Re: [ARSCLIST] Hyperthreading (was Software for Mac)

[Rob Poretti <r.poretti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

The software application that use will often recommend one or the other.
For example Nuendo recommends hyper threading to be turned off.  

If you are using a DAW with third party plug-ins, even if the editor uses
hyper threading, there is NO guarantee that all your plug-ins will.  Since
the majority of the signal processing is often done with third party
plug-ins, you should turn off HT, even though your host editor prefers it.

Finally, you should defer to recommendations your DAW manufacturer gives you
rather than "generic" advice...

Cheers!

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Rob Poretti
Sales Engineer - Archiving
Cube-Tec North America
Vox.905.827.0741
Fax.905.901.9996
Cel.905-510.6785
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steven C. Barr
Sent: October 17, 2008 1:25 AM
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Hyperthreading (was Software for Mac)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard L. Hess" <arclists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> If you're running hyperthreading look at the Windows Task Manager 
> (ctrl-alt-del or Start>Windows Security if you're remote desktopping) and 
> check how much activity is in each thread during some of your intensive 
> processes.
>
> What I saw was one thread was running 50% and the other was running 0%.
>
> When I turned off hyperthreading, the one thread ran at 100% (or close to 
> it). That seemed to optimize the PC.
>
> This is why I'm worried about migrating to multi-core processors as it 
> appears that while the processors may be more efficient in their use of 
> clock cycles, the individual cores don't have the raw number of clock 
> cycles as the 3-year-old 3+ GHz P4 chips.
>
> I have been unimpressed by some Core 2 Duo machines that I have used, and 
> have not been able to trace down why.
>
> If I can get a 3.2 GHz P4 machine from 2005 for $350 or so with an XPPro 
> license, I'm not going to experiment and spend $2000 or more for a really 
> top-of-the line quad core at this point. Did I mention my wife is of 
> Scottish ancestry and it has rubbed off?
>
> At some point, if I could be sure that I could speed up audio rendering by

> 2-3 x with a new machine, I'd certainly consider it.
>
> Also, the Nikon scan software did not appear to use the multiple threads 
> and the display seemed about the same as with the audio rendering so I've 
> disabled hyperthreading on my two dedicated machines, the 3.0 GHz audio 
> machine and the "new" used 3.2 GHz photo scanning machine.
>
> For office work and multiple windows, the multi-core model appears 
> wonderful, but for single applications it appears that we may not see the 
> increase in speed that we've seen in the past.
>
> For example, since 1984, here are the clock speeds of my primary PC
>   4.77 MHz, 66 MHz, 132 MHz (clock doubled in 66),
>   333 MHz, 2400 MHz, 3000 MHz
> Photo work was done on the 66 MHz and up, audio was done starting with the

> 333 MHz machine.
>
> The 2400 to 3000 step was caused by diversity and moving functions rather 
> than for raw speed.
>
> I want an increase like I saw from 333 to 2400 MHz or close to it <smile>.

> Other than that the 8 Win XP machines here are 1.8 GHz Sempron, rest P4s: 
> 2.4, 2.8 (3), 3 (2), 3.2 GHz
>
> For most applications, all of these are fine. The only long waits are 
> extensive audio rendering operations (and I'm working on offloading some 
> from one machine to another--the network is not the bottleneck) and the 
> kids think the Web is sometimes too slow, but the two family 2.8 GHz 
> machines are lower end than the rest. The Sempron is my mail/web machine 
> that I remote desktop into -- wish I had bought one of the used Dells 
> instead (all are Dells except the store-built Sempron).
>
I'm currently using a new (this spring) Core 2 processor, running (MUCH TO
MY DISMAY, I might add!) Windows Vista...for the most part, I've seen NO
increase in speed or capacity; I've been blaming Vista (IMHO, this 
abomination
places Bill Gates under the class of "justifiable homicide!!"). But it MAY 
be the
machine itself?

Steven C. Barr