Query re CPU amount of Cores for Sonar

Hi. I'm currently running a Sandy Bridge 2600K processor with 16GB's of ram. The former is 4/8 cores/threads. It's fine for most projects but I'm starting to see it straining with some projects with loaded amounts of VST's etc. Usually have to employ workarounds when this starts happening - freezes, mixdowns etc.
 
I'm thinking about upgrading to 32GB's of ram with the up-and-coming Broadwell-E processors - 6/8/10 cores. Before I depart with my limited funds, I'm curious to see what other forum users are finding with their CPU limitations and whether you think Sonar will benefit from using more cores?
 
I've seen some research about 'real-time' playing of audio vs CPU usage and there appears to be an argument about it being not so much your CPU power but windows limitation in processing info in real time. Apparently most modern CPU's are able to handle audio use but are limited by other factors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUsLLEkswzE
 
I have, however, experienced occasional spikes and high CPU usage, so I'm wondering whether moving to and 8/16 or 10/20 core/thread setup - Broadwell-E - will help Sonar in this regard. I've also seen where the new Skylake CPU's - 4/8 - spread the load more evenly across it's cores and if there one's thing I've experienced, it's this issue, where the first core uses more power and is the first to reach its limitations whilst the other cores/threads aren't fully being utilised.
 
Any advice/feedback/comments appreciated. 
 
Thanks
 
 
 
 
 

Unless you have like 50-100 tracks with tons of effects or many instances of Kontakt or something like that, I think you need to optimize your PC. My friend has virtually your setup (he just upped RAM from 8 to 16) and has never encountered what you describe even with 8GB. Maybe you could provide more details of the offending project(s). I think I would look at a couple of SSD's before I dumped the 2600K. THe 2600K is prob only 15-20% slower than Broadwell (if that) and you could make that up with overclock. The Sandy Bridge is one of the best OC parts ever. I think you could get a 20% OC even with the stock air cooler.
 
If you have limited funds a Broadwell 10 core is NOT the way to go. Last summer I built a Haswell-E 5820K six-core system (OC'ed to 4.5G) and the CPU was 400$ on sale. The 8 core 5960-X was $1000. I doubt the Broadwell-E will be much cheaper and prob more.
 
Even with Broadwell or Skylake core #1 is going to have a higher utilization than the other cores. Parts of Sonar code (and other multithreaded programs) must run on one core. The audio and VST processes are distributed to the other cores. AFAIK, the GUI and MIDI,etc need to run on core #1.
 
I ran across this article on building a cheap dual processor 16 core system with Xeon CPUs.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1155-affordable-dual-xeon-pc/
I almost wish I had gone this route and saved several hundred bucks but my Haswell-E is so much overkill for what I need I am very pleased.
 
 
 
 

I've been running dual Xeon quad cores with 16G RAM for the last 2 years and with an average of 20-30 tracks loaded with EQ/compressor/reverb/delay/etc. on every track as well as a variety of synths before I start seeing anything show issues...

That said I'm currently building a new replacement for it with dual 6-core Xeons and 64G... I didn't feel I needed it but I was gifted the machine so I'm gifting my older one to a friend in need after I have the new fully built... It's way more power than he needs as he does mainly all-audio recordings with minimal processing preferring to have a mix engineer take his tracks to the finish line! ;-)

I have another rig setup for 24 track live recording (live pa mix simultaneous via Studiolive) with a little machine having only a quad core i5 and 4G on which I can do very respectable mixes in the box... So if all things are cool on a machine/setup most people don't need too much power...

But I'm sure you know that...

microapp
Unless you have like 50-100 tracks with tons of effects or many instances of Kontakt or something like that, I think you need to optimize your PC. My friend has virtually your setup (he just upped RAM from 8 to 16) and has never encountered what you describe even with 8GB. Maybe you could provide more details of the offending project(s). I think I would look at a couple of SSD's before I dumped the 2600K. THe 2600K is prob only 15-20% slower than Broadwell (if that) and you could make that up with overclock. The Sandy Bridge is one of the best OC parts ever. I think you could get a 20% OC even with the stock air cooler.
 
If you have limited funds a Broadwell 10 core is NOT the way to go. Last summer I built a Haswell-E 5820K six-core system (OC'ed to 4.5G) and the CPU was 400$ on sale. The 8 core 5960-X was $1000. I doubt the Broadwell-E will be much cheaper and prob more.
 
Even with Broadwell or Skylake core #1 is going to have a higher utilization than the other cores. Parts of Sonar code (and other multithreaded programs) must run on one core. The audio and VST processes are distributed to the other cores. AFAIK, the GUI and MIDI,etc need to run on core #1.
 
I ran across this article on building a cheap dual processor 16 core system with Xeon CPUs.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1155-affordable-dual-xeon-pc/
I almost wish I had gone this route and saved several hundred bucks but my Haswell-E is so much overkill for what I need I am very pleased.
 

Okay, thanks for that. As mentioned in another reply, when placing a few modules in Kontact - like in a 5-16 Output setup - that's when I'm pushing that core 1.  Friedlander Violin really pushes core 1, when using poly voices. 
 
I have a fairly new 1K SSD fitted, which was a great upgrade for my system.
 
I have just found that recently, as my projects grow in synth, wave, FX etc, I seem to be hitting CPU usage limits. So I'm just researching to see if I can build something more powerful. Also, one member mentioned for example the Gigabyte GA-Z17OX-Gaming G1 mobo, and in particular has USB DAC-UP, which it offers - apparently - 2x Less noise and since my RMR-UFX in on a USB2, I have been noticing low ground noise...manageable yes, but still contributing to a less than ideal mix. So this too, was part of my consideration.
 
I didn't know however that even the Skylake with its power spread evenly across its cores, Sonar would not reap that benefit...so thanks for that.
 
As also mentioned in another post, some vst's like Session Horns Pro, use quite a bit of memory. I had this one Kontact module loaded and I had 10Gbs out of 16Gbs being used. Still okay but I thought perhaps adding some more memory could be helpful done the line.
 
Yes the Xeon article was quite interesting. Would be interesting to build something like this. The power usage for 2 cpu's does seem quite high, if being used ie.  
 
Anyway, those were my 3 considerations: noise, memory and better CPU and/or more cores. I too have a 6/12 CPU on my other computer, but the Gigabyte mobo was fraught with issues and can now only support 12gbs of ram out of its 24, despite it being able to do so in the past...big wasted of money on that one, although still a good system. I have consider migrate to it, but really don't trust it.

Keni
I've been running dual Xeon quad cores with 16G RAM for the last 2 years and with an average of 20-30 tracks loaded with EQ/compressor/reverb/delay/etc. on every track as well as a variety of synths before I start seeing anything show issues...

That said I'm currently building a new replacement for it with dual 6-core Xeons and 64G... I didn't feel I needed it but I was gifted the machine so I'm gifting my older one to a friend in need after I have the new fully built... It's way more power than he needs as he does mainly all-audio recordings with minimal processing preferring to have a mix engineer take his tracks to the finish line! ;-)

I have another rig setup for 24 track live recording (live pa mix simultaneous via Studiolive) with a little machine having only a quad core i5 and 4G on which I can do very respectable mixes in the box... So if all things are cool on a machine/setup most people don't need too much power...

But I'm sure you know that...

Nice gift Keni. You would be excited to get that up-and-running. Xeons hey? That's 2 counts for Xeons...do you use Xeon Sandy Bridge?

tenfoot

Fabio Rubato

tenfoot
Hi Alan. Unless you have massive track and synth counts, as others have suggested I would certainly look into what might be causing issues outside of your system specs. In my experience there is certainly a sliding scale of hardware expense vs return performance in Sonar as you move into very highly specd systems. You already have some fairly decent grunt there.
 
On the other hand if you don't mind the increasing expense for lessening returns, more power to you! :)

Thanks Bruce. Yes, that's the trade-off apparently. I think that I'll probably just persevere for a time until something comes along that'll really outshine Sandy Bridge. I remember that around 10-odd years ago, my then 2/4 core and 4mgs of memory started crying as my projects became bigger. I had apparently started to outgrow it with new software coming through and trying to aim for higher quality. Seems to be pointing that way now a bit. Cheers.
 

I know just what you mean Alan. I have an older quad core i7 processor than yours and I am starting to feel the pinch now. I too use some large Kontakt libraries. FWIW I find spreading the sounds/parts accross multiple instances of kontakt gives me far more even core usage and no performance disadvantage over loading multiple sounds into a single instance. It is also handy when freezing synths or bouncing to audio.

Yeah mate, have read this recently and am adopting. Shame that though, as it took me a while to learn how to do all in one place, which initially looked like a cool way of managing Kontact in one place. 

scottfa
I also have a 2600k, 16G of RAM. OC'ed to 4.2 . I had a problem with a couple of Vsti's dropping out, crackling  etc. It was suggested that I get a faster sample hard which did solve the problem. I can have multiple Vsti's running and record all day long with 64 Asio buffers, and will often record at 32 buffers. This is via FireWire and a Mrx16 interface. So for me the change in he sample drive breathed new life into my system.
Edit: moving to Windows 10 actually improved the performance much to my surprise. 

Thanks for the suggestion. In particular with the NI Session Horns Pro where I had the sounds drop out, the library - Komplete Ultimate - was installed on my SSD. So I'm thinking that yeah, if indeed I installed the library on my storage 7200 rpm drive, then this could be the issue. However, its on my SSD, so it should be plenty fast enough for access the sounds. 
 
In the initial stages I can record at low ASIO buffers, but building the track and then adding FX, I'm regularly at the top end.

Jim Roseberry
Xeon CPUs are not the best choice for a DAW.
You'll see no audio related benefit from using them.
In fact, they're often running at lower clock-speed... meaning you'll pay significantly more AND take a performance hit.
 
While on the discussion of Mac Pros:
Many folks don't realize this... but the latest generation iMac with Skylake 6700k CPU will *outperform* the $4000 Mac Pro (because it's running Xeon CPU and architecture that's older/slower).
 
Mac or PC, you don't want to sacrifice clock-speed for more CPU cores.
In an ideal situation, you want fast clock speed *and* more CPU cores.
If you have to choose one over the other (and there's a significant difference in clock-speed), go with the higher clock speed.
 
Adding additional unused RAM will buy no additional performance.
You need enough RAM to run the desired projects... to ensure the system doesn't become RAM-starved and start hitting the VM swapfile in lieu of physical RAM (which kills performance).
 
If you're in a situation where disk-streaming sample libraries are bogging down the machine:
A single SSD sustains over 500MB/Sec.
If you need higher disk-streaming polyphony... and the library only allows a single location (EWSO), you can put a pair of SSDs in RAID-0.  This nets about 1000MB/Sec.
If you need insane disk-streaming polyphony, you can run a PCIe (or M.2 Ultra) SSD drive that uses 4 PCIe lanes and sustains 2500MB/Sec.  If you're an extreme composer, you can combine several of these solutions.
A modern well-configured machine can sustain over 4000 stereo disk-streaming voices of polyphony.
If that's not enough... you can run a second "slave" VE Pro machine (dedicated to running sample libraries).
 
Research... to ensure you're getting what you need.

Thanks for that Jim...some great ideas there and yes, I take your point on clock speed vs cores. The M.2 Ultra would need a new mobo but yes, some amazing speed I've seen from that technology. The PCIe is however achievable on my stetup. I have a 1T SSD EVO - fairly new - and it's been a real boot to my setup. The 'slave' VE Pro machine looks fascinating - and no doubt big dosh - and I'll look into that. Thanks for the ideas.

microapp
Alan,
I would research your EVO SSD and see if it suffers from the read latency problem for TLC Flash cells.
Not sure if the 1TB's do.  Also not sure if they fixed it via firmware. IIRC, the first fw fix attempt was a failure. It was a big deal until last summer and then poof..gone.
A sample library would be worst case for this issue since it manifests itself as static data ages. 
Here is some info.
http://techreport.com/new...-slow-to-read-old-data

Thanks for that. It could be related to my experience with Session Horns Pro. Hard to know. There does seem to be a problem in this area with the 2T EVO's but I haven't seen it with the 1T - fingers crossed. Yes, apparently was an issue with the 840's...wouldn't be surprised mind you. Cheers.

It sounds like you are good for a while.
I have a 990X from 2011 an it is still running great, so I will keep it.
On an off-topic but humorous note (at least to me)  - I remember buying a laptop in 1988.  It had a 20 MG hard drive.  Yes 20 MG hard drive.  The sales guy said I would not be able to fill up that hard drive in a lifetime!   
Now a lot has changed since then, but  I wonder if we have reached the years where the changes are starting to have diminishing returns for the investment?
Cheers!

Des,
 
I too remember the first hard drives that came out for the IBM PC.  It was 10 MEGS and cost well over $1000.  I remember a guy that upgraded his IBM PC to 128 MEGS of RAM and it cost him $2000.  All this was in the mid 80s.  
 
When I think of TB hard drives, it amazes me on how much data this truly is.  I think the technical advances in hardware has made software engineers job a lot easier.
 
Jim

You should also remember that the motherboard plays a role here. E.g. there are differences as what the DPC latency is.
 
This is the fastest in the market (by Anandtech) with a list of some slower ones --- and there are some really slow ones on the market at the entry level. The difference may be day-and-night.
 
DPC Latency
Deferred Procedure Call latency is a way in which Windows handles interrupt servicing. In order to wait for a processor to acknowledge the request, the system will queue all interrupt requests by priority. Critical interrupts will be handled as soon as possible, whereas lesser priority requests such as audio will be further down the line. If the audio device requires data, it will have to wait until the request is processed before the buffer is filled.