Will a new processor really make that much difference?

[tbcam88]

Depends what plugins you use.

Mostly "ReFx Nexus", "Lennar Digital - Sylenth" and "ReFX Vanguard" to be honest dude.

You can also bounce a set of tracks with heavy plugin usage to a seperate audio track and then switch off all the plugins. you don't have to delete the original tracks.

I never thought of that. That may well be a solution. As you said, the plug-in data would still exist, it would merely need put on standby.

Cheers man.

[mdk]

I never thought of that. That may well be a solution. As you said, the plug-in data would still exist, it would merely need put on standby.

Cheers man.

my pleasure. also dont forget that you could group the original tracks and just fold the group up to save screen (and brain) space

[Churst]

In response to the original post and question posed in the title: Not really...

I just upgraded quite significantly from a Core 2 Quad based machine with 8GB of DDR2 RAM to a Core i7 six core with 32GB of DDR3 RAM. The RAM in the new machine is also running in quad channel configuration, and at double the clock speed of the old DDR2. Both machines were/are on Win 7 64bit.

Live, in it's current form is simply not capable of using the resources on offer. My CPU meter in Windows is registering a peak of 20% usage but quite often as low as 4%. Obviously the RAM usage is limited by Live's 32bit nature, but the sheer speed increase on offer seems to have little bearing. Live's resource monitor however is showing exactly the same resource usage as on my old machine, between 30-45%, unless I'm running NI Studio Drummer, in which case in excess of 50%.

From using Live on the new machine quite extensively the actual feel of Live, under the same sort of plugin heavy load, has improved quite a bit. The additional thread processing from the 2 additional physical cores, and then Hyper Threading on top of that, make the user experience much more fluid. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to run a whole lot more without the same old issues popping up. I can maybe squeeze in a couple more VSTi's and a few more higher quality effects.

It was quite disappointing really to only have such a small improvement, when the new processor architecture is vastly more powerful than the old one. It is a little saddening that Live is actually less capable of making use of your computing resources than most video games.

[pencilrocket]

Related topic: http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=172654

[tbcam88]

In response to the original post and question posed in the title: Not really...

I just upgraded quite significantly from a Core 2 Quad based machine with 8GB of DDR2 RAM to a Core i7 six core with 32GB of DDR3 RAM. The RAM in the new machine is also running in quad channel configuration, and at double the clock speed of the old DDR2. Both machines were/are on Win 7 64bit.

Live, in it's current form is simply not capable of using the resources on offer. My CPU meter in Windows is registering a peak of 20% usage but quite often as low as 4%. Obviously the RAM usage is limited by Live's 32bit nature, but the sheer speed increase on offer seems to have little bearing. Live's resource monitor however is showing exactly the same resource usage as on my old machine, between 30-45%, unless I'm running NI Studio Drummer, in which case in excess of 50%.

From using Live on the new machine quite extensively the actual feel of Live, under the same sort of plugin heavy load, has improved quite a bit. The additional thread processing from the 2 additional physical cores, and then Hyper Threading on top of that, make the user experience much more fluid. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to run a whole lot more without the same old issues popping up. I can maybe squeeze in a couple more VSTi's and a few more higher quality effects.

It was quite disappointing really to only have such a small improvement, when the new processor architecture is vastly more powerful than the old one. It is a little saddening that Live is actually less capable of making use of your computing resources than most video games.

Jeez man, that's quite disheartening to hear... This is why I'm hesitant to squander the best part of grand on a new machine without doing as much research as possible first.

I feared also that Ableton's limitations wouldn't make proper use of the new hardware and from what you have said, this seems to be the case...

I may have to do what was suggested earlier and simply freeze a number of the channels which are running instruments. We're probably stuck with this cap in performance until they finally implement 64bit support.

[pencilrocket]

64bit is nothing to do with CPU performance though. Also you will continue to use 32 bit plugins even after 64bit DAW will be availble.

[Angstrom]

seems odd to me that people didn't see a performance increase when upgrading their processor, because I did.

I had a track I was working on that was hovering around 60 on the Live CPU meter, now it hovers around 20.

Addressing of memory will have little to no bearing on that CPU figure at all.

[tbcam88]

64bit is nothing to do with CPU performance though. Also you will continue to use 32 bit plugins even after 64bit DAW will be availble.

I was referring to the RAM with regards to 64bit, mate.

[massenmedium]

There's plenty of plug-ins running, they each need a channel obviously.

Why would you say obviously? That's not necessarily the case at all. Even if you are talking about instrument plugins only they could be stacked up in racks, for instance. Although yeah that in itself probably wouldn't make much difference to CPU usage.

[tbcam88]

Why would you say obviously? That's not necessarily the case at all. Even if you are talking about instrument plugins only they could be stacked up in racks, for instance. Although yeah that in itself probably wouldn't make much difference to CPU usage.

I was trying to explain how eighty channels were in use so far. As you said, stacking them would probably make little (if any) difference to CPU consumption since each of said plug-ins would still be active.

If it was any other project I would simply bounce audio till the overall performance levelled itself out. I don't have that luxury in this case, however.

Besides, this project aint exactly ridiculous in terms of detail thus far... If this is the max my current rig can handle then I think an upgrade is gonna be necessary either way.

[kitekrazy]

I'm still using "vintage" gear.

Intel Q6600
AMD Phenom II 940, 945, 955

I just hope my Intel board doesn't die. I would have to upgrade everything on it.

[Forge.]

seems odd to me that people didn't see a performance increase when upgrading their processor, because I did.

I had a track I was working on that was hovering around 60 on the Live CPU meter, now it hovers around 20.

Addressing of memory will have little to no bearing on that CPU figure at all.

makes me wonder if it's just down to how tracks and sends are being used..

[nopattern]

i've never used 80 channels but used to run my processor up. i built a new system a year ago and cpu doesn't cross my mind anymore. i don't think i've even heard a drop out once on my main machine

[sawanotsuru]

My plan is to wait until the next gen of cpu comes out and matures a bit before upgrading from my intel core quad. The intel i range don't seem to be worth the jump and Ableton obviouly isn't able to utilise them properly anyway. Core Quad is pretty good for the time being. But then, I never really have more than 8/9 tracks per tune anyway. Often a lot less.

[doom_Oo7]

I often fire up tracks with 50 ~60 channels (and I don't freeze or bounce anything because every parameter could be changed from a moment to another).

I had a q6600 and now an i7-2600k a little o/ced (safely, still... not over 4ghz with good refrigeration =) )
It has been the day and night =)

Go and get your processor, you won't regret it.