>> throughput simply wasn't needed. Processing power will always be in
>> a shortage.
>
>Not necessarily.

I hope you're right.

>
>> CPU's will ever increase in power, and plugins (and
>> users) will increase their demand accordingly.
>
>Are you applying effects during recording?

Never have. It wouldn't occur to me to do that.

-John Vice
www.summertimestudios.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John" <jsvice@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040722011714.16931.00001525@mb-m20.aol.com

> The CPU usage meter is a guideline, not an absolute.

Right.

> I'm talking about the computer choking on plugins and experiencing
dropouts.

However, that's not absolute proof of absence of CPU power, now is it?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <20040721195141.12124.00002110@mb-m01.aol.com> jsvice@aol.com writes:

> A single CPU is a serious bottleneck. I max out my CPU usage on all but the
> most spartan of projects. I'm disinclined to constantly have to apply effects
> offline and hope that I don't need to tweak the effect later.

Your experience doesn't jive with a lot of others'. Maybe it's time to
retire that 66 MHz 486 and get yourself a good 2.5 GHz Celeron.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You're kidding. CPU max utilization on audio? FX offline? What the heck
are you running?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"John" <jsvice@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040721195141.12124.00002110@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >From: "Arny Krueger" arnyk@hotpop.com
>
> >Other things to consider is whether a single CPU is any kind of a serious
> >bottleneck.
> >
> >I might imagine that there are more than a few people who go the dual CPU
> >route, but have a single hard drive.
>
> A single CPU is a serious bottleneck. I max out my CPU usage on all but
the
> most spartan of projects. I'm disinclined to constantly have to apply
effects
> offline and hope that I don't need to tweak the effect later. I do have 2
hard
> drives though! At one point I was using a RAID setup, but found that to
be
> overkill. The extra HDD throughput simply wasn't needed. Processing
power
> will always be in a shortage. CPU's will ever increase in power, and
plugins
> (and users) will increase their demand accordingly.
> -John Vice
> www.summertimestudios.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'd say dropouts is a sign of buffer settings. I can easily track 24
simultaneous channels of audio, and haven't ever run out of power on
mixdowns, although I'm of a mind that 15 reverbs is probably a little
overkill. I admit, some plugs like to eat cycles, but I don't use them.
About the worst I've used is Acoustic Mirror and even at that I've gotten
near real time response out of minor changes, and I'm only running a 1600+
Athlon on that system with Win2K.

You must be running some hellacious number of tracks or plugs.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"John" <jsvice@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040722011714.16931.00001525@mb-m20.aol.com...
> >From: "Arny Krueger" arnyk@hotpop.com
>
> >
> >> A single CPU is a serious bottleneck. I max out my CPU usage on all
> >> but the most spartan of projects.
> >
> >You are aware that under some circumstances, 100% CPU does not mean that
the
> >CPU is 100% engaged, but rather that it is engaged in polling?
> >
>
> The CPU usage meter is a guideline, not an absolute. I'm talking about
the
> computer choking on plugins and experiencing dropouts.
>
>
> >> I'm disinclined to constantly have
> >> to apply effects offline and hope that I don't need to tweak the
> >> effect later.
> >
> >What software?
> >
>
> Sonar 3 and Nuendo 2.
>
> >> I do have 2 hard drives though! At one point I was
> >> using a RAID setup, but found that to be overkill. The extra HDD
> >> throughput simply wasn't needed. Processing power will always be in
> >> a shortage.
> >
> >Not necessarily.
>
> I hope you're right.
>
> >
> >> CPU's will ever increase in power, and plugins (and
> >> users) will increase their demand accordingly.
> >
> >Are you applying effects during recording?
>
> Never have. It wouldn't occur to me to do that.
>
> -John Vice
> www.summertimestudios.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Zooper wrote:
> Just wondering how compatible a dual Intel XEON workstation would be
> with audio apps like Cubase.
>
> Also, I believe you can run a dual XEON with hyperthreading.. meaning
> the OS 'sees' 4 CPUs!
> Anyone know how compatible this would be to our own niche
> applications?? Typically these boxes are used for servers.
>
> cheers!
>
> zoop

Join mailtoCDAW-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and search the recent archives
for posts by Dave Haynie.

cheers

geoff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:40:01 -0400, "reddred"
<opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:

>Offhand, I don't know of any windows based apps that are multi-proc capable.
>Anyway, it'd be overkill.

Cubase claims to be.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> rode in on
news:apa0g0pcqdsm8tevj9ilec0u119ng8da85@4ax.com:

>>Offhand, I don't know of any windows based apps that are multi-proc
>>capable. Anyway, it'd be overkill.
>

Sonar 3 is.
I wasn't following the thread so I don't know how it relates, but now you
know.

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>From: mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers)

>
>Your experience doesn't jive with a lot of others'. Maybe it's time to
>retire that 66 MHz 486 and get yourself a good 2.5 GHz Celeron.

I wasn't aware of the "good" Celerons.. j/k. I'm using a P4 2.8. Could be
that I'm running low on RAM, as I just have 512 MB. I do run lots and lots of
plugs though. Minimum 15... I'd say average is 20+. My experience jives with
people who I talk to outside this group. Remember, I'm not using ProTools or a
Powercore or a UAD... All my processing is native. I don't usually run that
many tracks either. I never go over 35 or so. And I do remember to archive
(rather than just mute) tracks that are no longer used (scratch tracks, etc.)
I'm also alware of how to adjust buffer settings. Do you think I'm running an
inordinately large amount of plug-ins? I don't use any more than I need. I
even bus tracks to avoid the useless running of several instances of the same
plug.
-John Vice
www.summertimestudios.com

 

[john]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>From: "Arny Krueger" arnyk@hotpop.com

>> I'm talking about the computer choking on plugins and experiencing
>dropouts.
>
>However, that's not absolute proof of absence of CPU power, now is it?
>

Not always. But in my particular case, I feel strongly that it is. I run a
great deal of plugins, and I always try to find the optimum buffer settings.
-John Vice
www.summertimestudios.com