• SONAR
  • Query re CPU amount of Cores for Sonar
2016/04/24 21:15:02
Fabio Rubato
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
 
 
 
 
 
2016/04/24 22:27:54
tomixornot
Hi, our system is almost identical (2600K, 16GB ram). While I might be running a lot less track than you do (typically 10 or less tracks, max 20+) my system still offers a lot of mileage for me, for the things that I do.
 
Have you tune the Sonar Preference-Configuration properties for your setup ? Such as the "ThreadSchedulingModel" setting to 2 (I'm not sure the default, but this setting was pickup from the forum).
 
How about running DPC (latency checker) ? Almost all the time it points to turning off the wireless networking.
 
Edit : We are even running the same audio interface :)
2016/04/25 00:14:22
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.
 
 
 
 
2016/04/25 00:30:43
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! :)
2016/04/25 01:07:49
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...
2016/04/25 02:17:31
Fabio Rubato
tomixornot
Hi, our system is almost identical (2600K, 16GB ram). While I might be running a lot less track than you do (typically 10 or less tracks, max 20+) my system still offers a lot of mileage for me, for the things that I do.
 
Have you tune the Sonar Preference-Configuration properties for your setup ? Such as the "ThreadSchedulingModel" setting to 2 (I'm not sure the default, but this setting was pickup from the forum).
 
How about running DPC (latency checker) ? Almost all the time it points to turning off the wireless networking.
 
Edit : We are even running the same audio interface :)


Hi, yes, for the most part, my setup is pretty good, especially since recently adding an SSD. I had done the Thread Scheduling thing in the past and I checked today and it had been reset...but changing it to 2, didn't change anything noticeable. Playing around with the Thread Count optimization as mentioned in another forum post, seems to shift the amount of power used by core 1, to another core, so that didn't really help. 
 
I don't run wireless. There are a couple of Kontact VST's which even in their singular usage, really spike that first core - Blakus Cello and Friedlander Violin, the latter in particular. Running Kontact in the 5-16 Output setup, stresses core 1 when a few modules are set up. Even running Machine with say 3 kits, has core 1 up to half, with ever little else going on. 
 
So I guess that's part of why I'm looking for a better solution as I have tried out a few optimizations in the past and employed workarounds. 
 
The other day, I was using Native Instruments' Session Horns Pro in a project. Now CPU utilization was around 67% with other things going on - 10gbs out of 16gbs of ram was being used - but the thing is, it kept dropping various horn voices and had to be reloaded to get it to play fully again. N-I support asked me to check CPU usage but as reported, it certainly wasn't maxing out. No spikes and fairly smooth I noted in Task Manager. 
 
Cheers
2016/04/25 02:39:17
Fabio Rubato
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.
2016/04/25 02:43:35
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.
2016/04/25 02:46:19
Fabio Rubato
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?
2016/04/25 03:02:25
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.
© 2026 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account