Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER Compatibility

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-24-2012, 04:28 AM   #1
Oliverda
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2
Default AMD Bulldozer microarchitecture based CPUs poor performance in REAPER

I use REAPER for some time in our CPU benchmark suite. I've noticed in the past that it doesn't really like Intel's well known multi-threading solution called HyperThreading. AMD started to use a multi-threading solution with Bulldozer. It's namely the cluster-based multi-threading which shares some resources between two integer cores in one module. According our benchmarks all Bulldozer based CPUs are simply struggling in REAPER. Please see the results on the below attached image.

Do you have any explanation on this?
Attached Images
File Type: png reaper.png (34.8 KB, 381 views)
Oliverda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 06:21 AM   #2
Jcschild
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 93
Default

amd is way behind intel in power
Reaper doe NOT have issues with HT

how are you using reaper to benchmark? you cant load enough effects to even make it get a 1/2 way decent load?
try a good benchmark program like dawbench
www.dawbench.com
Jcschild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 07:02 AM   #3
Chris Martins
Human being with feelings
 
Chris Martins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 201
Default

The thing is the new AMD FX8350 does real well in multithreading apps, even more so than I5s and I7s, so we'll have to see what happens. Won't take long though as Im' upgrading to the 8350 as soons as it is available in Europe.
Chris Martins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 07:18 AM   #4
Jcschild
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 93
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Martins View Post
The thing is the new AMD FX8350 does real well in multithreading apps, even more so than I5s and I7s, so we'll have to see what happens. Won't take long though as Im' upgrading to the 8350 as soons as it is available in Europe.
nothing AMD has can come close to Intel.
Intel's multi-threading is not lacking either.

http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm

3rd graph down

AMD 1090T was pathetic the next gen 8 core was even worse..

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music...enchmarks.html

so bad i didnt even bother to update the benchmarks with the newer 8 core..
Jcschild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 07:48 AM   #5
Oliverda
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcschild View Post
amd is way behind intel in power
Reaper doe NOT have issues with HT

how are you using reaper to benchmark? you cant load enough effects to even make it get a 1/2 way decent load?
try a good benchmark program like dawbench
www.dawbench.com
It does have because if I turn off the HT I always get better result.

Anyway it's a well know fact the HT is inconsistent and sometimes can have a negative effect to performance.

I use a WAV file for the render but I've left the office so I can't tell you step by step now.
Oliverda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 12:09 PM   #6
Chris Martins
Human being with feelings
 
Chris Martins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcschild View Post
nothing AMD has can come close to Intel.
Intel's multi-threading is not lacking either.

http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm

3rd graph down

AMD 1090T was pathetic the next gen 8 core was even worse..

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music...enchmarks.html

so bad i didnt even bother to update the benchmarks with the newer 8 core..
Sorry to disagree, but tests and benchmarks show otherwise. Single thread = Intel wins by a large margin. Multithreaded applications = it's either pretty much a draw or AMD leads. And AMD is way cheaper too...
My Phenom XII 965 has always performed very well in Reaper, but since I don't want to go DSP ( UAD type of solution ), upgrading is the only solution.

A render is a single threaded operation. Tracking and applying plug-ins a multithreaded one, hence your results.
Then again, I'm not saying Intel is bad or anything. They're great, and they are the most powt powerful CPUs available today, but that comes with a price tag and the question is "Is it really necessary to spend all that money on a DAW system ?", and the answer for 99% of the people is "No". But saying the latest AMD CPU is turd just ain't true, especially in the price to power ratio for DAW usage. But I'll be testing it IRL pretty soon and will be happy to report.

Last edited by Chris Martins; 10-24-2012 at 12:26 PM.
Chris Martins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 01:41 PM   #7
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,486
Default

Isn't Reaper compiled with the Intel compiler? I think I saw something about that in some change log. So it should not be surprising that it performs better on Intel HW.

That said, I run Reaper on an AMD 1055Tx6 based system, and it flies!
__________________
// MVHMF
I never always did the right thing, but all I did wasn't wrong...
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 02:25 PM   #8
Jcschild
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 93
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda View Post
It does have because if I turn off the HT I always get better result.

Anyway it's a well know fact the HT is inconsistent and sometimes can have a negative effect to performance.

I use a WAV file for the render but I've left the office so I can't tell you step by step now.
i have never had any issues with HT period.. a good 6000+ systems since the newer HT.
the original HT yrs ago yes..
\
Scott
ADK
Jcschild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 02:28 PM   #9
Jcschild
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 93
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Martins View Post
Sorry to disagree, but tests and benchmarks show otherwise. Single thread = Intel wins by a large margin. Multithreaded applications = it's either pretty much a draw or AMD leads. And AMD is way cheaper too...
My Phenom XII 965 has always performed very well in Reaper, but since I don't want to go DSP ( UAD type of solution ), upgrading is the only solution.

A render is a single threaded operation. Tracking and applying plug-ins a multithreaded one, hence your results.
Then again, I'm not saying Intel is bad or anything. They're great, and they are the most powt powerful CPUs available today, but that comes with a price tag and the question is "Is it really necessary to spend all that money on a DAW system ?", and the answer for 99% of the people is "No". But saying the latest AMD CPU is turd just ain't true, especially in the price to power ratio for DAW usage. But I'll be testing it IRL pretty soon and will be happy to report.

seems you are not able to read benchmarks then..
multi-thread with HT is how they were run.. NOT single thread..
when benchmarking i can watch all cores being used.. be it 4 core with HT or 16 core with HT (32 cores)

sorry AMD is a Dog compared to intel. for every AMD price point i can show you intel thats pretty much the same price and will beat the AMD.
been there done that over and over..

will AMD work absolutely.. but i cant watch someone post false info and let it go by...

i an also show you Video editing benchmarks that are vastly heavier hitting with the same results...

Scott
ADK
Jcschild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2012, 02:49 PM   #10
Chris Martins
Human being with feelings
 
Chris Martins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 201
Default

I'm able to read benchmarks, thank you.
And I'm not posting false info, merely unbiased info from varied sources.
You love Intel, it shows and it's fine. I never said it was not the best CPU out there. It is. But the new AMD is pretty damn good, unlike its predecessor which was a letdown, and it does give the Intel CPUs a run for their money in multi-threaded applications, especially since it's a lot cheaper. Look around the web for those benchmarks, you'll see it just as everyone else can. In real world applications, AMD CPUs are not nearly as bad as people would like them to be, especially at that price point. Their main weakness at this point is power consumption, not computing power, especially for DAWs that use multithreading efficiently. Your opinion may differ, probably from personnal experience, but I've been building machines based on both brand CPUs for 20 years and in the real world, the difference is almost always very small.
For someone who can shell out the Intel money, I say more power to you and go for it. You'll gain 2-3% overall power and sometimes you must have those. For the rest of folks, AMD gets the job done just fine, cheaper, and over 95% as fast. Not saying I wouldn't ever buy Intel stuff, I have in the past, and probably will again sometime. Right now, I just don't have to. But given the oportunity, I'd definitely like to try a dual Xeon machine...
Chris Martins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 06:46 AM   #11
Jcschild
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 93
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Martins View Post
I'm able to read benchmarks, thank you.
And I'm not posting false info, merely unbiased info from varied sources.
You love Intel, it shows and it's fine. I never said it was not the best CPU out there. It is. But the new AMD is pretty damn good, unlike its predecessor which was a letdown, and it does give the Intel CPUs a run for their money in multi-threaded applications, especially since it's a lot cheaper. Look around the web for those benchmarks, you'll see it just as everyone else can. In real world applications, AMD CPUs are not nearly as bad as people would like them to be, especially at that price point. Their main weakness at this point is power consumption, not computing power, especially for DAWs that use multithreading efficiently. Your opinion may differ, probably from personnal experience, but I've been building machines based on both brand CPUs for 20 years and in the real world, the difference is almost always very small.
For someone who can shell out the Intel money, I say more power to you and go for it. You'll gain 2-3% overall power and sometimes you must have those. For the rest of folks, AMD gets the job done just fine, cheaper, and over 95% as fast. Not saying I wouldn't ever buy Intel stuff, I have in the past, and probably will again sometime. Right now, I just don't have to. But given the oportunity, I'd definitely like to try a dual Xeon machine...
dual Xeon is way over priced and slower than a 6 core single unless you buy the 3.1GHz duals.. you could buy 2 full systems for that price and have money left over for software :-)

as for benchmarks around the web.. on average the 8350 is right at the 2500k ability. exact same price... mobo and ram etc would be the same as well.

as far as benchmarks around the web (usual suspects) as in gaming hardware reviews they never correlate to PRO audio/video real world tests.

show me a website with pro audio benchmarks or real video eiditing tests not some cheesy photoshop test showing the amd doing well..

as i said amd works yes, but for every amd price point i can show you an intel price point that beats it performance wise..

there is just no reason for AMD. and this is coming from a guy who used to get blasted many yrs ago as i was the ONLY daw builder at that time selling AMD (back when AMD was actually kicking Intels butt) and why i started doing the benchmarks page way back when.. i am all for the underdog generally (and hated Intels policies/tactics etc they have long changed since then) but they lost the crown and have not been able to come close to getting it back at any price point.

so when the OP posts what he did i had to counter with umm no wrong..


Scott
ADK
Jcschild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 02:14 PM   #12
Chris Martins
Human being with feelings
 
Chris Martins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 201
Default

A few benchmarks for reading pleasure... Not a gamer's site and varied apps...
That's about it. 3770k and 8350 are very close in performance, as long as a multithreaded process is used. Single threaded process. I7 wins. Otherwise, close enough considering the price difference.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/t...-fx4300-tested

I need to upgrade soon. Both options are fine if you ask me, and if the 8350 isn't available by then, I'll go with the i7, but if it is, I'm not spending an extra 200$ for 3%. Also, the AMD platform OCs like crazy and a 25% OC from 4Ghz is possible easily, getting your CPU to 5Ghz and over, stable...

Last edited by Chris Martins; 10-25-2012 at 02:32 PM.
Chris Martins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 03:21 PM   #13
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 19,053
Default

Now take that to the wild eyed evangelists on GS and be prepared to have your ass roasted.


I think the only thing sadder than a Prophet of Operating Systems is a Prophet of CPUs.

Regardless of WHAT evidence you an muster, they will always say you a rwong not to hate AMD.

Me? Still happily puttering along on my 6 core Phenom II after a couple of years computing with nary a problem and tons of cpu in hand still.
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 04:53 PM   #14
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,900
Default

Right now the only reason to purchase AMD is to save money which is a perfectly valid and suitable reason but its the only one and should be the reason given. It will not provide better performance for less money 99% of the time. I don't have anything against them; I still have a circa 2001 XP1900 running in a closet as a fileshare. If it does the job, by all means its worth the purchase.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 01:09 AM   #15
Chris Martins
Human being with feelings
 
Chris Martins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 201
Default

Noone said it would yield better performance, just that it is pretty much on par performance in a certain context for a lot less money. Intel is still the overall winner, but by a slow margin in multithreaded operation and as long as you go to at least a 3770k, as the 3570 is beaten in most situations. Of course the 6 core Intels are way out of reach, as is their budget for most folks.

Truth is all CPUs today are more than powerful enough, and while the price to performance ratio of the previous AMD offer was lacking to say the least, this time around, it's pretty good and a viable alternative for people who don't use their computer for gaming primarily. Butu if you only want to buy Intel, go for it. I'm just saying some folks can upgrade for less money and still benefit from a nice performance bump compared to 2 year old builds.
Chris Martins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 01:15 AM   #16
Chris Martins
Human being with feelings
 
Chris Martins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivansc View Post
Now take that to the wild eyed evangelists on GS and be prepared to have your ass roasted.


I think the only thing sadder than a Prophet of Operating Systems is a Prophet of CPUs.

Regardless of WHAT evidence you an muster, they will always say you a rwong not to hate AMD.

Me? Still happily puttering along on my 6 core Phenom II after a couple of years computing with nary a problem and tons of cpu in hand still.
Yup... GS is like that in lots of ways... who cares...
Chris Martins 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 06:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.