Didn’t I just cover this and clarify in further detail in the other thread, why are you attempting to misrepresent this ?!
That graph you created has zero correlation to what the data represents , you are attempting to show there being only a small variance when taken into context when the preload resources are taken into account.
So to clarify this again, the MIX session had a large number of various/mixed plugins across tracks/groups/busses, its not something that can be empirically placed on a graph. Its a session that is designed to test the thread management under a typical mixing environment. The utilization of the remaining overhead over and above, is what is detailed in the graphs, and its important, relevant and not easily dismissed.
80+ additional resource heavy plugins is significant , which ever way you want to cut it !
Like I noted in the other thread , the main focus was to show lack of scaling from 32 to 64 threads across all the tested DAW’s, the comparative performance between the DAW’s was not the main focus of the article.
Also, as I noted in the other thread, we have results of a more standardized/empirical core balance/saturation test across multiple DAW’s where Cubendo is 60-70% down on some of the other DAW’s, even against some DAW’s without an extended/hybrid playback buffer. That report will be posted when all the data across the wider system architecture pool is completed, but I already know its not going to be well received by Cubendo users.