How do E-cores work with the new Cakewalk Sonar?

[RexRed]

How do E-cores work with the new Cakewalk Sonar?

I currently have an Intel Core i9-10980XE which is 18 cores, 36 threads.

These cores are only 4.8ghz unlocked and I do not overclock them.

Contrast that with Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 cores (8 P-cores + 16 E-cores) 36M Cache, up to 5.8 GHz

Granted the E-cores are smaller and have less power but my songs rarely ever light up the entire array of cores I have right now.

Sometimes they focus too much towards one core.

And I would assume the E-cores would be great for load balancing. 

Also this processor runs at PCIE 5.0 and uses DDR5 ram. 

I would think the 20 PCIE 5.0 lanes would easily rival the 44 PCIE 3.0 lanes I currently have. 

Even with only 8 (hyperthreaded) cores I would think it would easily beat the performance of my 36 thread processor running at PCIE 3.0.

Anyone know if Cakewalk Sonar is optimized to make good use of E-cores? Windows 11 sure is and it would probably break up tasks for Cakewalk if possible, including, making higher speeds available for M.2 devices.

Is anyone using processors with E-cores for Cakewalk? What is your performance like? Any stutters and is the performance stable?

I need performance cores for rendering 3d art as they can help the graphics card, as well as the PCIE 5.0.

 I would think with this kind of throughput and power that Cakewalk "Sonar" would have no problem running massive loads with barely pushing the cores up in the perf chart.

 

1 PCIE 3.0 lane can handle 1 GB of transfer. So that would mean, 44 lanes would handle 44 GB of transfer.

While PCIE 5.0 one lane can handle 64 GB of transfer.

That one lane is faster than my entire 44 lane bus at 3.0 speed. 

 Thanks in advance for any help on this topic.

Edited June 6 by RexRed

[RexRed]

According to my sources, AMD is announcing their latest CPUs today in Taiwan shows. Intel is also showcasing their new CPUs there.

The last part of this year a whole new lineup of CPUs (and GPUs) are coming out.

I think now would not be a good time to buy a CPU or GPU.

Especially if I want something to accommodate a 5090 graphics card.

I tend to think the E-cores are the better solution over AMDs brute force approach.

But does Cakewalk play nice with E-cores?

Edited June 6 by RexRed

[Noel Borthwick]

At the application level we don’t distinguish between the core types. It just works with threads and we create one thread per core.
The OS scheduler and CPU itself handle the lower level management of the cores.

[RexRed]

On 6/7/2024 at 8:19 AM, Noel Borthwick said:

At the application level we don’t distinguish between the core types. It just works with threads and we create one thread per core.
The OS scheduler and CPU itself handle the lower level management of the cores.

Well, I bought a new computer (sort of).

A new motherboard, processor and RAM.

I was going to wait but I found a deal and realized I would probably not be able to afford the new chips Intel is coming out with in a few months.

Their introductory price will be just too much.

In a few months these "deals" might be snatched up and all that may be left is pricy options.

My 18 core hyperthreaded Intel extreme chip does not have enough megahertz and is PCIE 3.

So I am only replacing the CPU, Motherboard and RAM. 

It will cost me $1000 rather than 2 or $3000.

This is the deal I found. The more I looked at it the more I liked it.

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i9-13900K-Processor-Intel®12th-Motherboard/dp/B0BTT5M6ZX/ref=sr_1_10

The chip comes with onboard graphics which is nice for troubleshooting and you can turn it off if you don't need it.

First, I like ASUS motherboards and secondly.

8 hyperthreaded P-cores and 16 E-cores Cakewalk (and Windows 11 Pro) should play nice with those.

Especially considering they are PCIE 5.0 lanes to the CPU.

I currently have 18 cores but the lanes to each core is maxed out at one GB.

Just one lane of PCIE 5 is faster than all 44 lanes combined (upgrading for a RTX 5090 coming soon).

The new Intel chips are a modern marvel but I need to wait at least a year before I can buy one.

So why not take advantage of older technology that is still very powerful and a huge leap ahead of what I have now?

Over 500 of these ASUS motherboards have sold in the last month. 

 Now to refresh my skills on building this PC.

I had to buy the new DDR5 RAM as well.

I went with this. (I hope it is compatible, if not I will return the RAM)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BVN11ZRB 

If you follow suit remember to buy some Thermal Grizzly - Kryonaut - Thermal Paste (suggestion)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07FLL3QDZ

 I am using my old Noctua NH-U12A, Premium CPU Cooler.

Let me know if you plan to go for this build, we can trade notes.

Best

 

Edited June 9 by RexRed
typos

[RexRed]

I went with: 

ASUS TUF Gaming Z790-Plus WiFi LGA 1700(Intel 14th,12th &13th Gen) ATX Gaming Motherboard(PCIe 5.0,DDR5,4xM.2 Slots,16+1 DrMOS,WiFi 6,2.5Gb LAN,Front USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C,Thunderbolt 4(USB4),Aura RGB)

Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 (8 P-cores + 16 E-cores) with Integrated Graphics - Unlocked

CORSAIR VENGEANCE DDR5 RAM 96GB (2x48GB) 5200MHz CL38 Intel XMP iCUE Compatible Computer Memory - Black (CMK96GX5M2B5200C38)

remember to buy

Noctua NM-i17xx-MP78, Mounting Kit for Noctua CPU Coolers on Intel's LGA1700 Platform ( for a Noctua cooler mounting)

and

Thermal Grizzly - Kryonaut - 1 Gram - Extremly High Performance Thermal Paste - for Demanding Applications and Overclocking CPU/GPU/PS4/PS5/Xbox

The thing in the video about single core performance is the biggest factor.

Cakewalk Sonar has load balancing but if one core is favored in any way, your song is limited by that.

Here is a link to a combo deal with both motherboard and chip.

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i9-13900K-Processor-Intel®12th-Motherboard/dp/B0C4J8LBNH/ref=sr_1_6

I am buying these now because when the new CPUs come out, they may require a new chipset and maybe even socket and they will be more expensive. When the new Intel chips come out, the price may go down more on these and availability on these older parts may become limited. 

Edited June 13 by RexRed

[msmcleod]

It's worth taking a look at this article explaining how the P/E core scheduling works on Windows 10 & Windows 11:

https://aloiskraus.wordpress.com/2024/02/08/hybrid-cpu-performance-on-windows-10-and-11/

TLDR:  If the process is running at a priority of normal or above, then Windows will choose the performance cores first, then fall back to the efficiency cores.  If the process is running below normal, it'll pick the efficiency cores first.

The Audio engine in Sonar/CbB runs at a fairly high priority (higher if MMCSS is checked in preferences, which it is by default), so Windows should be giving priority to performance cores.

If e-cores do end up used for audio processing you could experience drop-outs if the e-cores fail to process audio in time.  In essence they become the weakest link in the chain.  In saying that,  the e-core max turbo frequency is 4.30 GHz on a 13000K, and 4.5GHz on the i9-14900KS which should be ample for even the most demanding project.  Of course, the fix is just to up your ASIO buffer size if/when this happens.

The only time having a higher ASIO buffer could cause issues, is when you need to re-record or overdub a track later on in the mixing process. There are various workarounds for this including freezing tracks, turning off effects, or bouncing all the other tracks to a single audio track and temporarily archiving those other tracks while you track.

 

[Xoo]

Don't some of the Intel CPUs with e-cores have reduced instruction sets for the e-cores (eg. less powerful SSE)?  I have no idea what would happen if a plug-in that could use (and expected) these instructions got bounced to an e-core.

[Wookiee]

2 hours ago, Xoo said:

Don't some of the Intel CPUs with e-cores have reduced instruction sets for the e-cores (eg. less powerful SSE)?  I have no idea what would happen if a plug-in that could use (and expected) these instructions got bounced to an e-core.

I could be wrong but the biggest difference between P & E cores, from what I have read  is E cores can't hyper-thread.

When I searched the question "Do E-cores in intel CPU's have the same instruction set as P-cores". The answer was yes.

[RexRed]

2 hours ago, Wookiee said:

I could be wrong but the biggest difference between P & E cores, from what I have read  is E cores can't hyper-thread.

When I searched the question "Do E-cores in intel CPU's have the same instruction set as P-cores". The answer was yes.

I could be wrong as well but I do not believe the E-cores have the same instruction set as P-cores. Now, there may be a software layer above them that handles instructions. This is the whole reason why they are E-cores is because they are (I believe) built on ARM processors. It is these instructions built into the P-cores that cause heat and power consumption. So the E-cores are pretty much workhorses that do whatever is thrown at them without question. They do not pre-process that information. This makes them more efficient when it comes to raw data. I am still learning about this stuff so, again, I could be wrong about this. The fewer instructions is a benefit.

Edited June 13 by RexRed

[Wookiee]

@RexRed as my reply states I did an internet search with the quoted question and the replies I got back all said yes, for i7/9 ,10/11/12/13/14 gen intel CPU's.

As far as I know ARM CPU's use a very different architecture.  The current Intel architecture is an extension of the DEC Alpha CPU which basically had reprogrammable arrays that could be configured to emulate different CPU's  and enable Hyper threading.

[RexRed]

13 minutes ago, Wookiee said:

@RexRed as my reply states I did an internet search with the quoted question and the replies I got back all said yes, for i7/9 ,10/11/12/13/14 gen intel CPU's.

As far as I know ARM CPU's use a very different architecture.  The current Intel architecture is an extension of the DEC Alpha CPU which basically had reprogrammable arrays that could be configured to emulate different CPU's  and enable Hyper threading.

Upon searching Google, you are correct, the E-cores are not built on ARM processors. Sorry for the confusion. 

[Wookiee]

8 minutes ago, RexRed said:

Upon searching Google, you are correct, the E-cores are not built on ARM processors. Sorry for the confusion. 

I used Alpha PC's and servers, and at one time worked for the company that eventually gave birth to the ARM CPU architect. 

[Xoo]

It's the Xeon e vs p I was remembering, where there are differences - not likely relevant here:

[RexRed]

12 hours ago, Wookiee said:

I used Alpha PC's and servers, and at one time worked for the company that eventually gave birth to the ARM CPU architect. 

I believe that many of the instruction sets are now being replaced by AI, and another big event on the horizon is when our DAWs switch over to the GPU rather than the CPU for processing. ?

[Wookiee]

@Xoo people forget Xeon processors were always aimed at the server market. Where you don't always need processing grunt just file movement which is what e-cores are good at, i. e. Mundane simple tasks. I used to manage networks and server farms.

@RexRed a lot of the advances in AI have been made using GPU technology because the average GPU has a lot more cores than most high spec CPU'S.

Have you tried any the GPU FX from GPU audio. When I last investigated unfortunately neither of my GPU's were compatible, since investing in a new PC with a higher spec GPU I have not tried. You are right I think there is a lot of scope for DSP processing on GPU's in DAW's. 

 

[jackson white]

11 hours ago, Wookiee said:

scope for DSP processing on GPU's in DAW's

might require a rethink in how things are done, but my understanding is single core -clock speed- is the limiting factor for robust DAW playback (in conjunction with buffer size, however that gets managed in the CPU cache?), so not sure how GPU capacity would help. but to be sure, i don't have any specific domain expertise to base this statement on. it's worth noting Cakewalk has managed to run significantly heavier loads here than just about any other DAW, perhaps even better than Reaper, which has been widely touted as the leader in this area.

[Wookiee]

29 minutes ago, jackson white said:

might require a rethink in how things are done, but my understanding is single core -clock speed- is the limiting factor for robust DAW playback (in conjunction with buffer size, however that gets managed in the CPU cache?), so not sure how GPU capacity would help. but to be sure, i don't have any specific domain expertise to base this statement on. it's worth noting Cakewalk has managed to run significantly heavier loads here than just about any other DAW, perhaps even better than Reaper, which has been widely touted as the leader in this area.

Check out www.GPU.audio they are already producing FX that run in spare GPU processing capacity. 

[RexRed]

A couple of big things I have found out about using these new E-cores.

Before, when I would record takes, sometimes Cakewalk would  ignore the fact that I recorded a take, I would be left with a blank. It happened rarely but did happen enough times.

Also, sometimes a take would position itself delayed in the song, like a computer hiccup threw off its recognition of time.

I don't know if it is the new Cakewalk (which I doubt) or the new E-cores, but I do not have these problems anymore.

I am quite certain the E-cores are taking care of background tasks and Cakewalk no longer hiccups or blanks out takes during recording.

Fingers crossed it stays this way.

I think everything being processed by the same cores comes with hugely inherent problems.

I think tons of dropouts were also a result of the same cores being use for "everything".

I have not had one single dropout with the new setup but the song I am working on has not become complex yet.

When I first started out I thought the Cakewalk Sonar CPU monitor did not work on the new CPU.

After a while I started to see tiny activity in the monitor. ?

Edited June 16 by RexRed

[Wookiee]

@RexRed what is your new CPU. I believe mine is in my signature but signatures don't show on my tablet. If not currently I have an i9 14900 K. 8 P cores 16 E cores 32 threads.

Noel wrote something about Cakewalk doesn't treat cores differently. 

[RexRed]

1 hour ago, Wookiee said:

@RexRed what is your new CPU. I believe mine is in my signature but signatures don't show on my tablet. If not currently I have an i9 14900 K. 8 P cores 16 E cores 32 threads.

Noel wrote something about Cakewalk doesn't treat cores differently. 

ASUS TUF Gaming Z790-Plus WiFi LGA 1700(Intel 14th,12th &13th Gen) ATX Gaming Motherboard(PCIe 5.0,DDR5,4xM.2 Slots,16+1 DrMOS,WiFi 6,2.5Gb LAN,Front USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type-C,Thunderbolt 4(USB4),Aura RGB)

Intel Core i9-13900K Desktop Processor 24 (8 P-cores + 16 E-cores) with Integrated Graphics - Unlocked

CORSAIR VENGEANCE DDR5 RAM 96GB (2x48GB) 5200MHz CL38 Intel XMP iCUE Compatible Computer Memory - Black (CMK96GX5M2B5200C38)

2xNvidia RTX 3090s

2tb M.2, 4tb M.2, 18tb HD, 12tb HD and X2 8TB HDs.