![]() ![]() Since you mention it this is one of the reasons I dropped my Windows platform with 1818vsl. That said I havent tried anything else but Standard AVLinux/Jack/Mixbus. So far on Linux I dont have any problems on a 24core server with hyperhtreading on. In my own case, I don't think I'll be upgrading the studio PC for a while yet. With additional tuning it may be possible to get better performance with hyper-threading on, but with chips like Intel's new 9600k and 9700k (8 core no HT). So if I do need to do very high track count projects, I can slacken off the latency. My heaviest projects sit at around 60% DSP at 64 periods. It's possible that I may be able to tune it to squeeze it out a bit better with HT on, but with 64 at 64. This kisses 100% DSP but with 0 xruns and is seemingly rock solid.Īt the same settings DSP hit 70% but xruns started after about 20 seconds. This is running all but one core for DSP. Overclock at 4.1 GHZĪt 44.1k I can get 64 channels of 32c running at 64 jack periods. I put on a new Noctua cooler and overheating is not an issue. That is the penalty for concentrating more on making music. Looks like i cannot keep up with the funny names. The Ryzen 2000 series has somewhat improved (which is why it has come back into my consideration) but I question the value of being a guinea pig for this.Īhh you could be very right. The Ryzen 1000 series got a terrible wrap at low latency settings. (Specifically the stuff published by Scan Pro Audio). Granted - on the windoze forums and testing. I could be wrong, these things are way above my head. SMT will add an extra load.Funny, I thought that was how the Bulldozer chips worked but Ryzen had actually gone back to a more traditional core layout. so interupt latency will be high and and there will be logic needed to see which which cores will be used. ![]() It features a network of groups CPU cores. (05-13-2018, 07:35 PM)allank Wrote: (05-12-2018, 06:13 PM)Frank Wrote: I expect that the AMD Ryzen series will be different for real time performance. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |