Live 9 Performance compared to Live 8

[tonfilm]

hello live users,

i fear that live 9 uses a lot more CPU power. maybe due to all the new fancy effects GUI or other features...
when i openend my live set it was running with about 70% CPU load, while it was only something like 40% in live 8.

do you also experience this? (btw. anyone has a link to download the latest live 8 version? uninstalled it and i have a gig on saturday, maybe i should still use live 8 for it...)

[hennessey]

I heard this numerous times on forums, but 9 is performing slightly better for me. I'm using mostly Fabfilter, NI and u-he plug-ins, but plenty of native ones too. Macbook on 10.6

[tonfilm]

maybe its better on mac then, i am on win7.

the behavior is a bit random... when i open the live set, its about the same as in live 8, but then after 20 seconds CPU load increases up to 20-30% more and does not come back. anyone else has this?

[david_push]

hopefully someone will post a performance test project like for ableton 8 to get a good comparison..

[H20nly]

Can't look it up right now... On a cell phone... But Live indexes audio files for the browser. Perhaps this is causing the added CPU load.

[tonfilm]

i also supected the caching indexer at first, but it was not running as i had the increase in CPU load. or at least the little loading circle besides 'Places' was not there...

so lets hope the indexer does something silently but will stop after a while, will have a long session tonight and will keep an eye on it.

but a performance comparison set would be great!

[sowhoso]

i just opened one of my latest projects in 8 and then 9, both 64bit since i'm using samples

it runs at lower cpu on 9

windows 7
i7-2600

[sowhoso]

also just ran the project from the LIVE 8 PERFORMANCE TEST thread and it ran about the same in both

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111880

[gjgj]

well I just did Live 8 and Live 9 performance test.

On my machine Windows 7 32bit
Intel Core 2 Duo T6600
4GB ram (2.9 used)

Same project
Same audio settings
>>>>>>>>>>
Driver - Asio4All (both Live 8 and Live 9)
Sample Rate - 48kHz (both Live 8 and Live 9)
Buffer - 512 (both Live 8 and Live 9)
Error Compensation - 8.0 on Live8 and 29 on Live 9
Overall Latency - 36.6 on Live 8 and 59.6 on Live 9
SR and pitch conversion - High quality (both Live 8 and Live 9)
<<<<<<<<<<

Live 9 produces about 15-25% more
processor load than Live 8.

So obviously Live 9 is optimized
for some systems, but certainly
not for Win7 32bit Intel Core 2 Duo.
This is quite sad, because now
I'm mot able to play in Live9 many
of my Live8 projects, which were
optimized for 80-90% processor load
as they now produce processor overload
and dropouts :/

[tintala]

I am on 9 64 bit added another 8 gb of memory with 16 total and on ssd drive. 9 is running way better than 8 with less crashes and my CPU gauge isn't maxing out like it used to with8. Very happy with the performance of 9 at this point since I added more ram. Remember if you are using 32 bit you are only accessing less memory and not even 2 cores. With 64 you access all of your memory and all cores.

W-7
I5 core
64 bit

[Erik Mitchell]

That's a bummer, might need to upgrade your machine or stick with 8...