How much processing power do CW cards contain?

Nisse · Post by **Nisse** » Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:04 pm

Just out of pure curiosity, how much processing power does one Sharc processor contain compared to todays computers?

Lets say you could try to run your CW software on a purely native basis, how fast of a processor would you need run all your devices and effects?

How long will it take untill CW dsp cards become obsolete? I mean, personal computers only get faster and faster, and better and better stuff can already be run with just a computer. (just look on Propellerheads and their Reason system for example)

Sorry if Im rambling but theses are just random things I ponder sometimes.
This is in no way an anti Creamware post, its just something that interests me.

j9k · Post by **j9k** » Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:41 pm

while processing power may be an issue i would consider a few other things first.

the plugs and synths sound great (with the modular you can build your own). the routing of signals graphically will let you see the signal flow. plus all of the 3rd party development of synths and plugs.

j9k

Nisse · Post by **Nisse** » Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:57 pm

I definately agree with you J9K.

Dont get me wrong here, I use a Creamware system too, with 2 Pulsar II cards and assorted extra plugins.

My above rambling is nothing more than an interest in the future of software audio devices.

RoonSmits · Post by **RoonSmits** » Sun Aug 24, 2003 5:25 pm

Not quite sure, but if I remeber well, there was a similar post a few years back. I believe a shark like we have on our cards equals the power of a G4 @ 450Mhz.

Ronald

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Sun Aug 24, 2003 5:27 pm

Considering how 'old' the technology is on the Pulsar cards and how 'powerful' new computers are, it's odd that nothing on native sounds as good as say MiniMax - native just doesn't seem to cut it. Why? i don't know. i'm not slagging off native (i use some VSTi - but not many) but it is interesting that native still isn't quite there yet, even though technology has apparently moved on at such a fast rate. i think it'll be a while before i ditch my CW cards for an all-native solution.

scary808 · Post by **scary808** » Sun Aug 24, 2003 5:46 pm

If my memory serves me, the sharcs run at 60 MHz each.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Aug 24, 2003 6:37 pm

imho clockrate doesn't have any meaning here unless you compare 2 versions of the same chip. Even then it may be difficult due to memory efficiency and temperature handling.
Or why does a Centrino 1.5 perform better than a mobile PIV at 2 ghz ?

DSPs are optimized for a certain kind of math and usually coded very close to the machine level in assembler.
Native CPUs are general purpose, unprecise in math (simplified) and coded in high level languages resulting in huge amounts of slow code. The difference may vary, but 5 to 50 times more efficiency between C++ and assembler isn't uncommon .
As we all know Sharcs perform extremely well as parallel processors - Luna versus Pulsar two results in twice the voices.
Don't try this with a Pentium or even a PowerPC

my 2 cents, Tom

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 4:36 am

How long will it take untill CW dsp cards become obsolete? I mean, personal computers only get faster and faster, and better and better stuff can already be run with just a computer. (just look on Propellerheads and their Reason system for example)

Reason is cool and all, but it sure doesn't even sound close to Creamware quality-wise.

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 6:16 am

On 2003-08-24 16:04, Nisse wrote:
How long will it take untill CW dsp cards become obsolete? I mean, personal computers only get faster and faster, and better and better stuff can already be run with just a computer. (just look on Propellerheads and their Reason system for example)

How long will it be until an oberheim will be obsolete? What about a Juno (are we tired of hoovers YET?) How about the harp? The piano? (wood is quite antiquated isn't it?) What about those animal skins....er drums?

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 7:48 am

I think that pretty much sums it up. Except for the fact that evolution of computer hardware could make the cards themselves obsolete but I don't see that happening anytime soon. (and even then you could keep an old computer to run them for quite some time. Some people still use Atari's

)

scary808 · Post by **scary808** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:18 pm

I have a feeling that even if CW does go under, I'll be an old man booting up a very old computer with CW cards inside. On the Atari note, Norman "Fatboy $lim" Cook still uses one for his sequencing last I heard.

decimator · Post by **decimator** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 6:25 pm

They would be obsolete if the sound quality was roughly equivalent to native ...
Fortunately it's not the case !
Strangely I feel the gap more and more when I jump from native to CW cards synths !

I find my natives weaker every day !!

Post by **Neil B** » Tue Aug 26, 2003 12:50 am

In response to Scary808:
Even if CW don't go under - I already AM an old man booting up a computer with CW cards inside

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Tue Aug 26, 2003 1:59 am

I really thought there was a polyphony issue with CW's cards until I tried the demo of Arturia's Moog Modular. That thing was CPU HUNGRY!! If I tried to do anything at all in polyphonic mode it would practically take up the entire CPU. I've got a P4 2.5GHz.

So I don't think native systems are all that much beyond CW at this point. Reason is extremely optimized, but everything else I've tried eats up CPU cycles quite a bit. CW shouldn't spend the time and money to upgrade all their products until the G5 becomes popular enough to implement PCI-X. Then they can move on to the next generation all at once and launch a big marketing campaign.

My 2c....

Shayne

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Tue Aug 26, 2003 2:28 am

Native developers sometimes cheat, because they can, and because they have to.

A couple of CPU cycles here, a couple of cycles there, throw in some prefabricated wav samples, drop an envelope on top, and voila! Sounds good, right?

Maybe, but the quality does not compare to the latest DSP synths and effects that are out for the CW platform.

Also, you can't compare DSP chips and CPU processors as someone mentioned earlier. Two different applications.

Anyone like to take a crack at programming a bunch of DSP chips? Good luck. You really have to know what you are doing.

spoimala · Post by **spoimala** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:36 am

Reason is cool and all, but it sure doesn't even sound close to Creamware quality-wise.

Could someone show me even one song made only with CW stuff sounding even near as good as Reason demo songs on their website...

borg · Post by **borg** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:31 am

tastes do differ, but i found some of the dr walker demo songs for minimax really awesome!

reason, sfp, vsti's, live, logic... all have their pro's and contra's. find whatever suits your needs. none of the real pro guys relies on one system (maybe an exception would be richard devine, who seems to swear by reaktor. but he has a room full of pc's to run them one... and even then, that interview is two years old)

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 5:33 pm

On 2003-09-03 08:36, spoimala wrote:
Reason is cool and all, but it sure doesn't even sound close to Creamware quality-wise.
Could someone show me even one song made only with CW stuff sounding even near as good as Reason demo songs on their website...

try the music section of planetZ.

I haven't heard those Reason demo songs, but it doesn't mention anywhere if there was processing applied afterwards or not so that could be a difference. Also these songs seem to be made by pretty well-known professional musicians so I'm not surprised if they can make it sound great, but I can't think of any pure-Creamware songs made by such well-known professionals (that's not to say there aren't any good nd professional musicians posting music here on the Z

) so you can't really make a good comparison.

A talented musician will always be able to make it sound good and I'm not saying you can't make great sounds and good music with Reason, but I think that if you were to compare bare-bones soundquality of the devices of Reason vs Creamware the latter would come out on top every time.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2003-09-03 18:42 ]</font>

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 5:35 pm

I'd say bounce down a track from reason and burn a cd, then play it in your car stereo. If you still think it sounds good, I'd be surprised.

R-type · Post by **R-type** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 9:43 pm

Reason isn't really that good sounding. It sounds a bit thin to me. The synths don;t really pitch very well either.

As for Creamware power you'll be surprised at how much raw music processing they can do.

A regular CPU is very much a generalist and while they are very powerful and could probably do a lot more in a straight spec comparison with a creamware board it is "real world" performance that counts and the Creamware cards are running software specifically written for them.

I would say a 15 dsp board could run more synths at higher quality than a 2 gigahertz Pentium how many ES2s can you run in logic? not that many.

When your doing things all on a computer you always need more power but you can't get it, you get way better performance adding a dsp board than adding another CPU.