small test - Live 5 V SX1 - CPU / Plugins

ct43 · Post by **ct43** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 6:03 pm

Today I did a small test with Live 5 & Cubase SX1.06 to see which was more efficiant with CPU... I run a P4 3.06 (hyperthreading off) laptop with 1 gig of ram, XP home, MOTU 828 Mk2 (buffer set at 256 (14 m/s) in both SX & Live 5)...

right:

15 tracks of audio, no plugins, no warping in live, just straight wavs (I used the exact same wavs in the same order as well)

Live 5.0 = 10 - 13%
SX = 10%

CPU / Plugins..

on the first 12 tracks I placed a Sonalksis EQ, then in the second slot of those 12 tracks I placed 1 the following plugins (in the exact same order in both SX & Live)

Spektral Delay
W1 Limiter
Predathom
Hemotohm
Mobilhom
Ohmboyz
GMO
Supatrigga
Predathom
Predathom
Predathom
Fromage

Cubase = 45 - 55%
Live 5 = 75%

so as you can see with just playing wavs with no warping it was nearly the same, but there was a massive differance with the plugins added.... so im wondering why this is? Why does Ableton take more CPU to use the same plugins?

Anyone?

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 6:04 pm

instantaneous, low latency, realtime processing without having to stop playback?

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 6:07 pm

You've got far too much time on your hands!

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 6:17 pm

i'd like to see an SX3 comparison.
i'm sure the results would be much different.

ct43 · Post by **ct43** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:03 pm

hambone1 wrote:You've got far too much time on your hands!

well it only took 5 mins..

ct43 · Post by **ct43** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:05 pm

AdamJay wrote:i'd like to see an SX3 comparison.
i'm sure the results would be much different.

yeah probably...

Voodoo99 · Post by **Voodoo99** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:09 pm

No, compared to sx3 live's vsti-performance is really bad. I must agree to ct43.

I get crackles at 65% in live. In sx3 i use up to 85%-90% without crackles. This with same buffers and so on.
Live CPU/Audio/Vsti-performance is really bad.

Have fun
M.S.

zion15 · Post by **zion15** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:25 pm

according to what i've tried out, live doesn't indeed seem to have that good vst plugin performance.

it's not much of an issue for me and i would guess it has something to do with live's audio engine that's designed for "on the fly" use... but i could definitely get more stuff playing simultaneously with logic (same computer, interface and buffer size).

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:18 pm

zion15 wrote:it's not much of an issue for me and i would guess it has something to do with live's audio engine that's designed for "on the fly" use... but i could definitely get more stuff playing simultaneously with logic (same computer, interface and buffer size).

I agree, but I wish it wasn't as drastic of a difference as it is. Logic has about 35-40% more headroom on a CPU than Live. Granted Logic has about 10-20% more than Digital Performer and SX3.........
Anyway freeze will help out a bit with all this, and I assume that the intel powerbooks will fix this for me next year. The PC side already has a solution, AMD 64's and Centrino's.

ct43 · Post by **ct43** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:32 pm

so if I had an AMD or Centrino I would get far better plugin performance? Would there still be as big a gulf between SX & L5?

Im thinking of getting another machine actually just to use for plugins via FX teleport, maybe I should opt for an AMD..

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:11 pm

ct43 wrote:so if I had an AMD or Centrino I would get far better plugin performance? Would there still be as big a gulf between SX & L5?

Yeah the gulf would still be there, but personally I know that anything above 3Ghz. would eliminate almost all of my hassles with bouncing etc. So any machine made next year, PC or mac, will do for me.
keep in mind that I run Live on a 800mhz. powerbook though, and I started with digital audio on a 400mhz powermac, so I'm used to limitations CPU wise. That, and nearly all my songs are around ten stereo tracks of audio and MIDI.

nebulae · Post by **nebulae** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:03 am

I once wrote a long post about how Live 4 performance was not nearly as good as SX. Blah blah blah. Yada yada yada. You guys know the story.

I didn't expect that issue to change with L5. But the truth is that I simply don't care anymore. CPU bottlenecks will ALWAYS be an issue. You may think a 3ghz chip will magically solve your problems, but as soon as you start using it and you load on the heavier usage plugs, you'll hit another ceiling. Once I realized that there's never enough CPU, I decided to change my attitude toward the issue.

Now I care about CPU management. If that means a few extra steps to render tracks, so be it. The freeze function that so many of you asked for is now here to help. Great. Yet we still compare between apps -- What's better? What gets me more CPU using the same effects? Etc. etc.

These days, I tend to look at what gets me most inspired and what gets me to make music fast. If I look strictly at CPU, than Reason ought to be my tool of choice. Everyone raves about it; it Rewires with Live as if the two were meant to be together; and from a CPU standpoint, I can load on like 50 subtractors with effects. But it just doesn't inspire me to make music, and I'm just not that efficient with making music with Reason. (In anticipation of the shitstorm coming my way, I'm wearing flame retardent clothing now.) So does CPU matter when I'd rather use White Noise's Zero Vector (CPU destroyer) rather than Subtractor? I know I'll be far more inspired and create better stuff with Zero Vector...

So my point is that due to some programming reasons, Live will likely be less efficient than SX, Logic, Tracktion, etc. So how about comparing apps not only with that CPU marker but also with how inspiring it is, or how easy it is to make music fast, or how they stack up to Live for live performances. Thoughts?

roby · Post by **roby** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 5:16 am

that's a good attitude nebulae. the whole issue of cpu performance, etc., can really become a sort of trauma amongs producers and musicians. one has to think that Live 5 engine comes from the design of playing audio instantaneously without hiccups for live playing. that was it's #1 design. just like. one can't expect McDonalds to all of the sudden start producing pasta. my attitude is really mellow and forgiving when it comes to cpu usage mainly because most of the stuff i made a few years back were done on a PII, and rendering and bouncing has become part of the way i work.
of course if audio is crackling and distorting then that's another story

Gigatron · Post by **Gigatron** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:13 am

I must say, I'm a performance nut... but I really really really like Live though... I'm much more productive in Live... I must say though, steinberg seems to care more about performance and has more pro features. Here are my main issues with Live 5 right now:

- Audio engine is not multi-threaded... so forget about buying a dual core chip. Also, it really sucks to have to disable features on your chip because of no software support... Hyper Threading anyone? Imagine having a dual dual core system with hyperthreading... thats basically a quad processor machine! Dual cores are soo cheap now I could build a dual dual core for around $1000

- Midi support is pretty basic... why no system exclusive message support? Even doing a simple program change is a pain.

- This leads to my final issue: Lack of hardware support... maybe I'm the only one who uses pretty much all out bound gear?

I honestly feel a little ripped off paying almost the same price for Live 5 as what it costs for Cubase SX3. Now I have to go shell out some money to pick up Cubase.... but hey, at least I will save a few bucks on a competive upgrade right?

jemduff@gmail.com · Post by **jemduff@gmail.com** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:16 am

I suggest utilizing the freeze function