Old 10-20-2012, 07:32 AM   #1
Stretto
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 147
Default DAW's using GPU?

Is this on the near horizon? GPU's could speed up audio processing by several orders of magnitude and if some method of serializing and paralleling audio processing units(like vst's or rather smaller more efficient algorithmic processing functions) then I would imagine DAW's would almost never have cpu issues. Think of running all your VST and VSTi's but still only use 10% of your cpu!!!! You could add another gfx card and it would be like putting in 30 cpu's.


GPU processing seems like the future and what little I have looked at latest has impressed the hell out of me. (I remember doing nbody simulations on a 486 and couldn't even get 1 fps with just a few bodies. Now with gpu's you can get 40k+ at 30fps on the average system. (And are systems that can do 100's of millions in real time)

While one could argue that audio is not as intensive as graphics and it's not needed, that is rather ignorant since it's there to be used and will only improve the situation.

MS has come out with many interfaces for the gpu that abstract the hardware. I know VST's can do it themselves using whatever tech they want but if some new method(similar to JS) but using similar techniques could be used then running out of cycles would probably be a think of the past(or open the door up to amazing fx and vsti's similar to how gpu's have revolutionized graphics in the last decade).

Also, with things like C++ AMP, which is a library to use the GPU quite easily, and some sort of change from VST's to a more modular and scripted like fx there is no end to what could be done. Essentially what I'm thinking of is where each vst is sort of like a mathematical function that is composed to form more complex algorithms that can be put in a single gpu shader(or, if need be, split up) which would run at 100 to 1000 times faster than the cpu. (effectively reducing the your current cpu usage by that factor) Accelerator is a library for .NET which essentially takes functions and composes shader algorithms from them. Since a vst is essentially just an algorithm, a similar approach could be used.

Anyways, just thoughts... I think many people would be surprised to learn just how much power their computer has that is not being used. Just imagine no latency issues!! EVER!!!!! (within reason
Stretto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 08:27 AM   #2
Xenakios
Human being with feelings
 
Xenakios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 4,201
Default

IMHO GPUs have mostly been determined to be a disappointment for audio processing.

Yes, the power is there on the graphics cards, but getting the audio from the host CPU/memory into the card and back is an intensive process often involving long latencies. And latency is a poison for a great majority of people dealing with audio. It doesn't really matter if you could run 1000000 oscillators on a GPU if those oscillators sound noticeably late after pressing a key on a MIDI keyboard. Similar points would apply to things like guitar amp simulators and so on. GPUs might work passably well for some audio processing purposes where low latency isn't paramount.

Sometimes the latency could be reduced at the cost of increased CPU stress, but then that negates the idea of using the GPU to save on CPU resources...

You touched the issue of how would the things be programmed. There are ideas, languages and language extensions for it. Audio however is quite challenging because of the way the data has to be shuffled around in a particular order in order to do interesting things. GPUs are not fast because they have fast clock speeds. They are fast because they do parallel processing, and audio processing quite often is very badly suited for such processing. (There may not be enough actual parallel things to do in some given routing situation.)
__________________
For info on Reaper extension plugins (including Xenakios' previous extensions) :
http://www.standingwaterstudios.com/reaper
http://code.google.com/p/sws-extension/
--
Xenakios blog :
http://xenakios.wordpress.com/
Xenakios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 06:04 PM   #3
Stretto
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 147
Default

This is because of the pipeline used. This is why I said one would have to require the use of FX as sort of processing units that could be combined. Essentially we have to do as much audio processing on the gpu as possible.

I do not necessarily think the issue is with paralleling audio but real time manipulation of parameters(e.g., gui and automation). Most things, contrary to believe, can be paralleled(even some seemingly contradictory fx like delays and such). The real question is how to do it effectively. If you do it wrong you'll waste more time than by doing it sequentially.

Essentially, though, a paradigm shift needs to take place. "FX" need to be written in a very specific way and tools need to be developed to create and debug them.

As far as latency goes, You may be right that the in and out from the CPU to GPU adds enough latency to make it useless at this point. That is not so much a denouncement of parallelizing audio but of using the current gpu architecture.


Obviously one would have to have an intelligent way to manage the audio chain. If you have an input that is routed to an output with no fx there is no reason to send it to the gpu. Also, if the gpu could interact with the sound card then the latency would be moot. (one could do this currently with fpga's and the issue is more about getting it done with gpu's(very common) than with fpgas(not common and things like powercore already out there).


What it all boils down to though, if people don't work on it or push the technology it won't happen. (and I imagine people are actually already working on it)

Last edited by Stretto; 10-20-2012 at 06:12 PM.
Stretto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 06:35 PM   #4
EpicSounds
Human being with feelings
 
EpicSounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,494
Default

LiquidSonics has some GPU versions of their plugins.

http://www.liquidsonics.com/software.htm

Quote:
The GPU Edition Requires NVIDIA GeForce 8 series and above for CUDA support. Compute Capability 1.1 is required to run the GPU Edition which excludes some GeForce 8800 series cards (i.e. those based on the G80 architecture). All other CUDA enabled cards are thought to be compatible but neither system or device compatibility is guaranteed. Correct operation of the GPU edition is highly dependent on a valid CUDA install by the user and no guarantee of compatibility with any card, system or configuration can be provided.
EpicSounds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 07:57 PM   #5
TimOBrien
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,252
Default

Yup, the problem is that any architecture change (and look at how fast video cards and mobos change) makes all that extra power they find useless.

You would have to lock yourself into a very specific set of hardware and that is death in the computer biz.....
__________________
iMac i5quad/12gbRAM/1Tb Glyph drive/1Tb samples drive > Motu828mkII ---- Still run my GatewayM520 2.8ghz XP laptop. Video editing, 3D work and audio with zero problems.
TimOBrien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2012, 08:18 PM   #6
Stretto
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 147
Default

@Epic: yeah, there are several vst's that use the GPU... it is trending in that direction... It would just be better if a DAW and fx plugin design natively supported it.

@Time: that's just utter nonsense. If that was the case nothing would get done. There are many open specifications. OpenCL supports all architectures and can fall back on the CPU. C++ AMP has the potential to support all architectures as it is an open specification too. CUDA is from nvidia and was designed specifically for their cards... That is not a fault of GPU acceleration but one of nvidia cards.

In any case, a wrapper usually can be created, at a cost of performance, that will work in general. It's call an adapter. So the concept of "locking yourself in" is just nonsense. Just write an adapter around the tech. This is done all the time and is why you can run windows apps in linux for example... because someone wrote an adapter. This may not always be the best at first but generally opens the flood gates up if it is actually beneficial.
Stretto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 02:06 AM   #7
Xenakios
Human being with feelings
 
Xenakios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 4,201
Default

I would much rather prefer DAW and plugin developers spent their time and effort coding something new and different than coding something simple and already familiar that you could run 10 times more instances of on a GPU...(You can already easily run dozens of EQs and compressors on the CPU. Would it really help anything if you could run hundreds or thousands?) I don't think CPU power limitations are a primary reason for the stagnant state of audio processing.
__________________
For info on Reaper extension plugins (including Xenakios' previous extensions) :
http://www.standingwaterstudios.com/reaper
http://code.google.com/p/sws-extension/
--
Xenakios blog :
http://xenakios.wordpress.com/
Xenakios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 03:18 AM   #8
Stretto
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 147
Default

@Xenakios: I think that is a bit short sighted. You want something new and different? Expect it to take more cycles than the old stuff... You may be right about stagnation but look at at the computer graphics revolution... it happened from the gpu. One could argue about the video game creativity BUT that is a separate issue. One does not need advanced computer graphics to have a good game but a good game with advanced computer graphics is better than the same game without.

CPU's are limited. There are many good synths that take a few % CPU. Suppose you want to create some amazing layering from several synths. If you use 5 then your already at 25% cpu usage. You've already increase the latency by a significant factor. If you double that(want to overlay several popular drum samplers to get a nice effect) and add some effects and your at 50% cpu usage your pushing it!

The slower the system the more of an issue. Doing the majority of the processing on the GPU would immediately increase the value of your computer. Do you like upgrading your computer every few years because it can't run the latest cool synth or like not using some fx because they are cpu intensive? Using the GPU, if done right, could easily avoid this.

The real issue is not if it is good or not. We already have external audio processing hardware(even a soundcard essentially is one of these). The REAL ISSUE is using something that is generally much more powerful AND already exists on virtually every users computer... and once it is done THEN it won't have to most likely be done again(unlike video game's which are always improving).

VST's are slowly moving into that direction anyways... the system is not designed with the gpu in mind though and it will never be very effective. This means it will take much longer to perfect than by starting with a clear vision in the first place. I was hoping some companies had the insight to be working in this direction, but I guess if the users are demanding it(due to ignorance I suppose) then the companies don't have any reason to do it.
Stretto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 07:45 AM   #9
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,072
Default

So the issues involved in using GPU for audio (Latency and so on, all facts)
Then the issues involved in running a second computer (Oh yeah there isn't any)

Run a second computer, be happy, GPU are for GFX

Like xenakios has said the audio world has stagnated and now some people look for more power more power, but that is not the way forward
2012 and the most popular DAWs all follow the tape deck and mixer paradigm (Oh wait that's right Reaper = new paradigm, which was what ? that's right again tape deck and mixer)
That paradigm is followed because apparently we are too dumb to use anything but replicas of antiquated crap, that time will change and when it does then you can discuss needing more, at the moment how many tape decks mixers fx do you really need that cant be just accomplished by adding another CPU (A low end monitor less computer probably cost you the same as a high end GFX card)
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 03:24 PM   #10
Stretto
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 147
Default

@gpunk: Sounds like a very ignorant statement. Do you realize that the GPU's are generally 1000's of times faster in doing computations? And that many popular VST's are moving towards using them for FFT and other calculations? Do you even know what parallelization is?

If your gripe is about some stupid "stagnant" bs then so be it... that has nothing to do with this post. You say you want people to be innovative yet you want to squash innovation(with the GPU). Maybe the problem is you and not them?

OH, and GPU's are not just for GFX. That is a very ignorant statement and shows how little you know about them. GPU's are processors that compute mathematical operations on a massive scale... Graphics is just one application(the main application but one of many). They are used in scientific computing to do advanced analysis on things like quantum mechanics, biology and chemistry, etc...

Please, if you don't know what your talking about don't act like you do.

I'm not trying to be an asshole here but it's clear by yours and others statements that you know very little about what the GPU does and how it can benefit audio processing. The question isn't if it is good or not but when will it happen. I personally think the sooner the better. The only thing I can think of for you being upset about stagnation in the audio industry is probably your own stagnation. There are several DAW's too chose from and several orders of magnitude more FX's and VST's. Most may suck but you can even write your own. What do you expect? For a DAW to make you a hit song with you doing any work? What do you want? A DAW that isn't a DAW? It really makes no sense to me what you want besides "change" because your bored with current tech... but that isn't anyone's fault but yours. I personally care much more about utilizing my hardware to it's fullest so I can fully take advantage of all the great fx and vst's. These things are not designed to create or write music but to provide you with the means to do so... I personally have no big issues with the way DAW's are designed but more so with stability and performance. At least these metrics can actually benefit everyone and not just a few that want something different because they are bored.

While there maybe something better that I'm not aware of(since you and Xen didn't care to elaborate) I think what you fail to realize is that it's a separate problem and could be implemented side by side with using the GPU. At least I'm offering a realizable solution that benefits everyone regardless of what they want out of a DAW(unless they want a slow DAW). It seems to me that wanting something that will only benefit a few. (and it's easy to measure performance but not "stagnation".
Stretto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2012, 03:52 PM   #11
Xenakios
Human being with feelings
 
Xenakios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 4,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
I think what you fail to realize is that it's a separate problem and could be implemented side by side with using the GPU.
You fail to realize it's a massive problem to adapt audio processing code to GPUs at large scale. (What I mean by that : get a substantial number of audio effects and instruments running on it, not just some random curiosities.) And it would be work that wouldn't have much other benefit than just getting the code to run on the GPU hardware. (AMP, OpenCL etc are interesting technologies for sure, but they are no magic bullets.)

You sure seem to be passionate about it. If you think it's such a great idea, how about you try developing something of your own? We can then discuss how much time and effort you spent on designing and refining the actual audio processing and how much time and effort went just to adapt the processing designs/algorithms for running on GPUs...It would also be interesting to know what kind of a support burden the GPU support is. (There being dozens of models of gfx cards on the market with different capabilities and so on.)
__________________
For info on Reaper extension plugins (including Xenakios' previous extensions) :
http://www.standingwaterstudios.com/reaper
http://code.google.com/p/sws-extension/
--
Xenakios blog :
http://xenakios.wordpress.com/
Xenakios is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 02:49 PM   #12
Stretto
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 147
Default

Afraid not...

First, you want some type of innovation to take place that will change the current stagnant state and you think it is not a massive problem too?

Second, One does not have to adapt much of anything. It takes very little work to actually move the same algorithms over to GPU's. Most algorithms use a for loop and the essential different for the GPU is to use a parallel.for(or for multi-core for that matter). One does not have to move the current effects base to the gpu immediate for it to work. It could be a gradual process. It's not like if one creates a new "GPU based" DAW and even new plug in scheme that they cannot still support older tech such as VST's(although it might slow the movement down unless it is much better).

Third, Many people are starting to see the power that the GPU has for other things than graphics. It's starting to be supported in many popular apps(matlab, photoshop, adobe audition, etc...). The reason is because it is not much more work to reap massive benefits.

Fourth, My original question was about current movement in DAW's toward GPU processing... what I got was a bunch of nonsense about "It won't work", "We have other problems to focus on", etc. Things that had nothing to do with the original question. Either there is a movement or there is not... but your own person feelings are irrelevant to the matter. Either there is an issue with GPU's that prevent them working well for audio or their isn't.

For example, Xen, you mention issues about "shuffling" around the data. This is probably the only pertinent fact that has been brought up. This is either a real issue or it is not. From what I have looked at, it probably is not an issue depending on how the system is designed. If we try to send many small blocks repeated back and forth from the cpu and gpu then it will not work out because the overhead would be great. Hence, it then follows that the discussion should lead to being able to "all" the processing on the GPU. I do not know if this is possible or not. On the face of it, it seems like it is possible but I do not know enough about the details to know if there is some real issue that prevents it.

Fifth, I would love to spend the next 5 years of my life writing a DAW that did exactly what I wanted... I neither have the time or the money to do that, and chance are, if I did, I wouldn't finish before someone else with more resources did. This post was not about how to write a DAW that is based on the GPU but if there is any movement towards that. (e.g., if someone new cockos was taking advantage of the GPU with their JS fx)

My issues with the replies is that they are non-constructive and irrelevant to the original question. What does the current "stagnation" of audio technologies have to do with my question? Just because you feel that it might be a "waste" of time to process on the GPU is one thing(which I tried to point out, your probably wrong on many levels)... but, again, what does that have to do what I originally asked?

It's like if I asked "What time is it" and you respond "I'm going to lunch". Did you just answer my question or tell me something irrelevant?

Xen, your first reply was much more relevant but I believe very inaccurate from my experiences with the GPU and my ideas. The newer PCI express bus has a throughput of about 16GB/s to 32GB/s which means means that at 256kSPS 64-bit samples it only takes 0.1ps to transfer 256 byte package(yet 8ms for the ADC to read it). Even if you slow the bus down by a factor of 1000 and it takes 1ns you still have plenty of wiggle room. 1000's audio packets being computed on at any one time would only add 1ms extra from the memory transfers.

So, essentially memory transfer times are irrelevant(obviously in the real world it's more complex but this is what we could achieve if things were done right). The processing plays a much more important role. Just taking 10 extra cpu cycles to process each sample adds a factor of 10 to the cpu added latency. 256 samples would give 10*256 cycles for processing. On a 1GHZ machine processing 1000 audio samples this is 2ms of delay. Much more significant. Processing on a GPU, which hypothetically could reduce the factor by 1000 makes it irrelevant.

These are just estimates but what they show is: 1. With GPU based processing we could drastically increase the sample rate and sample size for higher quality processing( = better audio quality). 2. The memory transfer times are generally irrelevant. 3. CPU processing adds significant overhead = latency(which has a compounding effect in multi-tasking environments). 4. The max practical limitation of latency are from the ADC's. Essentially you have to wait on the samples coming in no matter what, even if you could process them in 0s.

(and what would be really cool is that you could sample lock the input and output so that the timing is dead. This way phase issues due to multi-tasking environments will be irrelevant) (realize that multi-tasking adds "random" latency to your output which causes small compression and expansions in the sampling rate... usually too small to be noticed but who knows...)


My main point is, that neither you nor I know the real practical aspects of using such a technology. What I do know is that history is on my side. Give someone the proper tools and they'll be their most creative. Limit them and expect them to be limited...
Stretto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 03:48 PM   #13
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
My main point is, that neither you nor I know the real practical aspects of using such a technology. What I do know is that history is on my side. Give someone the proper tools and they'll be their most creative. Limit them and expect them to be limited...
Actually it may have helped if you had looked into what Xenakios does before spouting such rubbish, I personally know that he looks into all these technologies heavily, then decides if it is viable to implement them in his application (Which by the way is something that would benefit from massive CPU increases if indeed it was viable to get them from GPU)

History actually isn't on your side whatsoever FACT
GFX GPU cards have been around since pre the first heavy market impact of the original Voodoo series, and guess what audio DSP cards have been around for pretty much just as long, but hey guess what, HISTORY shows that native is not only the way forward in terms of usable cycles, but also the way forward in terms of getting product to market

(There is only one ignorant replier in this thread )
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 03:49 PM   #14
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
And that many popular VST's are moving towards using them for FFT and other calculations?
Please name these many popular VST's
Thank you

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
I'm not trying to be an asshole here but it's clear by yours and others statements that you know very little about what the GPU does and how it can benefit audio processing.
Actually you have done very well at being an asshole and have shown you know little whatsoever of the amounts of work involved in using GPUs in any meaningful way (cycle/cost/dev time ratio)

You THINK you understand it so much, so like Xenakios said, go do it, go develop what you want yourself

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
Please, if you don't know what your talking about don't act like you do.


PLEASE take your own advice, because right now you look very very stupid for not even bothering to search this subject and its various discussions before hand including the devs saying "Pointless" but i guess they don't know what they are talking about either !!
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2012, 07:01 PM   #15
Stretto
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 147
Default

gpunk_w: You're an idiot. Sorry if you're offended but too bad. You want me to prove things but you yourself do not prove anything and expect everything you say to be taken as fact. Your name is fitting of your attitude. At least Xenakois has attempted a constructive debate instead of nonsensical and emotion ridden arguments completely irrelevant to the questions I've asked.

google search for "vst's using gpu" moron, don't expect me to do your work for you? (oh, but I forgot, your a punk)

http://www.liquidsonics.com/software_reverberate_le.htm
http://gpuimpulsereverb.de/
http://www.thinkmind.org/index.php?v...011_3_40_60027
http://www.acustica-audio.com/index....=14&Itemid=133
...
etc...


Your a moron and have no basis for discussing things since you obviously have no experience in them and can't keep from injecting your own BS into the argument. If your pissed that I'm calling you on it too bad... I don't like people like you get away with it.

Don't both responding unless you want it for others as I will not read any post you reply to me. EVER!
Stretto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 06:48 AM   #16
uebertone
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
Is this on the near horizon?
No.

To address the "irrelevant" parts that you yourself brought up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
serializing and paralleling
Those are antonyms. That means opposites. You can have either serial or parallel not both at the same time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
I remember doing nbody simulations
That's parallelizable by simple divide and conquer audio is not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
I think many people would be surprised to learn just how much power their computer has that is not being used. Just imagine no latency issues!! EVER!!!!!
Latency is not only depending on processing power but also on well the latency of the processing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
Most things, contrary to believe, can be paralleled(even some seemingly contradictory fx like delays and such).
OK. On form of a one sample delay, also known as a 1-pole IIR filter:
Code:
void process(float *out, float *in, int n)
{
    static float coef = 0.1337f;
    out[0] = in[0]*(1-coef);
    for(int i=1; i<n; i++)
        out[i] = out[i-1]*coef + in[i]*(1-coef);
}
For everyones information the for-loop has a loop-carried flow-dependency with vector (1). Hence can not be parallelized.

Now parallelize that. I'd love to see that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
Essentially, though, a paradigm shift needs to take place. "FX" need to be written in a very specific way [...]
A shift to what? Stop using IIR filters because they can not be parallelized?

IIR filters are the basis of envelope filter which are the basis for virtually all dynamic effects that go beyond basic wave shaping. So what should we do about those effects?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
Also, if the gpu could interact with the sound card then the latency would be moot.
It seems you are looking for a sound card with a more powerful form of EAX.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
GPU's are generally 1000's of times faster in doing computations?
That statement might be true for non-IEEE compliant floating point computations but is false for integer arithmetic and double precision calculations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
And that many popular VST's are moving towards using them for FFT and other calculations? Do you even know what parallelization is?
I have yet to see some thing beyond FFT (which is again simple divide and conquer) being parallelized in audio.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
Most algorithms use a for loop and the essential different for the GPU is to use a parallel.for(or for multi-core for that matter).
Doesn't work for my 5 liner, does it? And the audio world is filled with those!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
Either there is an issue with GPU's that prevent them working well for audio or their isn't.
There is a problem. See code snippet above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
To quote them: "Zero latency mode is not supported by the GPU Edition due to a combination of factors including the mechanisms involved with transferring data to and from the GPU being much more efficient with larger blocks, a current requirement to run CUDA VST plug-ins in a separate thread (making larger block processing more efficient) and the lack of coherency in buffering schemes used by various different VST hosts complicating the above issues. It may become more practical to implement this feature in future using newer GPU architectures."

So yes current technology isn't ready for it and DAWs might be able to aid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
Then to quote some "highlights" from them: "One drawback of GPGPU computing on consumer-grade GPUs
has to be mentioned. Since these GPUs are designed for optimum
video game performance, there is no need for checking the integrity
of the GPU memory, since memory errors would only affect the
currently displayed video frame. High reliability can be either
attained by software means as described in [5], or by using GPU
hardware dedicated to GPGPU computing, which are equipped with
ECC-protected memory [6].
[...] The reason for the large maximum execution time for the CUDA
fast convolution implementation has to be identified and removed."

Good luck convincing the die-hard audiophile crowed to use potentially audio corrupting technologies!
Speaking of which the "float only" mantra of current GPGPUs will not flight with them either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
A "nice" user report on that: http://forums.atomicmpc.com.au/index...howtopic=34775

Anyway audio on GPUs likely not gonna happen unless GPUs change to true GPGPUs. What I can see is APUs.
uebertone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 07:30 AM   #17
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
I'm not trying to be an asshole here
Well, you sure seem to try hard to come on like one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
gpunk_w: You're an idiot.
Could you please refrain from personal flaming. I'm not a moderator here, just a "concerned citizen". This topic started out very interesting until you started those unnecessary personal attacks. Could you just stay on topic, thank you.
__________________
// MVHMF
Vote for the Starter Marker FR here http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?issueid=4371
Let's finally get rid of those ugly odd time measures.
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 08:04 AM   #18
Stretto
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 147
Default

Um, yeah, it did, until people started being arrogant and saying completely ignorant things that were completely irrelevant and non-factual. I have a right to act how I want... and I chose to act a certain way when I interact with certain types of attitudes(eye for an eye). I'm not choosing you to be an asshole to you, you are choose it for yourself. If you want to have a civil discussion about the topic then simply be civil and discuss the topic. If you want to pretend to that your the king of the world and only your opinion matters and facts are useless then expect to be called on it. Simple as that.
Stretto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 10:33 AM   #19
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretto View Post
Um, yeah, it did, until people started being arrogant and saying completely ignorant things that were completely irrelevant and non-factual. I have a right to act how I want... and I chose to act a certain way when I interact with certain types of attitudes(eye for an eye). I'm not choosing you to be an asshole to you, you are choose it for yourself. If you want to have a civil discussion about the topic then simply be civil and discuss the topic. If you want to pretend to that your the king of the world and only your opinion matters and facts are useless then expect to be called on it. Simple as that.
"You" here not being me, I assume...

But again, afaics the only non-civil person here is you (and that really means *you*).

As for "irrelevant and non-factual" that is your subjective opinion, not a fact. Opinions are fine, but *all* opinions are equally fine, not only yours. So calling someone an idiot just because they have a differing opinion is... well, idiotic. But you choose for yourself the way you want to come across...
__________________
// MVHMF
Vote for the Starter Marker FR here http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?issueid=4371
Let's finally get rid of those ugly odd time measures.
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2012, 05:37 PM   #20
gpunk_w
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,072
Default

Well done stretto you really know how to conduct yourself lol
gpunk_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 05:15 AM   #21
mikeroephonics
Human being with feelings
 
mikeroephonics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,023
Default

Just buy an Intel i7 2600K & overclock it to
4.2GHz with a Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo
heatsink/fan. I stopped caring about CPU
(& GPU for that matter) once I built an i7 machine.
__________________
Do you use MIDI in REAPER?
Please check out these MIDI requests: http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=85251
Thanks.
mikeroephonics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 12:38 PM   #22
fixerdave
Human being with feelings
 
fixerdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Essex, England.
Posts: 346
Default

bit of history on video players.

Philips 2000 system..best quality..VHS won the race (Britain)
Betamax..............good quality..VHS won the race (Britain)
VHS..................worst quality but won the race (Britain)

best technical solution doesn't always win because of price, marketing and flooding market early with a solution (VHS movies in shops for rental)

sorry, nothing to do with topic as such, but please remember and learn from history.

and Stretto, if you could further/advance the use of GPU's in DAW's you would make a lot of people happy

dave
__________________
'Retired technician - not a musician' and registered Reaper user since July 2008
'Excellence is not a skill, It is an attitude' Ralph Marston quotes.
Music at http://soundcloud.com/fixerdave

Last edited by fixerdave; 11-15-2012 at 12:42 PM. Reason: spelling
fixerdave is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.