| Author
|
Quad,Dual,Daul Core proccesors and Cpu Overload in your sequenser !!!
|
Albertos
Albertos
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
269
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 00:10:02
|
I'have some question for quad core and dual core users...(pc version)!!!
What Processor are you think the best for vst performance and cpu anti-overload in your sequensor???!!!
Which one is the best for multiple tracks and full power plugins on this tracks????
I Think that dual core E6400 thats enough...for all this operations?! |
|
|
Medea
Aedem/Medea
Started Topics :
127
Posts :
1132
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 00:37
|
i have core 2 duo e6300 (1.8 Ghz) and never load CPU over 80%, without any freeze or rendering. 20 - 25 tracks with VSTi are more than enough for me 
 http://soundcloud.com/aedem |
|
|
|
Albertos
Albertos
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
269
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 09:02
|
|
Yeah,but if are you using...on each of the tracks something like c1 compressor and Ultramaximizer,and each Virtual instruments are effected with some delay or reverb or flange or something else...whats happen with cpu???.I'have Luna II dsp sound card,and if i swich lattency to 1 ms and freq to 96 on 24 bit...my cpu is jumping up over 80% without effects and maybe one vsti like albino...I'have some old system proccesor 2.4 and its not dual or quad core...are the new processors can give me best performance whithout thinking about overload??? |
|
|
|
Alex Roudos
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
411
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 09:53
|
Why would you have a latency of 1ms and a freq of 96Khz, since they kill your cpu without offering anything significant(if you don't record external sources that is)?
I'm still working with a single core Athlon XP 3.7 and i rarely experience any need for more power(except for my UAD card/plugs)
No one can guarantee you that a dual or quad core will be sufficient for you, because we don't know your way of working. If, for example, you have 100 tracks in each project, with different vst fx in each one and another 20-30 vst instruments, then maybe it won't be enough.
But, if this is not your case, i would say that a quad core would be absolutely fine.
A friend told me once that the biggest mistake we make is that we believe we live, when in reality we are sleeping in the waiting room of life. |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 10:40
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-06-02 09:02, Dj Loopper wrote:
I'have some old system proccesor 2.4 and its not dual or quad core...are the new processors can give me best performance whithout thinking about overload???
|
|
In a word no.
Just chuck a few instances of Massive with high polyphony and watch them all collapse. Or even just insist on using URS comps and EQs on everything. That'll kill any system quite quickly. Let alone Neon EQ.
I'm having to change my working methods to suit my current systems shortfalls with regards to power.
I use often over 40-50 vsti's with load of fx and loads of audio tracks too.
Apart from anything else, it isn't just about CPU usage, I'm consistently reaching the point in my tracks where I run out of addressable RAM for the system, due to the number of freezed VST's I've got.
So, even IF the CPU can handle everything that the user throws at it, the rest of the system may not be able to.
Solution? I only ever have one instrumental VST going on. Percussion and bass I keep open, but apart from that, only ever one VSTi open.
I have a 3700 Athlon 64, and yes, I could use more power, but no matter how much I upgrade the chip, even if I could somehow get it to a point where it could chomp through all the expensive plugs I wanted it to gobble, I still couldn't work the way I want to, as the system cannot address enough RAM, and no 32bit system can. And 64bit driver support STILL is a farce. .
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
Albertos
Albertos
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
269
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 11:33
|
[quote]
[On 2008-06-02 09:53, Alex Roudos wrote:
Why would you have a latency of 1ms and a freq of 96Khz, since they kill your cpu without offering anything significant(if you don't record external sources that is)?]
Latency its really important for me ,because recording external audio systems...and analogic instruments...,but thanks for your advice... |
|
|
|
Alex Roudos
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
411
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 12:06
|
[quote]
On 2008-06-02 11:33, Dj Loopper wrote:
Quote:
|
[On 2008-06-02 09:53, Alex Roudos wrote:
Why would you have a latency of 1ms and a freq of 96Khz, since they kill your cpu without offering anything significant(if you don't record external sources that is)?]
Latency its really important for me ,because recording external audio systems...and analogic instruments...,but thanks for your advice...
|
|
Ok, i get what you say. In my case, i set the latency to 5ms and i always record at 44.1/24bit. No problems whatsoever, and no complaints from anyone, be it an artist or a record label. And i'm never afraid that my cpu will get "fried" or run out of "juice".
A friend told me once that the biggest mistake we make is that we believe we live, when in reality we are sleeping in the waiting room of life. |
|
|
|
XuN
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
499
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 13:55
|
I'm running a quad core 1.44GHz with 4GB Ram.
I can run around 25 VSTi's and 20 vst's and still be on 40% cpu usage...
www.xun.dk / myspace.com/xundk
!!PLUR!! |
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 15:04
|
|
yeah. Get a quad core and forget freezing. |
|
|
|
orange
Fat Data
Started Topics :
154
Posts :
3918
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 15:11
|
[quote]
On 2008-06-02 12:06, Alex Roudos wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2008-06-02 11:33, Dj Loopper wrote:
Quote:
|
[On 2008-06-02 09:53, Alex Roudos wrote:
Why would you have a latency of 1ms and a freq of 96Khz, since they kill your cpu without offering anything significant(if you don't record external sources that is)?]
Latency its really important for me ,because recording external audio systems...and analogic instruments...,but thanks for your advice...
|
|
Ok, i get what you say. In my case, i set the latency to 5ms and i always record at 44.1/24bit. No problems whatsoever, and no complaints from anyone, be it an artist or a record label. And i'm never afraid that my cpu will get "fried" or run out of "juice".
|
|
+1 for roudos.
settting ur soundcard to work on 1ms is unworkable.. the best i could get with a soundcard is 2ms on a rme ff400 btu after some vsti opened i had to go to 4ms.
4ms is more then ok for most of the needs of an artist. going lower than that combined with 96khz is just killing ur cpu any cpu dual or quad core.
http://www.landmark-recordings.com/
http://soundcloud.com/kymamusic |
|
|
|
Albertos
Albertos
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
269
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 15:58
|
Thanks orange , 4 ms it's enough i've got!!!
On weekend i wll try some core 2 duo experience with 4 gb memory,hope this will give all what ineed...thanks for the help guys!!! |
|
|
|
Medea
Aedem/Medea
Started Topics :
127
Posts :
1132
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 21:12
|
A bit offtopic, how do i convert samples to milliseconds? My audiocard driver says that the latency is 256 samples, how many milliseconds is it?
http://soundcloud.com/aedem |
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : Jun 2, 2008 21:53
|
|
acidkills
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
26
Posts :
431
Posted : Jun 3, 2008 00:41
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-06-02 21:53, Colin OOOD wrote:
Here's another way of looking at it: every millisecond of latency gives you about the same delay as standing another foot away from the speakers.
|
|
Nice way of looking at it..
Anyways, I wont go for quads still, let the price fall.. Till than syncing pc and a lap will do the job even better..
http://www.myspace.com/djacidkills
http://soundcloud.com/acidkills/dropbox |
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Jun 3, 2008 15:50
|
I agree, it makes no sense to look at the latency like this... especially not 1ms...
20ms is nice to play synths for me...
Anyway latency is only a factor when playing synths via the keyboard.
In mixing stage, where most of plugins and CPU are used you can have 1second of latency and its no problem. You will only notice it in the moment you press play.
duals and quads certainly give you a lot of power. but in the end its never enough, since you start to adapt on the power in terms of using more and better plugins.
Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
