Why do newer DAW's require higher CPU?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CrowsofFritz
  • Start date Start date
CrowsofFritz

CrowsofFritz

Flamingo!
I could understand this for plug-ins maybe, but does it really require THAT much more CPU to simply record and playback tracks on newer CPU.

For instance, on my old crappy computer with a Celeron 1.8 Ghz processor, I can play an old version of Reason no problem. On Reason 6, I can hardly play 4 or 5 tracks. Why?
 
More features = more code.

I can also imagine that when you're a developer, you're not going to bother going out of your way to make the software more efficient when technology is getting progressively more powerful and can handle the increase in workload.

Cheers :)
 
Having said that, Reaper is a DAW that is extremely lean, and appears to be very efficiently written.

I used to use Logic 4.3 on a Windows98 machine with 256mb RAM, 600hz CPU and a 16gb hard disk, and I used to get by pretty well. However, I used to do a lot of 'batch editing', and used very little in the way of real time effects.
 
Okay, so it appears I just don't understand code too well. So even if these features aren't being used (aren't active), the code is still there?


I actually just bought a new processor to up my crap Celeron. e4300 Core 2 Duo. It won't be night and day, but it should be quite a bit faster.
 
I would think, too, it has a lot to do with system requirements for the O/S. It takes a lot of cpu resources, just for a computer to sit idle these days.
 
More cores = more threads to carry data = better, faster, more efficient multitasking. DAW's aren't particularly streamlined as far as I can tell. Most of the processes seem to run in parallel fashion - the DAW itself, ASIO, VST plugin interfaces, effects engines...blah, blah, blah, blah and on and on.

One thing to note if you're considering upgrading though...upgrading your processor while still keeping 2GB of DDR2 RAM or some such nonsense on board is not going to improve (and in fact, might drastically impair) your computer's performance. If you need to upgrade your CPU, you need to upgrade everything to about the same level.
 
Thanks triquee!

Yeah, I actually upgraded some things. The RAM from 1 to 4. The HD. Got a new graphics card. The only thing I didn't really upgrade is the HDD and the motherboard.
 
A CPU does exactly what the name states, it 'processors' the data. Many modern applications, particularly 64-bit ones transfer large quantities of data and are programmed in a complex programming language, i.e. many 'calculation's/atomic instructions have to be done very quickly. New DAWs are no exception to this. They are very complex and require a lot of CPU power essentially. That's the trade off for great software.
 
I would think, too, it has a lot to do with system requirements for the O/S. It takes a lot of cpu resources, just for a computer to sit idle these days.

This. And only this, really. The DAWs have to run on newer OSes, which, unless the maintainers are bordering on insane, usually means discontinuing support for older OSes. The newer OSes have higher overhead than older ones, which means you need a faster CPU to avoid the OS's overhead getting in the way at inopportune times.

And audio is one of the hardest workloads you can come up with in terms of how it affects the OS's scheduler. It requires that the disk I/O be scheduled far enough in advance that the data is ready when you need it, and requires that the I/O to the audio hardware occurs within a fairly narrow window of time—after the audio hardware has read the previous data at that spot in its ring buffer, and before it wraps around to that spot on the next pass through the buffer—over and over without ever writing data too quickly or too slowly. And it is more demanding than most other difficult tasks. Tiny glitches in video playback are usually tolerated, but tiny errors in audio will drive you bonkers. Not to mention that video capture is trivial compared with audio because there is rarely any sort of latency concern, so the ring buffers can be much larger, with sloppier timing. :)

The worst offenders are drivers that hold interrupts off for long periods of time (some hardware SD card controllers, non-USB floppy drives, etc.), consume large bursts of CPU (USB mass storage in general), produce large numbers of interrupts (graphics chips), or some combination of the above (many Wi-Fi drivers, IIRC)—particularly when those devices share an interrupt with your audio interface. In the presence of such abuse, a faster CPU can often make the difference between smooth recording/playback and glitches by simply being so fast that the poor performance of those drivers doesn't matter.

So yeah, operating systems and, in particular, crappy drivers. :D

Oh, and more powerful plug-ins available in newer DAWs, of course, but those only matter if you use them. When you kick in stuff like convolution reverb, that sucks down serious CPU power. But I'm assuming the question was about base requirements, which probably shouldn't take into account the higher requirements of people who use insane numbers of high-power plug-ins.
 
A CPU does exactly what the name states, it 'processors' the data. Many modern applications, particularly 64-bit ones transfer large quantities of data and are programmed in a complex programming language, i.e. many 'calculation's/atomic instructions have to be done very quickly. New DAWs are no exception to this. They are very complex and require a lot of CPU power essentially. That's the trade off for great software.

The difference in data moved around by a 64-bit app versus a 32-bit app is mostly lost in the noise, actually—particularly when you're talking about audio, which is all floating-point math.
 
Back
Top