# Help with CPU Cores and DAW Apps



## rahul_mukerji (Sep 11, 2007)

Hi:

I was hoping to get some answers on questions I have on daws and computer cores.

I am running Sonar 6 on an AMD 3700+ 2.2 GHz core. The version of OS is XP is 32 bit with 3GB ram. Sonar (and Sony Acid as well) seem to take my CPU usage to 100% to the point the project freezes and then it just cracks and beeps. I use a modest amount of plugins (Amplitube, the Sony and Cakewalk plugins + some freeware stuff like Modern). On idle mode, the computer shows a 3-4% CPU usage. I was also told that 32 bit has a little difficulty addressing anything beyond 2 GB although technically it should support 4GB RAM.

My setup is PreSonus Firepod -> Computer. The Firepod is operating at 96K/24-bit and so are Sony and Sonar. The soundcard I use also supports this 96/24 setting. I have reinstalled all components including the OS itself a couple of times. But it keeps creeping back. I have tried the usual tips and tricks off the audio xp tweak sites but with little success.

I was hoping someone could shed light on what may be hindering my process.

Also, would getting a dual core / quad core help and whether running the 64 bit of Windows has any significant advantages and anything else I should consider for multi threaded apps (Sonar, Cubase, et al are multi threaded apps, right?). Do DAW apps support quad core processing and whether AMD / Intel make a difference on the Apps. I was told that some apps specifically exploit the architecture of Intel for better performance and I'm wondering if the AMD/Intel choice makes any difference on DAW Apps.

Thanks !

- Rahul


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 12, 2007)

First, Windows XP will address up to 3gb of ram. Most go with 2gb cause you will want to have the memory operating in dual channel mode so two sticks of 1gb each will give you 2 gb. That's what most use as over 3gb the 4th gig doesn't really get used by Windows. And 2 gb is enough.

Second, are you running the card at 96/24?? If so then that's a problem right there. That requires a hell of a lot of CPU. Drop it down to 44.1/24. The difference will be quite large. Also, what latency do you have it set at? You might be running the card with too low a latency setting than your PC can comfortably handle.

Third, a dual-core or quad-core will make a world of difference!! I went from an AMD Athlon XP 2800+ to an Athlon X2 5200+ and my CPU useage on a project went from 78% CPU useage to under 30%. So if you can spring for it go for it. You probably won't ever think about CPU useage from then on unless you're really sloppy in your useage of effects and VSTi's (like adding a new effect on each track rather than using group busses with one effect and routing the track to them).

Fourth, I don't believe most of these audio apps are even in 64bit versions yet. If I'm wrong someone please correct me cause I haven't exactly kept an eye on the 64bit world.

Anyhow, so there ya have it.


Rev.


----------



## nitelightboy (Sep 12, 2007)

I know SONAR 6 supports 64 bit.

That's about all the useful info I can provide here


----------



## Benzesp (Sep 12, 2007)

96Khz is way too high. It's really a waste of HDD space as well. It all gets "dumbed" down to 44.1 16bit when its said and done. 

I use 48Khz 24bit when tracking. I'm running a Barton core 3200+. I get Full track counts with midi, many plugins running and never come close to maximum CPU usage..

Also check your task manager and see if you have any BS processes running, if you do kill them from msconfig manager. Note if this is your pc you you use at home with Antivirus and all of the othe crap you might really want to think of building a stand alone DAW with a minimial XP install. And only connect it to the net behind a firewall for updates then disconnect it when done.


----------



## rahul_mukerji (Sep 12, 2007)

Ah, sweet ! Thanks for the great info Rev and nitelightboy. 

I will admit I was guilty of adding VSTi's to every track till sometime back ! Got smarter after reading magazines and forums. That helped me quite a bit.

I'll pull down the sampling rate and try it. 

Any preferences on AMD vs Intel on the core performances ? I see that you use the X2. Any specific reason for choosing that over Intel Duo ?

Benzesp ::

Stand alone DAW ? Yeah I use the DAW computer as my main computer with Anti Virus + Photoshop and Web Design things + Java stuff on it.


----------



## Benzesp (Sep 12, 2007)

rahul_mukerji said:


> Benzesp ::
> 
> Stand alone DAW ? Yeah I use the DAW computer as my main computer with Anti Virus + Photoshop and Web Design things + Java stuff on it.


 
*digital audio workstation* (DAW) is a system designed to record, edit and play back digital audio...


No I was just saying that all your system should be used for only recording and not getting on the web, ect...

Antivirus is pretty taxing on your system, You could be tracking and then it might decide to update itself or do a system scan. Thats bad and could cause some high CPU and disk utilization.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 12, 2007)

Well, I've been using AMD's for years partly cause for awhile they had a slight edge over Intel, also the price was always cheaper. Now, the Core 2 Duo has a slight edge of the X2's if you compare something like the E6600 and the X2 5600+ but it's very slight. But if you compare the X2 6000+ they're pretty much neck and neck and the X2 6000+ is $169 whereas the E6600 is $229. I have to admit that I've stuck with AMD for years but I buy what gives me the most for the best price and that had so far been the AMD's but the difference has narrowed significantly. My audio PC is entirely seperate in that I ONLY use it for writing and recording music. I don't use any antivirus software on it as that hinders performance and I don't leave it connected to the internet. I shut off the NIC in the bios until I need to connect to the net for drivers or whatever.

Recently I bought an Intel quad-core Q6600 to upgrade my general purpose PC and since the quad-core is a steal at $289 I chose it rather than an AMD. Unfortunately the processor worked for almost an hour and then the machine wouldn't post. I sent back the processor and mobo for RMA replacements - and I know it was the processor that failed but I wanted to be extra safe. So I can't really comment yet on it's performance.

Anyhow, yeah dropping the rate to 44.1khz will help bigtime as well as disabling the antivirus software when you intend to work on music. You will need to stop the services rather than just control-alt-del and killing the process.


Rev.


----------



## Jeff (Sep 12, 2007)

Another good solution is to dual boot, if you only want one kick ass computer that does internet, word processing, e-mail, movie watching, but also DAW stuff. 

I don't currently do this (my system is always in a state of flux, and in fact my main recording PC is my work laptop) but I had a large drive split in two, with Ubuntu doing my DVD watching, Word and Excel type stuff, internet, etc. 

then there was another partition that had Windows XP Pro, DAW (Tracktion 2), soft synths (Reason), and video editing software. No AV software, no Spybot S&D or Adaware. Just those apps. 

Then I made sure I applied critical stability patches, and then disabled the network card. 

That's it! Ran nice and fast. I don't know how much cutting out all the extra stuff like AVG netted me, but it ran really well.


----------



## Thomas (Sep 12, 2007)

Dual-booting does indeed look like an excellent choice if you want your Windows system to be reliable. I wouldn't hesitate to pull off that scenario if I ever needed it.


----------



## Jeff (Sep 12, 2007)

Thomas said:


> Dual-booting does indeed look like an excellent choice if you want your Windows system to be reliable. I wouldn't hesitate to pull off the scenario if I ever needed.



It's super stable too. Just load Windows first, partition appropriately, and tell Ubuntu to use the remainder free.


----------



## Thomas (Sep 12, 2007)

Jeff said:


> It's super stable too. Just load Windows first, partition appropriately, and tell Ubuntu to use the remainder free.



I also need to second the notion that having various programs run in the background, especially antivirus software, invites trouble. I've had my share of issues (often related to performance) with these back in my Windows days. When these are out of the equation, you're drastically simplifying any nasty issues you may otherwise have.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 13, 2007)

I doubt you'd see much from 64-bit - and it's often a pain in the ass to actually get the stuff you need on it - but dual-core will certainly help. I know that a lot of DAWs can use multi-core processors well, although I don't know how many cores they're going to make much out of so I don't know about the quads.

Jeff


----------



## rahul_mukerji (Sep 13, 2007)

Hey, thanks guys for the inputs.

I've been doing some reading and I see that the 64 bit OS has little support. Lots of driver issues and 32 bit compatibility and things. Also no DOS support in 64  

I read that Sonar supports multi-core and multi processor computers, so thats some good new for me.  

Will look into a good Quad System soon I guess. Lets see if prices drop and performance increases !


----------



## zimbloth (Sep 13, 2007)

I use Sonar 6 Producers Edition and the AMD X2 chips and 64-bit OS improve performance a TON. With other programs like Cubase or Pro Tools, I have no idea. Sonar is definitely designed with multicore processors and 64-bit OS in mind.

I also think by now most driver issues with Windows XP 64 have been rectified. That said, unless you're using Sonar and a lot of intensive programs, I'd probably play it safe and use 32-bit XP.


----------



## Jeff (Sep 13, 2007)

zimbloth said:


> I use Sonar 6 Producers Edition and the AMD X2 chips and 64-bit OS improve performance a TON. With other programs like Cubase or Pro Tools, I have no idea. Sonar is definitely designed with multicore processors and 64-bit OS in mind.
> 
> I also think by now most driver issues with Windows XP 64 have been rectified. That said, unless you're using Sonar and a lot of intensive programs, I'd probably play it safe and use 32-bit XP.



You really must be pulling a lot of huge samples to make use of the extra memory addressing. I know video can make use of it especially when editing HD, but audio it's tough to really make use of it, unless you're doing 24/192 and huge sample libraries loaded into RAM.


----------

