On 05/31/2012 07:16 AM, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 09:21 AM, Sciss wrote:
>> thanks for the link and the info. so you think atom processors are
>> fine enough? the latency actually doesn't matter in my case. i'm more
>> worried that i'm going to through a lot of CPU heavy stuff on it, as
>> this will run experimental software I wrote myself (and I won't have
>> any time for performance tuning of the software itself).
>
> I have an Atom N450 netbook. In practical terms, its limits for a
> single task are:
>
> * Time-stretching a clip in realtime to 50% to original
> time span.
>
> * A set with 4-5 monophonic synths, and 4-5 pure audio
> tracks.
>
> * All of the Renoise sample programs
>
> * Most anything you can throw at Mixxx.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing.
> While it has very good audio performance -- it has significantly less
> headroom than a Core2 or i-series processor (feels like a factor of 2 or
> 4).
>
> Other non-audio tasks:
>
> * Large compiles take 4-6x longer (e.g. kernel, Qt)
>
> * Number crunching tasks are very slow. It's like the
> floating point stuff is driving drunk.
LOL.
> * Processor has a high performance hit for inefficient
> memory access (compared to Core2, i-series).
Clearly. i5 has 8192KB L1 cache.
I have not seen an ATOM CPU with more than 512KB.
> * Processor doesn't benefit as much from SIMD (SSE)
> optimizations. E.g. you're lucky to get a 2x performance
> boost using SIMD instructions... whereas a Core2 or i-series
> will see at least a 2x performance boost.
>
> * Most Atom devices have only 1GB RAM (2GB if you're lucky).
> I've not seen an Atom device with more then 2GB.
Only a few Atom models support >2GB. The D525 for instance does.
> Finally, all this experience is in 32-bit mode. I've been running in
> 64-bit mode recently, but haven't done much audio with it. Overall, it
> feels about the same.
For audio (read: jackd) 64 bit should make no difference. It's all 32
bit floats, anyway.
The Atom D525 that Egor and i recommended is not that bad. I don't have
access to an Atom N450, but the N270 is waaaay /slower/:
Here's a quick jconvolver benchmark:
A - Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo CPU @ 1.66GHz (32 bit - 2 cores, 2 CPUs)
B - Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU @ 2.80GHz (64 bit - 4 cores, 4 CPUs)
C - Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU D525 @ 1.80GHz (64 bit - 2 cores, 4 CPUs)
D - Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N270 @ 1.60GHz (32 bit - 1 core, 2 CPUs)
1) `jackd -d alsa -p1024` ;
4 instatances of `jconvolver weird.conf` in series
first and last instance connected to system:*
A: CPU-load: 16% (all CPUs) jack-DSP-load: 7.1%
B: CPU-load: 6% (all CPUs) jack-DSP-load: 6.2%
C: CPU-load: 13% (all CPUs) jack-DSP-load: 10.6%
D: CPU-load: 56% (all CPUs) jack-DSP-load: 24.9%
2) `jackd -d alsa -p64`
4 instatances of `jconvolver weird.conf` in series
first and last instance connected to system:*
A: CPU-load; 27% (all CPUs) jack-DSP-load: 13.0%
B: CPU-load: 8% (all CPUs) jack-DSP-load: 7.3%
C: CPU-load: 18% (all CPUs) jack-DSP-load: 20.3%
D: -- jconv exit with 2nd instance: processor can't keep up ---
ciao,
robin
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
