Is Reaktor 5 really that CPU hungry?

linzatti · Post by **linzatti** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:50 pm

I´ve been having some troubles with Live lately. Well, the trouble is not caused by Live but by Reaktor 5. I can use about six or seven VST´s before my computer starts lagging (I use Z3ta+, Pro 53, Tera 2). However, whenever I add a Reaktor 5 ensemble to the track is messes up everything. Is Reaktor that big of a hog?

MrYellow · Post by **MrYellow** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:17 am

Yes.

It's a modular synth. When coders make a synth dedicated to a limited
number of parameters and possible situations they can optimise the code
specially for the purpose at hand. When you code a modular system you
end up with 80% of the code just being control structures and whatever to
glue together an infinite amount of combinations. This by definition will
never be as fast as a code dedicated to a single job.

-Ben

linzatti · Post by **linzatti** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:26 am

Ok... sounds fair. But isn´t Tera 2 also a modular synth. I know it´s the same as Reaktor but I think they call it a modular synth.

I can barely use two Reaktor 5 ensembles at the same time, and I am running on a P4 3.0 Ghz (1MB L2 Cache) with 1024mb of RAM, isn´t this strange?

might be time to format the hardrive to clean it up a bit...

kettensaege · Post by **kettensaege** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:43 am

actually I'm glad you're posting this ... a few days ago I tried the Reaktor 5 demo on my iBook G4 800MHz and was shocked to see the CPU idling at 80% with only Carbon2 opened and not playing a single note. It definitely looks like a major CPU hog ...

linzatti · Post by **linzatti** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:07 am

kettensaege wrote:actually I'm glad you're posting this ... a few days ago I tried the Reaktor 5 demo on my iBook G4 800MHz and was shocked to see the CPU idling at 80% with only Carbon2 opened and not playing a single note. It definitely looks like a major CPU hog ...

Thank God for Live´s restore function. I tried adding a carbon 2 to the track I am working on, and the computer totaly broke down

kuniklo · Post by **kuniklo** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:48 am

Turning the number of voices down helps a lot with most of the R5 ensembles. If you're playing a monophonic part with R5, you're just throwing away the extra cycles on unused voices.

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 6:12 am

I queried the local Native guru last summer on this issue, during the Reaktor 5 tour/clinics. He claimed that the Reaktor shell by itself only draws about 2 to 3% of system resources. The various ensembles can be CPU hogs though, depending on which one is used. In my experience the lighter ones draw 20-25% whie others draw 40 to 45%. The ensembles generally appear to behave rather quirky and not as stable as other Vst's in hosts such as Live. I've found that they're consistently reliable only when used as standalone.

linzatti · Post by **linzatti** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 11:20 am

Anubis wrote:I queried the local Native guru last summer on this issue, during the Reaktor 5 tour/clinics. He claimed that the Reaktor shell by itself only draws about 2 to 3% of system resources. The various ensembles can be CPU hogs though, depending on which one is used. In my experience the lighter ones draw 20-25% whie others draw 40 to 45%. The ensembles generally appear to behave rather quirky and not as stable as other Vst's in hosts such as Live. I've found that they're consistently reliable only when used as standalone.

Yes!

Reaktor have always been reacting

strange within Live. It´s seems to be a somewhat unstable combination.

FaX-01 · Post by **FaX-01** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:25 pm

Anubis wrote:I queried the local Native guru last summer on this issue, during the Reaktor 5 tour/clinics. He claimed that the Reaktor shell by itself only draws about 2 to 3% of system resources. The various ensembles can be CPU hogs though, depending on which one is used. In my experience the lighter ones draw 20-25% whie others draw 40 to 45%. The ensembles generally appear to behave rather quirky and not as stable as other Vst's in hosts such as Live. I've found that they're consistently reliable only when used as standalone.

Very stable here on my PC system and tonnes of ensembles are far from CPU hungry .
Infact I have a swag of them that sit between 5-10% CPU and the most CPU intensive one I've come across is at 29%.
Carbon V1 sits on around 9% per instance here ditto V1 of SteamPipe with V2 of each being a little over 12-14% even with chords.
Lots of R4 stuff is very CPU efficient in R5 from my experience.
Maybe I just steer clear of most of the CPU hog machines :shrug:.
The new Verb and Multiband Comp only use 5-6% per instance also.
Strange.
I would have said lighter ensembles are 5-15% depending on the synth.
Heavy onsembles are pretty much 15-30% here also.
On a HT P4 Notebook without hyperthreading disabled.
I get pretty good Reaktor mileage overall.
Mind you I run a lean and mean system.
If I ctrl/alt/del on startup for task manager I only have 12 core (essential) devices going and CPU sits bang on 0% in the task manager.

linzatti · Post by **linzatti** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:32 pm

FaX-01: Actually I have been having my doubts about my PC running on 100%... It feels as if it is only running on 50% of it´s capacity.

Is it possible that a RAM upgrade from 512 to 1024 can slow down the rest of the computer if the memory-modules somehow did not work in symbios with eachother?

3phase · Post by **3phase** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:43 pm

linzatti wrote:FaX-01: Actually I have been having my doubts about my PC running on 100%... It feels as if it is only running on 50% of it´s capacity.

Is it possible that a RAM upgrade from 512 to 1024 can slow down the rest of the computer if the memory-modules somehow did not work in symbios with eachother?

I heard that this can happen...but dont ask me how to verify if its the case or not

Michael-SW · Post by **Michael-SW** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:46 pm

Try the Live 5 performance test. That way you will get a benchmark.

linzatti · Post by **linzatti** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:20 pm

Michael-SW wrote:Try the Live 5 performance test. That way you will get a benchmark.

You mean the one at this forum?

Can you please give me a link...

redrobot · Post by **redrobot** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:37 pm

the more cpu hungry ensembles in Reaktor I tend to record with the audio recorder inside Reaktor and then drop the audio into Live afterwards.

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:11 pm

also, remember that polyphony in reaktor isn't dynamic. Note that a synth like Operator doesn't really use any cpu when idling, and the cpu usage rises as more voices are played.

In Reaktor it's static as hell.

Having said that I found z3ta as cpu hungry as reaktor.