In a prior blog post, I proclaimed proudly that my latest scratch-built audio workstation would handle any sort of processing load my musical ambitions could throw at it. High-def 24-bit, 96 kHz audio. Surround sound. Blah, blah, blah. That was a foolish statement.
Yes, we stand at the event horizon of the audio processing singularity, but one thing prevents us from crossing over (and becoming elongated spaghetti noodles): With the latest generation of processors come new applications (and lazy programmers) that gleefully consume every technological resource Moore’s Law tosses at our hungry little mouths. Consequently, my music projects have been stalling, just in sight of the finish line. Yeah, I could save some CPU cycles by dropping down to 16-bit or 48 kHz (or both), but in my quest for excellence (read “audio geek pride”), I’m unwilling to do that. I am also unwilling to upgrade my hardware, given that the state of the art in CPU technology (compared to four years ago, when I first built this machine) promises only a 30-50% processing boost for audio applications. I know. “Huh?! Aren’t today’s processors magnitudes of order more powerful than those of four years ago?”
Here’s the problem for audio professionals: Most of the performance gains in recent generations of processors relate to multithreading, where the most powerful processors have an abundance of parallel processing “cores.” However, a single channel of audio demands serial processing. That is, a mono channel of audio with, for example, three processors applied to it – say, EQ, delay, and reverb – must, by natural law, process each effect in turn because, after all, the reverb has no way of predicting what the delay will do to the audio signal. It must wait. Likewise for the delay and EQ. So, CPUs with high core counts, while generally beneficial, are somewhat crippled in the audio world, except perhaps where your core count surpasses your channel count (with a few to spare for the OS and host application). To put this in perspective, most commercial mixing sessions have three dozen audio channels, minimum, so until Moore’s Law brings us 64 cores (and applications that can efficiently implement them), the full capabilities of those processors will be unrealized.
This is where we all hold hands and say, “fark.”
A Technological Alternative to Pseudo-Profanity
Without the promise of a worthwhile return on my investment in hardware upgrades, I chose to investigate another option, spoken of only in dark circles: Overclocking.
Actually, most folks are by now at least familiar with the concept of overclocking though they’ve probably not tried it, myself included. It’s scary stuff, operating outside the boundaries prescribed by equipment manufacturers and their eye-squinting warranties. Executed poorly, overclocking can render your mission-critical audio workstation unstable, putting irreplaceable recording sessions and data at risk. At the extreme, overclocking can destroy expensive computer components.
But then there’s the promise of overclocking done properly – meaningful gains in processing power for the price of a single Oreo™ cookie. [I haven’t eaten Oreos in years – too many carbs – so that sounds pretty delicious right now.] I choose the Oreo cookie.
Thankfully, my computer’s hardware is optimized for overclocking (through sheer dumb luck – overclocking wasn’t among my original shopping criteria). My motherboard, an Asus P9X79 LE, appears to be purpose-built for overclocking, with an overwhelming array of options available in its BIOS and plenty of how-to videos available on YouTube. And my processor too, an Intel Core i7-4930K @ 3.4 GHz, where “K” means that the core multipliers and other overclocking features are “unlocked.” Who knew?
So far, my steps have been of the baby variety. I performed the simplest procedure recommended by ‘experts,’ adjusting the core multipliers from “Auto” to “44.” That’s it. It’s supposed to generate 4.4 GHz, but I instead got a boost to around 4.1 GHz. It’s a subtle increase but an increase nonetheless, and without cost – no perceivable increase in heat yet, even under full load. [Technically speaking, my core temps are hovering around 30°C while the purported “danger zone” is way up around 85°C.]
But, it turns out, 4.1 GHz is all I needed to get my bloated projects over the finish line. I can now insert my icing-on-the-cake (read “CPU-hogging”) audio plugins without running out of processing power. And if I need more, it’s apparent I can push the overclocking further.
But – let’s not forget – a newb overclocker can only get so far adjusting the core multipliers alone. To reach 5.0 GHz and beyond will require a much greater commitment. Studying the arcane scripts. Speaking the forbidden words. A lamb sacrifice. As such, I hope to get by with what I’ve got until AMD or Intel produce something worth upgrading to.
There’s a warm glow on the event horizon. It’s so close. One day, we’ll get there. One day.
For the record, technological obsolescence forced me to upgrade my audio card, and it produced some unexpected, yet significant, performance gains too.
To be specific, a random Windows Automatic Update rendered my trusty 16-channel Lynx AES16 audio card unreliable. No longer supported by the manufacturer (though, in their defense, they did try), I dropped some cash on its successor, the PCIe-compliant, AES16e. That’s right – $699 for a letter “E.” You can see why I resisted this upgrade for so long.
But, whether it’s PCIe’s improved bus speed or drivers & software that are several generations younger, this card moves! Most importantly, it supports buffer sizes beyond 1024 samples (a hard limit of the AES16), meaning I can now push the computer to do more (with corresponding latency – an acceptable compromise while mixing and mastering) before experiencing any audio glitches.
In fact, these gains were so impressive, I purchased a second AES16e and doubled my workstation’s I/O from 16 to 32. Do I need 16 more audio inputs/outputs? Only if I want more synthesizers. So, yes.
Even with the additional I/O, my workstation is faster now than it ever was.
So, if you’re looking to eek out some more processing horsepower from your audio workstation, be sure to look at your audio interface card. It might just be the bottleneck you weren’t aware of.