Ableton Demands total CPU

The Hulk · Post by **The Hulk** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 2:50 pm

Ok, so once again I can barely get away with using Live as my one and only DAW because of CPU issues. The problem is when you start using multiple effects you run out of CPU frighteningly fast. I kid you not, my powerbook turned off on my the other night during a session do to intense CPU usage.

Any OSX users find ways of getting around Live's limited CPU flexibility? Why are programs like Cubase, Logic and DP able to handle much more in terms of effects?

Help! I only want to use Live. Don't send me back to Cubase for the linear stuff!!!

::mic-minimal:: · Post by **::mic-minimal::** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 6:48 pm

man the best thing to do on either platform is make use of the new routing capabilities and print those wet tracks, i mean the new routing is even better than a freeze function to imho, and maybe export your midi tracks for safe keeping in case you want to go back and change something

drumroll57 · Post by **drumroll57** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 6:53 pm

Time = $$

If you don't want to spend time freezing the tracks, get a PC and work alongside the Mac. This of course depends what you value your time to be worth, but with PC's at less than commodity prices, not sure what the argument against it would be. There's even an article about it in last month's EM.

I have both CPU's, and very happy with that arrangement.

Use each platform for what it's good at.

Platform wars are sooo yesterday!....

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:51 pm

yea unfortunately the cpu issue is really only on the mac side. Ableton has said that altivec optimizations would barely benefit live, but i find that hard to beleive (even if it doesnt help the audio engine like they say, it may help ease the cpu's load in completing other calculations in live, thus freeing up cpu for the audio engine). And theres a good chance they won't add altivec, as more and more people are buying G5s, and the G5's altivec engine is rather weak.

i personally sold my Powerbook, and for the money i got for it, bought a PC laptop that gives me 4 times the performance. That is to say .als's that were hitting 80% cpu on my mac, are hitting 20% cpu on my PC.

so take that into consideration, i had to think it over for a long time, it was a hard decision to leave OSX, but since then i've been able to do things with live i never thought possible - thanks to all the headroom with the PC.

nobbystylus · Post by **nobbystylus** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 9:25 pm

what makes you say that G5s Altivec implementation is weak??

The Hulk · Post by **The Hulk** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 9:25 pm

well, it's definititely a temptation. I've had such bad experiences with PCs though. I was a PC guy, but when they die it ain't pretty. I'd rather be a one computer type of guy too. But what I'm hearing is that there isn't a quick way to solve memory issues on mac. that's pretty unfortunate. guess i'll patiently wait for a G5 powerbook one day.

Alex Reynolds · Post by **Alex Reynolds** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 10:41 pm

With the new MIDI features I'm finding Live and Numerology work together very comfortably on my PB G4 800 MHz, and I'm much less reliant on CPU-demanding effects to make dynamic arrangements.

Consider that with a PC you're not just buying a new platform but new software to use on it. That can be a considerably expensive switch, depending on your moral fibre.

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:50 am

Yeah I don't have much problems on a 800mhz. powerbook either, and quite frankly I live in windows land, Seattle, WA 20 miles from Microsoft headquarters, and I still see 95% Powerbooks when I see musicians using Live live. Apple does a great job of stress testing their products, and OS X is a sturdier OS.
Reactor will kill it sometimes, but Reactor has the capabilities to kill the fastest CPU made!

That said, at some point I'll get a PC, just to have both, too much is never enough with software and computers.

bensuthers · Post by **bensuthers** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:02 am

look, no matter what platform, what speed, you will very quickly reach the limitations of your processor.

stop worrying about it and go back to making music.

many VSTi's / VST's ARE altivec optimised; so try chasing down these and using them rather than other effects.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:43 am

when running altivec optimized vst and vsti's in a non altivec optimized host such as Ableton Live 4, the optimizations aren't utilized. they basically run as if your machine was a G3.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:48 am

nobbystylus wrote:what makes you say that G5s Altivec implementation is weak??

this benchmark illustrates it

http://ladd.dyndns.org/xbench/merge.xht ... doc2=68165

comparing a dual 2ghz g5 to a g4 1.25ghz emac.

altivec acceleration on the G5 is 2.54 Gflop/sec
on the G4 its 4.45 Gflop/sec

i would call that a weaker implementation of altivec instructions than the G4

tjwett · Post by **tjwett** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 7:33 am

just out of curiosity; exactly what model powerbook do you have? PowerBook could mean anything all the way back to a G3 Pismo. it's true Live relies heavily on raw mhz but the new optimizations should certainly help some. i couldn't do much of anything on my 12" 867 PowerBook. i'm using a PC for Live now and it's way better. unless you have a G5 then there isn't much you can do. under 2Ghz + Live = semi-lame. if they add dual proc support that would be a whole different story for those with dual G4s though.

Winterpark · Post by **Winterpark** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 7:45 am

The Hulk wrote:Ok, so once again I can barely get away with using Live as my one and only DAW because of CPU issues. The problem is when you start using multiple effects you run out of CPU frighteningly fast. I kid you not, my powerbook turned off on my the other night during a session do to intense CPU usage.

Any OSX users find ways of getting around Live's limited CPU flexibility? Why are programs like Cubase, Logic and DP able to handle much more in terms of effects?

Help! I only want to use Live. Don't send me back to Cubase for the linear stuff!!!

you may already know about this... but thought i'd share to other osx users, just in case...

in your system preferences under "energy saver" - "options", there is the box marked "processor performance"... i think it's default is "automatic"... change it to "highest"...

i've noticed this has once changed back to default settings after an OS update, so check it just to be sure that you are getting the most out of your laptop.

regards,

-am

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:00 am

Maybe it's just the way I use Live, but I got all exited about being able to take the myriad loops I'd made , and completed songs into Live and rearranging them. I never though of Live as a host that I should run a ton of FX and soft synths in?
I have Logic for big CPU hog issues, hard core midi, and Live for remixing, finalizing, and general mayhem.
Basically, I'm usually working with 8 or so audio clips, plus two or three soft synths, 8 to 12 FX, plus my moog and Guitar fed into tracks, and it never spikes on my 800mhz powerbook.
So I wonder what you guys are doing? 16 part drum arrangements with Waves compressors on each kick, snare, etc.?

hivemind · Post by **hivemind** » Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:27 pm

i suggest getting familiar with some good VST or AU effects instead of the built-in Live ones to save some cpu. don't use Live's reverb.

or the extreme mac solution might be to sell your laptop (unless you need that portability) buy a used G4 tower and slap an upgrade chip in it. you can go as low as (some) G4/400MHz for the original box and upgrade all the way to a dual 1.4GHz.

Any OSX users find ways of getting around Live's limited CPU flexibility? Why are programs like Cubase, Logic and DP able to handle much more in terms of effects?

i think it's because Live focusses their significantly smaller resources on ideas more than a small and fast code footprint. also, those older daws are from a different age in computing and computers, when you had no choice but to write half of your code in machine language to squeeze out every last bit of performance because of the now-wimpy cpu's they had to work with. i suspect ableton uses higher-level programming languages and tools (easier, faster development, but a bit slower performance) than those oldies use. but i could be wrong.

Ableton Demands total CPU

Ableton Demands total CPU

Re: Ableton Demands total CPU