LIVE 8 PERFORMANCE TEST - Results Here

[Xen Ochren]

So its looking more and more like a PC running Windows 7 is the wise choice, to get the best result from the expense of buying a brand new lap top...
Time to abandon the mac...?

[cjohs]

1. Ableton Live CPU Meter: 46%
2. Laptop: Dell Vostro 3300
3. OS: Windows 7 Pro 64
4. Ableton Live version: 8.3.3
5. CPU Make, Model, and Speed: Intel Core i5- @ 2,67 GHz
6. Amount of RAM: 4 GB
7. Soundcard: ESI ESU1808 with ASIO4All
8. Hard Disk Drive Speed: 7200 rpm
9. Number of playback tracks: all 8

[rikhyray]

Mountain lion tests anyone?

Compared to my previous result, Live now uses a bit more CPU on average, running ML.

1. Ableton Live CPU Meter:
Lion: Average 25%, spike 31%
Mountain Lion: Average 29%, spike 32%
2. Laptop/Desktop? Make/Model? Late 2011 MBP 15"
3. Operating System? 10.7.4 Lion
4. Ableton Live version? 8.2.7
5. CPU Make, Model, and Speed? 2.2 GHz i7 quad core
6. Amount of Ram? 4 GB
7. Soundcard (and driver version if you know it)? Built in
8. Hard Disk Drive Speed (if you know)? SSD (Like 480 MB/s read)
9. Number of playback tracks? 8

Odd, I have same model, 25% spike 28% on Lion. On ML 21% spike 24%. I mentioned it in other thread that 4Gb is not enough for MBP (when I received the notebook it was slower then my old 2.4 2010 13`MBP which had 8Gb, and that even doing simplest non music tasks)

[Kodama]

Anyone got results for the 2012 MBA?

[commuter]

1) Ableton Live CPU Meter 29%
2) Laptop/Desktop? Make/Model? Mac Mini 2011 core I5 2,5ghz
3) Operating System? OSX lion 10.7.4
4) Ableton Live version? 8.3.3
5) CPU Make, Model, and Speed? 2,5ghz Intel Core i5 (dualcore)
6) Amount of Ram? 4GB 1333mhz
7) Soundcard : Mackie Onyx Blackjack
8 Hard Disk Drive Speed (if you know)? 5400
9) Number of playback tracks? 8

[Kodama]

Informal post, but I tested this in a store on the current 13" low end MBP and MBA and got around 34% peak on both.

[Scott Michael]

1) Ableton Live CPU Meter % (if it bounces around, please list the peak) 10-11%
2) Laptop/Desktop? Make/Model? Custom built water cooled Intel PC
3) Operating System? Win 7 64bit
4) Ableton Live version? 8.3.3
5) CPU Make, Model, and Speed? Intel Core i7 2600k (4.7ghz)
6) Amount of Ram? 8GB
7) Soundcard (and driver version if you know it)? M-Audio FireWire 410
8. Hard Disk Drive Speed (if you know)? Crucial M4 SSD 128gb
9) Number of playback tracks? 8 Tracks

[JuanSOLO]

32bit
1. Ableton Live CPU Meter: 35%
2. Laptop/Desktop? Make/Model? MBP 15"
3. Operating System? 10.7.4 Lion
4. Ableton Live version? 8.3.2
5. CPU Make, Model, and Speed? 2.3GHz Intel Core i7
6. Amount of Ram? 4 Gb
7. Soundcard (and driver version if you know it)? Built in
8. Hard Disk Drive Speed (if you know)? 5400rpm
9. Number of playback tracks? 8

64bit
1. Ableton Live CPU Meter: 38%
same computer

I did get lower CPU results running my own drumRack test.

1) Ableton Live CPU Meter idles at 14%, peaks at 17%
2) Laptop/Desktop? Make/Model? Late 2011 MBP
3) Operating System? 10.6.8 (snow leopard)
4) Ableton Live version? 8.4.3b
5) CPU Make, Model, and Speed? 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7
6) Amount of Ram? 4GB
7) Soundcard (and driver version if you know it)? internal
Hard Disk Drive Speed (if you know)? 5400rpm
9) Number of playback tracks? 8

MUCH BETTER. Should have never upgraded to Lion, it was a pain to get SL back on.

[Machinesworking]

OK this is why I'm not that impressed with this test:

1) Ableton Live CPU Meter 27%
2) Laptop/Desktop? Make/Model?- Mac Pro
3) Operating System? Mountain Lion
4) Ableton Live version? 8.4.3b
5) CPU Make, Model, and Speed?- Dual quad core 2.66 GHz Intel Xeon
6) Amount of Ram? 8GB
7) Soundcard (and driver version if you know it)? Fireface 800
Hard Disk Drive Speed (if you know)? 7200rpm
9) Number of playback tracks? 8

Same test with 60 playback tracks! with a 77% CPU.
As is typical in Live anything above about 80% CPU results in crackles in the audio....

Live and a lot of applications grab more CPU initially than later.
Probably due to the way Live handles multiple cores? Anyway all reliable tests for CPU use in a DAW must be to failure, otherwise it's not accurate.

[Machinesworking]

Seriously, look at commuters score in 8 tracks above, and I'm absolutely certain his dual core mini cannot handle 60 tracks without issues.

[commuter]

Seriously, look at commuters score in 8 tracks above, and I'm absolutely certain his dual core mini cannot handle 60 tracks without issues.

yep , indeed.
I'm reaching 39 tracks@91% CPU without crackles (which is not bad for a dual core)
I'm sure it would be a bit better on Snow Leopard
My 2011 13 macbook pro get 31% on Lion and used to get 27% on SL.

[JuanSOLO]

Snow Leopard definitely handles Live better. I dont know why, I just know it does.

[siliconarc]

i tried Lion on an external drive to test and got same results as seen in this thread over and over - quite a lot higher cpu under Lion than SL.
is it just Live that's slower under 10.7/10.8, or is it all apps/daws? maybe Live just hasn't been optimised for these OSs..? or is Logic shittier on 10.7/8 than 10.6.8 too?

[JuanSOLO]

I read this the other week and it got me on the ball to find my Snow Leopard disk, after being told to do it in this forum.
http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2012/ ... ader-poll/

[Machinesworking]

Gonna say this again. this test is bunk.
Any CPU test has to be to failure. There are many reasons for this, but the most glaring obvious, and blatent example is me and commuters score here. My machine to failure is 1.5 times faster than his, (even with Live's bad handling of quad core and above CPU wise), in the "test" it's 2% faster....

Until someone tests to failure Snow Leopard and Mountain Lion against each other, there's no way of knowing whether Mountain Lion doesn't simply grab more CPU right away, but take less for each successive track. Considering the staggering difference in successive CPU use in our two "to Failure" tests this is my guess.

Seriously, look at commuters score in 8 tracks above, and I'm absolutely certain his dual core mini cannot handle 60 tracks without issues.

yep , indeed.
I'm reaching 39 tracks@91% CPU without crackles (which is not bad for a dual core)
I'm sure it would be a bit better on Snow Leopard
My 2011 13 macbook pro get 31% on Lion and used to get 27% on SL.