Jump to content
Scott473

DSP % versus actual CPU usage?

Recommended Posts

Even though I have Pro X setup to use 6 logical cores on my i7 I still see things like "DSP; 48% [63% Max] in the performance monitor in the lower left corner. If I check the Windows 8.1 Task Manager I never see utilization above 20% and most of the logical cores are seeing relatively little use. Why does Pro X seem to significantly overestimate how it's using the the CPU? I was just expecting that with multi-core support the DSP: display should be similar to the Task Manager display of CPU usage.

I've even seen displays of over 100% when I was really laying in some heavy VST instrument usage. As an engineer I always see 100% as the hard limit. What the heck does Pro X mean when the display is over 100%!!!

It's the same whether I'm using Pro X 32 or 64 though 64 seems a bit more CPU efficient even running the 32 bit bridge.

See the screenshot below.

post-20360-0-06365000-1396199292_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine some Magix guru out there knows the answer to this.

:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same problem, DAW screens 90% cpu usage when windows shows 20% cpu usage. I can't find where to change the limit in Samplitude Pro X5

cpu daw.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I should allocate more cpu availability to Samplitude ?
like increasing the number of cores Samplitude is able to use in its options ? I already done that... I believe the samplitude threads of calculations are not shared enough to the different cores which causes saturation of processing to about 2-3 cores, on the 8 cores I have, I will try and survey that through a software to give confirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2014 at 7:04 PM, Scott473 said:

Even though I have Pro X setup to use 6 logical cores on my i7 I still see things like "DSP; 48% [63% Max] in the performance monitor in the lower left corner. If I check the Windows 8.1 Task Manager I never see utilization above 20% and most of the logical cores are seeing relatively little use. Why does Pro X seem to significantly overestimate how it's using the the CPU? I was just expecting that with multi-core support the DSP: display should be similar to the Task Manager display of CPU usage.

I've even seen displays of over 100% when I was really laying in some heavy VST instrument usage. As an engineer I always see 100% as the hard limit. What the heck does Pro X mean when the display is over 100%!!!

It's the same whether I'm using Pro X 32 or 64 though 64 seems a bit more CPU efficient even running the 32 bit bridge.

See the screenshot below.

post-20360-0-06365000-1396199292_thumb.jpg

Dsp is not the same as CPU load in task manager. As you can see, second cpu thread is around 50% utilized and your dsp metter shows exactly that.

It does not mean that you add some more plugins on several tracks and dsp ussage will increase. If that plugis will be calculated on another thread the dsp metter won't show increasing.  Unless another thread cross value of ussage more than 50%. Then you'll get higher dsp ussage. 

For example - when put on master track heavy mastering plugins, you are able to overload dsp system becauae one track can be calculated only on one cpu thread. General Cpu metter will show small ussage. Thats why it's worth to look at individual cpu core ussage to get more precise info. 

Lukas

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how do I allow windows to allocate more dsp usage to application Samplitude ?
I don't believe there are some cpu allocations for dsp, or for something else but only calculations in general.

I'm currently maxing at barely 20% of my cpu power if I'm reading you correctly. Which is very very bad I guess in regard to the potential of my system.

image.thumb.png.aea8c45172a4822aebb7c352ec3e58cf.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2021 at 9:51 PM, Jimi H said:

So how do I allow windows to allocate more dsp usage to application Samplitude ?
I don't believe there are some cpu allocations for dsp, or for something else but only calculations in general.

I'm currently maxing at barely 20% of my cpu power if I'm reading you correctly. Which is very very bad I guess in regard to the potential of my system.

 

Switch your task manager to show individual threads of CPU. Then you will see which thread is loaded more than others. That determines DSP headroom.  Windows has nothing to this. Multicore utilize is only DAW matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you say this is intrinsic to the cpu architecture regarding how much dsp thread each cpu model is capable of ?

So this is speciallised units in cpu for dsp ? So which cpu is best optimised for dsp ? How to know which model to buy ?

Or what is Samplitude compatible with in order to connect several computers in ethernet to get more power ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jimi C said:

So you say this is intrinsic to the cpu architecture regarding how much dsp thread each cpu model is capable of ?

So this is speciallised units in cpu for dsp ? So which cpu is best optimised for dsp ? How to know which model to buy ?

Or what is Samplitude compatible with in order to connect several computers in ethernet to get more power ?

Nope.  DSP is only name used in Samplitude (Cubase has "ASIO performance" meter etc).  For every DAW, CPU is the only compute unit to calculate.  It's universal unit able to to compute every type of data.  

When it comes to DSP vs CPU meter. Did you switched your CPU monitor into logical cores? I described how DSP meter works in previous post when I commented this screen: 

post-20360-0-06365000-1396199292_thumb.jpg

As you can see, one of CPU thread is loaded around 50%. And DSP meter shows that value.  Reason? Some track in the project generates that higher load and is allocated in 2nd thread by DAW.  Remember - one track can be calculated on one thread.  So when you put on some track too many plugins you will overload some thread, then your DSP reach 100% despite the rest of CPU cores has free resources. To be able load all cores in more balanced way you need to remember about that rule.  

Just optimize your projects (freeze MIDI obejcts etc), or change CPU, buffers etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jimi C said:

So you say this is intrinsic to the cpu architecture regarding how much dsp thread each cpu model is capable of ?

So this is speciallised units in cpu for dsp ? So which cpu is best optimised for dsp ? How to know which model to buy ?

Or what is Samplitude compatible with in order to connect several computers in ethernet to get more power ?

Try the free Audiogridder VST. I use my old Intel computer as a DSP farm connected with a crossover Ethernet cable. It even works on one computer using resources outside the DAW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lukas Drozd said:

Nope.  DSP is only name used in Samplitude (Cubase has "ASIO performance" meter etc).  For every DAW, CPU is the only compute unit to calculate.  It's universal unit able to to compute every type of data.  

When it comes to DSP vs CPU meter. Did you switched your CPU monitor into logical cores? I described how DSP meter works in previous post when I commented this screen: 

post-20360-0-06365000-1396199292_thumb.jpg

As you can see, one of CPU thread is loaded around 50%. And DSP meter shows that value.  Reason? Some track in the project generates that higher load and is allocated in 2nd thread by DAW.  Remember - one track can be calculated on one thread.  So when you put on some track too many plugins you will overload some thread, then your DSP reach 100% unless the rest of CPU cores has free resources. To be able load all cores in more balanced way you need to remember about that rule.  

Just optimize your projects (freeze MIDI obejcts etc), or change CPU, buffers etc. 

So if I dispatch my plugins for the same track through some sends on aux1 then aux1 will send on aux2, then aux2 to aux3 etc, I will enable to create several threads so not one thread/core won't ever saturate ? This will work ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, TonyS said:

Try the free Audiogridder VST. I use my old Intel computer as a DSP farm connected with a crossover Ethernet cable. It even works on one computer using resources outside the DAW.

Ty very much I'll look  to install it and make it run with my 3 old pcs if this is something Audiogridder enables

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jimi C said:

So if I dispatch my plugins for the same track through some sends on aux1 then aux1 will send on aux2, then aux2 to aux3 etc, I will enable to create several threads so not one thread/core won't ever saturate ? This will work ?

That should work.  But first of all check if your master track does not have too many requiring plugins - it often is a reason of quick DSP saturation. Could you show your task manager during playback that project shown in previous post? How many cores you have set in performance settings? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lukas Drozd said:

That should work.  But first of all check if your master track does not have too many requiring plugins - it often is a reason of quick DSP saturation. Could you show your task manager during playback that project shown in previous post? How many cores you have set in performance settings? 

 

 

I've set all my 8 cores in perf settings and

In effect my master has about 10 plugins in total so now I understand how work threads I'm not surprised I saturate my dsp capabilities. We see its thread on "processeur 1" obviously !

I think I should use an aux as an intermediate master so to divide in 2 my master effects on the same track. since this is unfortunately the only track I can't freeze so it really blocks me as you see my only 3 aux have only 3 effects in total, I had to freeze so much I had lost hope.

here's task manager below, but why wanna check ?

 

image.thumb.png.96297cd9bf295c34d8c9a81f42ebca58.png

I got this CPU

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700K CPU @ 4.00GHz   4.00 GHz

You seem to well know the subject, would you recommend changing for a AMD Ryzen 9 or intel i9, I was surprised to see on simulation on a website that I would gain only a few percents of calculation power compared to my actual cpu (which is quite correct anyway) ?

I ask because I feel so much restrained creatively into managing the mix and master by dsp power, so this is a real problem for me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Jimi C said:

Ty very much I'll look  to install it and make it run with my 3 old pcs if this is something Audiogridder enables

Try it on your I7-6700k first. I'm sure it will free up resources and allow you to work. Set up a master/slave after you get it working on one computer.

https://audiogridder.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Jimi C said:

I've set all my 8 cores in perf settings and

In effect my master has about 10 plugins in total so now I understand how work threads I'm not surprised I saturate my dsp capabilities. We see its thread on "processeur 1" obviously !

I think I should use an aux as an intermediate master so to divide in 2 my master effects on the same track. since this is unfortunately the only track I can't freeze so it really blocks me as you see my only 3 aux have only 3 effects in total, I had to freeze so much I had lost hope.

here's task manager below, but why wanna check ?

I got this CPU

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700K CPU @ 4.00GHz   4.00 GHz

You seem to well know the subject, would you recommend changing for a AMD Ryzen 9 or intel i9, I was surprised to see on simulation on a website that I would gain only a few percents of calculation power compared to my actual cpu (which is quite correct anyway) ?

I ask because I feel so much restrained creatively into managing the mix and master by dsp power, so this is a real problem for me.

 

 

You can divide your master chain into several sub groups (BUS). Not AUX - you don't need parallel processing, but serial.  So you can route all you tracks to first BUS, put there some plugins, from this BUS to second BUS etc. That divides your chain into threads.

That amount of Ozone plugins for sure would kill my DSP when I would put them on master track. 

 image.thumb.png.2eccd3bc61fc4fed1363bcc29f686cb9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is when I put a lot of Ozones on master track. First core overloaded. But still my CPU can handle that. AMD Ryzen 5900X, which is around 50% faster than yours in single core.  Your CPU should handle your project easy. You need just optimize it. 

 

obraz_2021-06-05_143558.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lukas Drozd said:

This is when I put a lot of Ozones on master track. First core overloaded. But still my CPU can handle that. AMD Ryzen 5900X, which is around 50% faster than yours in single core. 

 

obraz_2021-06-05_143558.png

The first moderate commentary I saw about this cpu ryzen 9 5900X is that there is this i9 that costs 30% and has same perfs, is there something specific about cpus for audio and dsp in particular or not ?
Core i9-10900K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.  Single core performance is very important.  

10900K has no the same performance. Is significantly slower than 5900X.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?q=10900K

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=5900X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Lukas Drozd said:

Nope.  Single core performance is very important.  

10900K has no the same performance. Is significantly slower than 5900X.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?q=10900K

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=5900X

single core means in our case that for each track more plugin power, despite the multi-core performance which is the summation of all calculations ?
Also what motherboard would you advice to go with this 5900X ? I need many pci express for uad dsp boards, I have 1 but plan to add another 1 maybe 2 more in long term, and my RME fireface needs also pcie-firewire interface. What is important to look in motherboard for audio ? bus speed...etc ? I dunno
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing special. All mother boards work similar, with all Ryzen 3000 and 5000 series.  For 5900X You should look at motherboard with X570 chipset, DDR4-3600 Mhz, and the rest is up to you (USB, port, wifi, slots, m2 amount etc). I'm sure you'll find your best MB.  Note that AMD CPUs have no iGPU, so if you don't have GPU card you need to buy something.   

Quote

single core means in our case that for each track more plugin power, despite the multi-core performance which is the summation of all calculations ?

Generally yes. Better single core always means less less susceptibility for bottleneck, as you experienced.  Performance headroom is bigger. Multicore give you more possibilities to scale your project on more threads. So it's also good to have as many core as possible. 10 - 12 fast cores from my observation is the best solution.  I can work with 128 buffer with no glitches almost all the time with VSTi. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lukas Drozd said:

Nothing special. All mother boards work similar, with all Ryzen 3000 and 5000 series.  For 5900X You should look at motherboard with X570 chipset, DDR4-3600 Mhz, and the rest is up to you (USB, port, wifi, slots, m2 amount etc). I'm sure you'll find your best MB.  Note that AMD CPUs have no iGPU, so if you don't have GPU card you need to buy something.   

Generally yes. Better single core always means less less susceptibility for bottleneck, as you experienced.  Performance headroom is bigger. Multicore give you more possibilities to scale your project on more threads. So it's also good to have as many core as possible. 10 - 12 fast cores from observation is the best solution.  I can work worth 128 buffer with no glitch almost all the time with VSTi. 

I have 16Go ram currently, I see you have 32Go, is it something limitant ? as you seen in the last screenshot I shared, I curiously only use 32% of my 16Go RAM, is it also something misleading and limitant or not ? Should I upgrade 32Go, or if I build a new pc should I go for 64 or it is useless besides like big reverbs with loads of use of memory needed ? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DSP is all math. The only meaningful specification for DAW performance is the number of floating-point calculations per second available in real time. Core count and processor speed are not meaningful other than for rendering/bounce speed. Hopefully at some point people will start testing and publishing DSP calculation speed rather than rendering/bounce speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jimi C said:

I have 16Go ram currently, I see you have 32Go, is it something limitant ? as you seen in the last screenshot I shared, I curiously only use 32% of my 16Go RAM, is it also something misleading and limitant or not ? Should I upgrade 32Go, or if I build a new pc should I go for 64 or it is useless besides like big reverbs with loads of use of memory needed ? 
 

If 16GB is enough for you it ok. Memory amout does not speed up your CPU perfomance. But you reach maximum of phisical memory, then system eill get hiccups. So you need to know how much memory you are able to use. In my case 32 GB is ok, because I use VSTi sample libraries. If only mix, 16 GB should be enough. 64 GB is too much - you will not use it probably. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...