TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Anyone here using a 4 or 6-core cpu on FL Studio? Do all the cores get used?

Anyone here using a 4 or 6-core cpu on FL Studio? Do all the cores get used?

I bought an entire new setup instead of updating my current desktop. And for the first time in my life I didn't go cheap or cut corners with anything. Its a sick set up I'm doing (compared to my shitty dual core/2gb ram). I had bought 2 extra gb of ram a while ago, so I do have 4, but my shitty mobo only recognizes 2.
So I've never actually got more than 2gb memory from it.

Now I'm moving up to 8gb ddr3/1600 on windows 7, with the AMD Phenom 1055T.
Its a big improvement for me because I'm going from a cpu benchmark of 1900 to 5200, and will now have 6 more gigs of memory.

I also recently got the Echo Audiofire so I'm dying to see how everything works together. Not to mention I bought a mobo that is suppose to be great for overclocking and a badass aftermarket fan + harddrive and all that stuff.

I'm also isolating FL on this new desktop, so NO OTHER PROGRAMS will be on it at all. I don't even want anti-virus or internet, no msword, no nothing but Fruity and what ever is required with the windows 7 install.

So now I no longer can complain about speed being my #1 problem.
My question is though. For peope using FL with either a quad core or above, if you open JUST Fruity, and open up a bunch of synths, does it seem like FL is making use of all the cores?

I know multithreading was limitied in versions 7 and 8, I'm on 9 now but I still have no real idea how well it uses quad cores or better.
And if anyones on a 6 core specifically I'd really like to know if FL makes use of all 6, thanks!

I've been using FL 9 on a Quadcore system with 4 gigs of ram. I haven't done any sort of benchmarks on actively monitoring performance increase. All I know is, opening FL with the Extended Memory .exe allows the full use of my RAM to take effect, and the multi process thread is enabled. I haven't had any issues with speed whatsoever. Everything runs completely smoothly, with many vst's open at once.

Through my experience, the main ceiling I would ever hit in the past was RAM, not the processor itself, so I think you'll be more than set with 8 gigs DDR3 and 6 core, even if FL doesn't utilize all 6 just yet.

Definitely makes me appreciate what I have now, remembering the days of 512mb ram and shitty single core processor, where even loading up the simplest of VST's resulted in 1-2 minute load times.

Re: Anyone here using a 4 or 6-core cpu on FL Studio? Do all the cores get used?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox I'm also isolating FL on this new desktop, so NO OTHER PROGRAMS will be on it at all. I don't even want anti-virus or internet, no msword, no nothing but Fruity and what ever is required with the windows 7 install.

That seems a bit harsh, no? I run Ableton on the computer that I use for everything else (video games, internet, etc.) and it runs perfectly fine. And i built the computer in 2006.

Interesting question, especially for the 6 core thing. As far as I know, FL didn't had any proper multi-core processing until version 9 and I do believe from there you could easily apply a huge step forward in performance with anything like a dual / quad core.

6 cores can't be that bad but you're right in asking yourself if FL will use them proper, which also lead to the question which hosts would support something like a 6 core to full advantage. Cubase for example had an improvement in performance for the latest 5.5 update regarding quad cores and higher.

I'm still on your crappy set up (dual core / 2 GB RAM) and I never really had issues, but I also do have an eye on getting more efficient instruments and effects.

I actually did some benchmarks, like 60 instruments all playing the same polyphonic sequence, with some EQ and compressor on each channel and all I can say is that I'm not having any problems with my main tools, which are Predator, impOSCar and Kontakt. And there is still freeze, increasing buffer size, use less polyphony for an instrument, reduce oversampling or just simply change the instrument to the one you desire when rendering, and use something else as a "notepad" as long as you are in the creative process.

Frankly, you'd probably get a pretty good answer from Image-Line themselves. They're usually pretty good about answering fan questions.

You made a mistake imo, you should have gone with Intel's i5 760 + good cooling, 1333mhz value memory sticks (bcz the chip's mem controller woks @1333) and then spend the money on the quickest most reasonably priced SSD you could find.

I've seen the Nehalm cores beat AMD's current cores in SONAR+Nuendo benchmarks.

i'm waiting for the I5-2500 which should be released on the 5th of January at about 205$ and be as fast as the Core i7 980X .

i'm using fl studio 8 and a quad core cpu and i can tell you that only uses 1 core at 100%, possibly 2 seeing the perfomance isn't that bad, but i'm sure it's not using the 4 cores, however 2 cores can be working on fl studio and the other 2 in windows processes and so.

If 9 has better core support i think i'm going to update lol, i hope projects will keep on the hd.

Btw, since when 6 core cpus exist?

So, I take it that my picking up an 8 Core Mac Pro yesterday was a total overkill or is Ableton capable of leveraging all those cores?

I'm under the impression that either a program is multithread enabled or it isn't? Whether the chip has 2, 4, 6 cores doesn't matter, the operating system controls which instructions go to which core.

It may be possible (I have no idea) to write a program which limits itself to two cores, but I don't know why programmers would go to extra effort to cripple their programs.

Re: Re: Anyone here using a 4 or 6-core cpu on FL Studio? Do all the cores get used?

quote:

Originally posted by floyd741 That seems a bit harsh, no? I run Ableton on the computer that I use for everything else (video games, internet, etc.) and it runs perfectly fine. And i built the computer in 2006.

If I could afford 2 PCs I'd do the same as the OP. Not only for the minimal speed increase you might get with nothing else installed/running in the background, but because when you sit down at that machine you get shit done! No internet, no mp3, etc... to steal your focus.

quote:

Originally posted by derail I'm under the impression that either a program is multithread enabled or it isn't? Whether the chip has 2, 4, 6 cores doesn't matter, the operating system controls which instructions go to which core. It may be possible (I have no idea) to write a program which limits itself to two cores, but I don't know why programmers would go to extra effort to cripple their programs.

I think you might have it a bit backwards with that last sentence about programmers exhausting extra effort to criple their programs. Programming software to support 2 cores I was told my a tech buff is relatively difficult enough, but writing the code to support 4 or even 6 is a lot harder.
So companies like FL will release a version claiming it to be "multicore compliant" when in fact the program won't properly use more than just 2 cores. Right now I know for a fact my version 9 uses 2 cores exactly how it should, I just want to make sure the code was written well enough to handle 6.
Either way guess I'll find out when everything comes.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox I think you might have it a bit backwards with that last sentence about programmers exhausting extra effort to criple their programs. Programming software to support 2 cores I was told my a tech buff is relatively difficult enough, but writing the code to support 4 or even 6 is a lot harder.

Yes and no. To clarify on this point, when you talk about multiple cores, you are really referring to how many threads can run concurrently at any given moment.

Single core processors can actually only operate on one work unit at a time, but because of lightning fast task switching and scheduling, it can appear to perform many actions at the same time, even though the processor is only doing one thing at a time.

The ability to support multiple cores really boils down to the specific type of processing task you are trying to accomplish and how much that task lends itself to being parallelized in the first place, regardless of how many cores (or threads) you are dealing with.

So in one sense, yes, you are correct in the statement that coding for 2 cores is difficult enough, and coding for 4 and 6 is even more difficult, but only because the process of synchronization has always been done manually. Obviously its easier to synchronize two threads rather than 4 or 6. Anyone who has done any type of multi-threaded software development can attest to the giant PITA it can be (especially debugging).

However, updates and newer languages are now providing built in mechanisms to make this process of synchronization much, much easier. For example, .NET 4.0 includes many new libraries for dealing with parallel tasks, and even provides several thread safe collection types (a notoriously difficult object type when dealing with parallelization).

As this relates for DAW software, the ability to run on multiple cores (threads) boils down to the approach used to take advantage of a multi-core setup. In most DAW packages (Logic in particular), one technique is to assign each audio/instrument channel to a single core (thread). While this creates the advantage of making the application more multi-core aware, the disadvantage to this approach is that if you overload a channel with 6 or 7 plugins, then all that processing on that channel is still assigned to a single core. You can actually gain a performance advantage by routing that channel to a AUX bus and moving 3 or 4 of those plugins to that bus. This way each channel only has 3 or 4 plugins on it at one time and the processing of those channels can be assigned to separate cores. Is this true "multi-core" support or is this just what one might call "multi-core compliant"? Ask 10 different developers and you'll get 10 different answers.

There are other techniques use in DAW software packages that also take advantage of multi core setups, but describing those is well beyond the scope of this forum.

I believe FL is written in Python, which is a another relative newcomer to the multi-core game, at least as far as providing developers an easy way to make their applications take advantage of multi-core processors. Since the original design of FL likely did not take in to account multi-core setups (and why would they have back then), design decisions were probably made that makes it a bit difficult to just "add" multi-core support without major re-design. So the next best thing is to parallelize what you can and slowly redesign key features over a period of time to make the application more and more capable of taking "full" advantage of multi-core processors. Logic has gone through this transformation recently starting with Logic 8 and really only now at version 9.1.3 has it seemed to finally come to fully support and fully utilize multi-core processors. Logic 8 was notorious for making uneven use of multi-core processors (1 would be at 100%, while the others might only be at 20 or 20%).

Every major software package has had to go through this process, the only difference is that some companies have more money and people to throw at the problem, so they get it done faster. FL will get there eventually, they just might not have as many resources to throw at the problem as someone like, say, Apple.

Eric you should work for CM magazine that was more than helpful thank you.
I actually read on imagine line forum that version 9 will properly support multicores for both vsts and effects. And that theres no difference from other hosts.

So thats great news I guess I'll know for sure in a few days.

don't let that troll kiss your ass

quote:

Originally posted by Eric J I believe FL is written in Python, w

FL Studio is written in Delphi.

lol. That should throw a spanner in their 64 bit works. What a joke.

Yeah it's written in Delphi. And further to Eric's post I believe that the mixer is a single thread, the gfx is, and the audio processor is. Wonder if the new features like the track lanes vs the old bar pattern structure are some things that have recently been introduced for this reason in the back-end.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips lol. That should throw a spanner in their 64 bit works. What a joke.

Good point, and thats one of the reasons I feel FL is not up to par, at least in technical terms with Logic Cubase Sonar etc. Their programming seems always to be playing catchup with the previous version of the other available DAWs. The fact that some aspects of FL are single core and while others are multicore lead me to believe it's unefficient programming at best and sloppy at worst. Then again it is way cheaper than it's competition so you do get what you pay for I suppose.

One thing I think you'll see from logic soon is a form of intelligent processor sharing - so the application manages (or at least has an option to auto manage) the spread of CPU workload base on priority and relation to your project, much as the Euphonix hardware does..

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN The fact that some aspects of FL are single core and while others are multicore lead me to believe it's unefficient programming at best and sloppy at worst.

To be fair, this can be attributed as much to design decisions as the software evolved as much as choice of language. Some of it is simply "the way it is". As I alluded to in my previous post, there are certain computing tasks that simply do not lend themselves well to parallelization, so you have to find ways around such limitations.

I really can't fault Image Line too much. Many of the applications we use today did not take into account multi-core processing when originally designed, so if design decisions were made early on that did not take this into account, then it can be more difficult to make the changes required to support parallelization.

Personally, I think one of the biggest reasons that FL is lagging behind in this area is they simply do not have the resources that say an Apple or Steinberg has. You can make major changes to your software a lot faster if you throw more money and people at the problem. Image Line most likely has fewer available developers than these other companies.

It says on imagelines website that all vsts and fx are now multicore in version 9.
I was also told if you do a direct A/B comparison to any other host in terms of cpu usage that there is no difference at all.

Although I'm sure its just a sales pitch they use. Either way they've done A LOT in this recent upgrade and unless you know anything about computer programming your in no real position to be commenting on how "sloppy" it is (DJ Rann).
In terms of "getting what you pay for", lifetime free updates and being pretty damn close to other sequencers as it is for half price sounds like a steal to me.

edit: Eric got in before me thanks for clearing that up.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox Although I'm sure its just a sales pitch they use. Either way they've done A LOT in this recent upgrade and unless you know anything about computer programming your in no real position to be commenting on how "sloppy" it is (DJ Rann). In terms of "getting what you pay for", lifetime free updates and being pretty damn close to other sequencers as it is for half price sounds like a steal to me. edit: Eric got in before me thanks for clearing that up.

Well seeing as I started programming my own games from age 8 I think I may have some experience (more years than you've been alive I think), although clearly nowhere near as much knowledge as Eric.

I personally think that any piece of software that has undergone many version updates, especially through several periods of major fundamental hardware developments, without a major re-write isn't what I would call particularly efficient so I stand by my assessment, which again, even in the first place I took in to account the economic factor ("you get what you pay for"). I can't actually think of any of the other major Daws that are still on the same initial platform it started out on.

So yes, the pay off is free lifetime updates, so it is good value, but non the less slightly hindered IMO compared to the likes of Logic Cubase Sonar etc,

You count age 8 as experience? That must look good on your resume.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox You count age 8 as experience? That must look good on your resume.

When are you going to learn.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.