Machinate's Live5 .als - your CPU?

Goran@Irrupt · Post by **Goran@Irrupt** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:36 pm

i tried your .als with my Beta and i was surprised with high computer usage.
it's going up to 40%.
i have Pentium 4, 3.0Ghz, 1Gb DDR Ram, Ati Radeon 9600+,
Terratec EWX 24/96.

your expiriences...?

w

anarchicluv · Post by **anarchicluv** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 3:45 pm

Funny...I just PM'd Machinate about this very thing, and then I saw this thread. I too experience VERY high CPU hits when playing his .als file; average of 60% and as high as 72% at times on Live's CPU meter!!!

I'm running it on a G4 iBook 1.33 w/ 786 mb's of RAM; I thought that would be plenty powerful to run Live.

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:55 pm

It's running at around 32 percent on my laptop. That - to me - is more than reasonable. The track gets really dense, and no expense was spared - I even used the spread function on the bass, which is always a bad idea, cpu-wise.

Anarchiluv,
it *is* plenty powerful to run live. At 72% that's about two percent per plugin - if you haven't noticed there are a *lot* of them in there. I did a quick check, and the plugin count was around 30-35, i think... Surely any sane person would go for 35 plugins on a 4 track song, would they?

It's madness, I tell ya, madness!

What I can do is whip up a different demo-track to have online. Something a bit more lean? I really like this current track though, partly because I think it sounds really well, partly because I'm sort of proud at the mix I did (these days I only do one pass at the recording, not tweaking stuff in arrangement), and partly because I feel like the broad range of plugins and device chains provide a good base for testing out the new features.

mike holiday · Post by **mike holiday** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:18 am

on my 800 g4 i'm hittin 125%

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:38 pm

Tried this last night (cool set BTW). On my cheesy Compaq Athlon 2108 laptop, 512 MB RAM, 4200RPM HD, Indigo IO, I never went beyond 40%, and most of the time I was in the 30-35% range.

Goran@Irrupt · Post by **Goran@Irrupt** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 4:08 pm

Rex wrote:Tried this last night (cool set BTW). On my cheesy Compaq Athlon 2108 laptop, 512 MB RAM, 4200RPM HD, Indigo IO, I never went beyond 40%, and most of the time I was in the 30-35% range.

wow... that's quite impressive

w

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 4:53 pm

Just a cheap (<$900) little laptop from Best Buy. Note that Machinate is running in that range on his laptop as well. Yours seems to be in the same range, no? It's the Mac guys that seem to be seeing super high CPU utilization.

anarchicluv · Post by **anarchicluv** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:50 pm

Rex wrote:Just a cheap (<$900) little laptop from Best Buy. Note that Machinate is running in that range on his laptop as well. Yours seems to be in the same range, no? It's the Mac guys that seem to be seeing super high CPU utilization.

Ugh! When are the Abe's going to streamline their coding for Mac's!????!?

suburbanbather · Post by **suburbanbather** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:36 am

anarchicluv wrote:
Rex wrote:Just a cheap (<$900) little laptop from Best Buy. Note that Machinate is running in that range on his laptop as well. Yours seems to be in the same range, no? It's the Mac guys that seem to be seeing super high CPU utilization.
Ugh! When are the Abe's going to streamline their coding for Mac's!????!?

I don't think they would even give it a glance until the MacIntels come out.

mike holiday · Post by **mike holiday** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:03 am

suburbanbather wrote:
anarchicluv wrote:\Ugh! When are the Abe's going to streamline their coding for Mac's!????!?
I don't think they would even give it a glance until the MacIntels come out.

yeah but monolakes on a powrbook.....P