Everything is fine, on Windows 11 the cores are distributed correctly, with heavy plug-ins the E-cores are not used, if not very heavy, then they are used. But this is not a full-fledged test yet, not in real task.
10 U-he Diva pieces, on a Devine option with 5 voice chords, 15 polyphony and 3 voice unison, all cores are used. What is the maximum sounding voices for this plugin and max setup. 256 ms buffer on RME, Win11
What’s funny is that ASIO can use all 100 percent of the processor)
Very cool, thank you.
Did you use a factory patch in Diva? If yes what’s the name? I’d like to do a comparison on my 8700K.
Does that mean Windows CPU and Cubase performance meters are both at 100%?
Try this and compare
Thanks. My computer starts to choke at the sixth track. Everything at stock settings, nothing optimized.
i reckon 7 maybe 8 tracks could be possible with optimization/overclocking (just a guess)
You have to understand that these are very extreme settings for a plugin. But this plugin supports multicore, while others do not generally. And the result can be worse or better
Windows 11 is stable. Please explain why you’d do that.
A reason that isn’t historical FUD, BTW.
Intel is under more pressure because they are used more in portable devices like Surface tablets than AMD.
And that won’t change soon seeing as how Intel is still basically 10nm and has taken the core performance lead back. They actually have more headroom for optimization than AMD. They just have to execute properly.
AMD’s biggest advantage is in multithread, but that is less important on those devices as they don’t tent to run applications that stress CPUs in that way - at least as much as desktops or laptops.
Intel has also improved their Integrated GPUs considerably, which was another area where AMD had historical advantages. But every laptop worth its salt has a dGPU that performs better, these days. iGPU performance isn’t the consideration it once was.
I’m not sure I entirely agree. I think the biggest problem Intel will have moving forward is energy efficiency. The new CPUs consume a really large amount of power when they’re under full load, compared to AMD. In addition to that AMD has its new smaller node coming out next year. So taking those two things into account I actually think AMD’s biggest advantage is power consumption being low at relatively high performance.
It doesn’t matter if all the working ranges are on the desktop. And that matters if you want a laptop.
Actually, I don’t really agree. 12700 and Windows 11 cope very effectively with the load during normal tasks and when I am texting with you about 35 degrees. Under heavy load up to 80 degrees, but this is usually rare.
If it’s not too much work for you: Could you measure what the idle power consumption is with your system? Ideally without dedicated graphics card, just CPU + IGPU + mainboard + 2-3 SSDs. Thanks in advance.
a little later, just a little busy)
Thanks, please test using both Windows default power saving profile and high power profile (or better Steinberg profile).
This is completely for green users who do not understand anything in the settings, I configure myself)
Sorry, not sure what you mean above.
But it’s not about just keeping the temperature down, it’s about keeping the temperature under control while increasing performance.
If you look at extreme overclockers for example they are able to get very high results when processing but it comes at the cost of higher temperatures that need better cooling. It’s the lack of power efficiency that makes the cooing requirement go up.
And as I said that can be a big problem in the future, and my bet is that AMD is much better able to create a more powerful processor at X Watts than Intel. This in turn means that with ‘equal cooling’ AMD could create a more powerful CPU, or conversely a lower power one.
PS: I’m talking about the future now.
I think we can do a better comparison using factory power schemes instead of custom ones.
We don’t have to unless we want to do DAW-use-specific comparisons. Unfortunately that won’t mean pretty much anything unless we all do the same test on different CPUs, which we won’t. So the load will be different for everyone who runs a test. Best thing I can think of is if everyone ran DAWbench to it’s limit and reported CPU power draw at the point of failure, but nobody here will do that because we don’t have time or the means or knowledge to do so.
In the meantime there’s this article though:
Under the headline “Power Consumption, Efficiency and Cooling:” you can see the power draw for both Alder Lake and AMD’s 5xxx-series CPUs.
Really the question is “If AMD had allowed their Ryzen CPUs to use as much power as Alder Lake, what would performance have been?” Then we take that question plus the charts in mind and we consider what AMD’s new 5nm process node can bring under different power scenarios.
In that context I think AMD is well prepared to battle both Intel and Apple on both the high and low end of the spectrum.