I said "not any time soon", not "never". The trouble is that this re-architecting of Logic to use OpenCL would take some time, not to mention it would require plugins to jump on board with whatever support is required.I am not sure I buy this.
I own an ancient TC powercore DSP processor for audio plugins as well as a fairly new FW800 DSP processor by Univeral Audio Digital.
Of course firewire benefits from isochronous transfer, but the DSP in both processors does have local ram (though not 3 or 6gb!).
From my understanding it's simply a matter of plug in delay compensation. Which pretty much all DAWs do automatically these days.
I do not see why Logic could not be configured on the back end to allocate some of the processing for effects, like convolution reverbs or amp sims, and adjust the delay to match the roundtrip.
After all, as a rule we generally don't record audio with plugins on the input. We play back from storage and add plug ins to taste during the mixdown phase. So "advancing" the audio to a GPU to process it before playing it back in sync with non-processed tracks shouldn't be an issue.
I think that Logic would be the most likely to move its own plugins over first, for sure. But like I said, moving plugins to work with GPUs takes some serious mental gymnastics. Much of what's out there is only at the research stage, which means it's probably a ways off from commercial use still.But you are leaving out that Logic has quite a few plugins and virtual instruments. These are easily (or not so easily if the dev work for openCL is as hard as you say) updated by Apple with it's internal resources.
btw, my powercore IS ancient, but my UAD quad is only a year old. Even UADs newest stuff still uses an expansion slot to provide TB connectivity.
Though you may be correct in terms of whatever the DSP and associated chips are.
I don't think that Apple has to, since having CL "exclusive" versions provides more of an incentive for Logic users to shell out the cash for a Mac Pro. I was thinking more about third party plugin developers. For them there's not much of a market for GPU optimized plugins much less ones that are GPU only.Interesting, I pretty much agree except for the last bit.
I don't think they must make CPU versions to correlate to GPU/openCL versions of their plugs.
This.Computing has really caught up to audio workloads and passed us up to conquer video workloads.
What if VI processing is handled exclusively by the GPU with the CPU reserved for track count and effects plugins? Wouldn't that be ideal? No need to play VIs from slave computers on a VEP ethernet network.But what if VI processing could be handled by either the CPU or a GPU and processing automatically transferred from back and forth as required? Sounds complicated. Will developers feel the programming effort is warranted?
in theory, not only isn't openCL tied to specific gpus or manufacturers, it's also meant to run on cpus as well..from what I understand openCL is not limited to the Mac Pros with FirePro cards. Intel has openCL for it's chipset video solutions as well. Not sure how platform specific openCL is. Or whether a task optimized for one card will fail on another or just run slow.
openCL wikipedia said:Open Computing Language (OpenCL) is a framework for writing programs that execute across heterogeneous platforms consisting of central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs), digital signal processors (DSPs), field-programmable gate arrays and other processors
I've never written code like this, but by the numbers latency on PCIe is really, really low microseconds, not milliseconds.What if VI processing is handled exclusively by the GPU with the CPU reserved for track count and effects plugins? Wouldn't that be ideal? No need to play VIs from slave computers on a VEP ethernet network.
Of course it would have to be for playback, or mixdown only, as real-time recording/overdubbing would have latency (CPU sends processing job to GPU, GPU processes and returns data back to CPU etc). Roundtrips take time.
And as DPUser said, massive VI orchestrations would be the exception. It's hard to really know how much of an improvement these machines will give with Logic, huge sample libraries, and potentially VEPro. Which is why I'm so eager to hear from people doing this sort of thing. Right now it's hard to get an idea of how a given MP compares to running a more modest machine along with a second computer.For audio applications horsepower of current computing devices is more than sufficient. The places we now run into bottlenecks are on storage and throughput. And even then only if you have dozens of tracks with multiple clips at high bandwidth.