Atom processor inside Kronos...what the heck ??

ozy · Post by **ozy** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:57 am

shut up you all!

The guy's got a huge studio with SEVERAL minimoogs. Not one. Several.

So, let Hirohito Wakeman talk!

End of topic!!!

X-Trade · Post by **X-Trade** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:35 am

You know what we say about the atom in the computer business - it only has one atom to 'think' with!

Anyway, its not that bad. It might be rubbish at running Windows, but it is very popular for embedded systems like the KRO/ASYS and is not 'outdated. It is current-gen, but low power technology. There will also be tablets running off the Atom CPU in the near future.

The other point is that you can not in any way compare the KRONOS nor the OASYS to a triditional PC. It might share the same base hardware, but that is where the comparisons end. It only uses the hardware for convenience, it is a multipurpose programmable CPU, and the OS that runs on it has been specifically tailored to work exactly at peak efficiency with that CPU. Same with the P4 (which to be perfectly honest was a dreadful processor, gets too hot, etc). And this still gives it an advantage over a traditional keyboard synthesizer, because it can be easily repurposed and can react dynamically in ways that custom or general purpose DSPs would find hard to achieve. And as others have said, there is little-to-no weight of the OS loading the processor down, because the synth is the OS.

Sure, if KRONOS had an Core2Duo or I7 processor then it would probably have twice if not three times as many voices, but it would cost a heck of a lot more, and that wasn't really the point, because the product wouldn't be competitive.

I'll tell you, I've got a Core2 Duo 2.86 GHz powered custom keyboard-PC with 4gb DDR2 RAM running the absolute minimum configuration of Windows XP, and the MS-20 software instrument if installed on that can still only reach 26 maybe 30 voices if you push it.

orpheus2006 · Post by **orpheus2006** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:44 pm

X-Trade wrote:I'll tell you, I've got a Core2 Duo 2.86 GHz powered custom keyboard-PC with 4gb DDR2 RAM running the absolute minimum configuration of Windows XP, and the MS-20 software instrument if installed on that can still only reach 26 maybe 30 voices if you push it.

Good point. That's one of the reasons why I prefer to have a dedicated workstation. A SW-based music studio remains to be unreliable and unpredictable. I'm not talking about sequencing or audio recording, but sound synthesis and effects for larger arrangements. I know the freeze button, sure.

Cardinal Fang · Post by **Cardinal Fang** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:01 pm

The Kronos isn't a PC - it has no operating system between it and the sound generating algorithms.

Compare it to the Open Labs workstations that need Core i5 because they have to run Windows as well as everything else. The OASYS had a custom-written Linux OS, hence the requirement for a Pentium 4 (not the best choice but hey, I didn't design it).

The Atom can run netbooks and even entry-level desktops. Combine this with low power consumption and you got just the right combination. If you have a Mini, you don't stick a Ferrari engine in it (well at least you don't if you've got any sense).

orpheus2006 · Post by **orpheus2006** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:15 pm

Cardinal Fang wrote:If you have a Mini, you don't stick a Ferrari engine in it (well at least you don't if you've got any sense).

A bit OT, but I have a BMW MINI convertible with a 170 HP engine which is just good. Wouldn't want less

BasariStudios · Post by **BasariStudios** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:21 pm

macalister wrote:Kronos is powered by an Atom processor. And Intel Core i7 demonstrates up to 40 times the processing performance of the Intel Atom. Think !!.An atom processor cost 20$ this days.So Don’t be a fool !.So is useless to trow you’re money for outdated technology like Kronos...Is obvious that Korg try to steal our money by offering nothing impressive just an outdated CPU !!!!.

Do u expect to built patches using up to 8 synth engines all at the same time USING KRONOS ??. Sweet dreams Kronos is not offering such power because is powered by Atom processor and not i7.i WOULD EXPECT TO FIND 2(TWO) i7 PROCESSORS INSIDE KRONOS FOR THAT PRICE. But is not . Is just a garbaged Atom processor.. End of story . At least with Motif u can have 8 elements per patch and many more filters...So i will go rebuy Motif XS with FW for just 1400$..

End of TOPIC !!!.

I always tell my exes that i am better then their current BFs cuz i cant have them=Jelaousy!

NuSkoolTone · Post by **NuSkoolTone** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:22 pm

This is the same toolbag who made the same post on the motif forums. Don't feed the clueless troll!

I'd MUCH rather have a cool and reliable solution that doesn't need much cooling. It's not like Korg is goign to put an update motherboard for it down the road. Has ANYONE for ANY synth? No! Daughterboards maybe, but even that's rare.

With the given specs, I'm not too worried about running out of power. Not for quite a few years in which there will be another whole slew of workstations. Seriously, this much power under the hood and the guy's complaining. Clueless!

rfoshaug · Post by **rfoshaug** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:25 pm

The original poster makes it sound like the CPU is what you're paying for in a workstation... and that a cheap / "outdated" CPU in a new expensive workstation is Korg ripping off its customers.

BUT...

What about the cost of developing the OS, synth engines, sequencer etc. What about the cost of the metal chassis and buttons, sliders, knobs and whatnot.

Besides, as many have already pointed out, the Atom may be perfect for this kind of use. Wouldn't surprise me if it's even UNDERclocked to a slower speed than normal to increase durability and reliability.

It's probably a single-core version of Atom as well, as developing such tailor-made software for a multi-core CPU might be much much more complicated than a single-core one.

And it would be fun to compare the processing power of the Kronos CPU to that of any Motif.

The point is, that the secret to creating a good synth is not just raw processing power, but the way this power is used and the synthesis and GUI and how it all works together. The Kronos won't have to do virus scans, networking, and all those processes you see in Windows. It has an 800x600 screen and does ONE thing, which is the "Kronos application" if you will... Tailor-made OS and software running on this CPU is not comparable to a PC running windows.

The same goes for storage space. I saw some posts over at the Yamaha forum saying that the next Yamaha synth should have TERABYTES of samples onboard. But the point is not to have the most bytes, the point is that you'll need to fill them with high-quality samples, and THAT's where the money go.

The cost of a synth is not primarily due to gigaherz'es or megabytes, but the intellectual property of OS, GUI, sound programming, sample contents, as well as the physical build quality (chassis, keybed, display etc) of the unit, and other physical features such as isolating AC power noise from the audio ins/outs and accuracy and quality of realtime controls etc.

BasariStudios · Post by **BasariStudios** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:36 pm

Ignore this guy, Macalister, its already figured it out...i am ashamed to be from where
he is too (Balkans)...it is in our blood, when we cant have something or if
something is better then what we have we just simply attack it out of jelaousy.

Christian Baum · Post by **Christian Baum** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:36 pm

What's interesting anyway: Is it really ONLY the Atom? I can't imagine that! Even without "Windows" overhead, it needs to run some operating system, receive touch info and put out the graphics!

Is it possible that it additionally processes up to 16 (!) synths of which nine can be completely different, each with 40 or more voices (140 with HD-1)? Some of these play back samples, others are realtime calculations of analog circuit models. Then there is a synth engine with one or more filters, envelopes plus FX.

Do you really believe that this can be done without extra DSPs? Remember that a Virus TI uses several Sharc DSP to calculate up to 16 analog models with 80 voices maximum! How should an Atom processor do that when a comparable netbook struggles with two or three synths and samplers of the U-he Zebra / NI Kontakt level? Even without the OS, this doesn't account for so much processing power in the Kronos, does it?

Any official statements on on-board DSPs here?

Best regards,

Christian

Megakazbek · Post by **Megakazbek** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:08 pm

OS overhead is virtually zero. Even in complex system like Windows, if you open Task Manager in idle system, you'll see that it takes maybe just 1% of CPU resources, and in embedded system like Kronos/OASYS it is probably even less. So it's not a factor at all.
The difference is, when you're programming for Windows, you can't use any low-level "hacks" for performance improvement because your program needs to be compatible with billions of possible PC configurations, OS/DAW versions, various hardware, etc, etc, so you need to use high-level APIs that are compatible with everything at cost of slower speed. When you're programming for a closed system like Kronos or OASYS, you know exactly what configuration your computer has and you can optimize parts of code on very low level which can get you ENORMOUS performance increase (if you get to the level when you, for example, reorder CPU assembler instructions in specific way to suit a specific processor microarchitecture, then achieving 10-20 times faster code is not uncommon).

orpheus2006 · Post by **orpheus2006** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:36 pm

CPU speed alone doesn't determine overall performance. For example, I have two laptops, one for private and one for business use. The one with much faster CPU (Intel dual core 2,8 GHz) is much slower than the other one (Intel dual core 1,8 Ghz, even older generation). Why? I usually don't use it for number crunching. The difference in this example is the hard disk rotation speed and GPU speed.

We can assume that Korg managed to build an instrument that can stream samples or synthesize sounds (while playing) w/o any disruptions or disturbing noise, and that is what counts.

RadekK · Post by **RadekK** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:29 pm

Hi!

I'm "late new" here but anyway...

Christian Baum wrote:What's interesting anyway: Is it really ONLY the Atom? I can't imagine that! Even without "Windows" overhead, it needs to run some operating system, receive touch info and put out the graphics!

We shouldn't judge things using PC related benchmarks for such custom made software/hardware combinations like Kronos. Many dedicated DSP chips are slower than humble Atom... It's ever growing PC software which make bigger demands on CPU power. Single 100MHz Motorola 56K DSP can deliver a lot. Why 1.6GHz (or it's 1.8?) dual core, 128bit vector capable Atom couldn't?

Christian Baum wrote:Is it possible that it additionally processes up to 16 (!) synths of which nine can be completely different, each with 40 or more voices (140 with HD-1)? Some of these play back samples, others are realtime calculations of analog circuit models. Then there is a synth engine with one or more filters, envelopes plus FX.

Do you really believe that this can be done without extra DSPs? Remember that a Virus TI uses several Sharc DSP to calculate up to 16 analog models with 80 voices maximum!

How high clocked are Sharc DSPs? How many arithmetic operations they can retire every clock? Looking at Analog Devices site they are 450MHz at best. Atom is +1.6GHz x 2 cores x 2 dual issue pipeline. It's simplification but do the math...
Of course more contemporary Core CPU would do so much better but... every buck counts. There is also the heat envelope to consider. The ULV CPU variants are rather expensive...

Christian Baum wrote: How should an Atom processor do that when a comparable netbook struggles with two or three synths and samplers of the U-he Zebra / NI Kontakt level? Even without the OS, this doesn't account for so much processing power in the Kronos, does it?

It struggles at such synth implementations. Remember vast processing power is given for PC computers. Developers doesn't have to count every machine cycle on PC. Programming is hard and takes lots of time. When you don't have to worry about CPU performance (because HW is so powerful) you don't.

There're few VST synths which consume very little CPU and yet sound great. Freeware Synth1 and commercial Sylenth1 come to mind... I've remember that Gigasampler hadn't any problems streaming lots of voices on a puny Pentium (by todays standards) long time ago too.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:51 pm

BasariStudios wrote:Ignore this guy, Macalister, its already figured it out...i am ashamed to be from where
he is too (Balkans)...it is in our blood, when we cant have something or if
something is better then what we have we just simply attack it out of jelaousy.

I'm from there, too, and you don't see me doing that!

vEddY · Post by **vEddY** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:31 pm

X-Trade wrote:Same with the P4 (which to be perfectly honest was a dreadful processor, gets too hot, etc).

Generally yes, but the Northwood p4-based cpus weren't that hot. Prescotts were. Oasys has a northwood core from what i remember...

Korg Forums

Atom processor inside Kronos...what the heck ??

Re: Atom processor inside Kronos...what the heck ??