LIVE 4 PERFORMANCE TEST

rikhyray · Post by **rikhyray** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 9:37 pm

1. 45-50% (48-53% with SP 1)
2.Vaio
3.XP pro
4.P3 1.2
5.512
6.Indigo I/O
7. 4200
Downloaded SP2, about 2-5% difference to Sp1

peeddrroo · Post by **peeddrroo** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 9:41 pm

thanks for organizing that adam, and summing up the results.
i think this will answer a lot of questions potential computer buyers (like me) were wondering about.
let's keep this thread alive! buy more computers ppl!

cope · Post by **cope** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 9:49 pm

unearthed123 wrote:- 1 -

1 - 47% - 59%
2 - SONY VAIO PCG-Z1V/P
3- Windows XP Pro SP1
4- Pentium M 1.6Ghz(Banias) Intel 855PM
5- 512MB x 2 PC2100 DDR-SDRAM
6- Echo Indigo 2
7- 4200rpm 60GB(TOSHIBA MK6021GAS)

You should check my results... (page 5) I cant understand why your results are so bad, when we have identical cpu's. Only difference is sp2 vs sp1, and your soundcard. But I'm using the internal onboard one...

rikhyray · Post by **rikhyray** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 9:59 pm

Did Reverb test, Live`s off : 10-12% down, TC takes only 2-3%, ...... surprised.
So my old 1.2 Vaio was doing 35-40% with TC reverb instead of Live`s.

koranek · Post by **koranek** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 10:45 pm

Yuck -

I couldn't even get it to run without distortion, even with the highest buffer setting.

1) Ableton Live CPU Meter = 100-120%
2) Laptop/Desktop? = G4 Dual Processor 533 Mhz
3) Operating System = OS X.2.8
4) CPU Make Model and Speed = G4 DP 533
5) Amount of Ram / Speed of Ram = 640 MB (PC 133)
6) Soundcard = Core Audio with M-Audio Delta 66 Drivers
7) Hard Disk Drive Speed = 7200 RPM

zeropoint · Post by **zeropoint** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 10:59 pm

1) 65% (70% peak)
2) Apple Powerbook 15"
3) OS 10.3.3
4) G4 1GHZ
5) 1G SDRAM
6) Stock
7) 4200 rpm

j · Post by j » Sun Sep 05, 2004 11:37 pm

Man I am up around 90% on my powerbook. (17 inch / stock).
Using demo of Live 4.

I really wish I would have checked out this forum before I went for the powerbook...

I don't think I can purchase Live until I see some signs of optimization for MAC.

j

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:40 am

Everyone, please see the Title post on Page 1. There is an update.

I created a graph showing the performance of the first 44 machines tested.

cheers

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 1:48 am

Thanks for doing the graph Adam. Thats a really good way to compared basic system specs.

I'm currently considering the purchase of this

I hope it'll perform!!

Keyboard · Post by **Keyboard** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:20 am

J.... Man I am up around 90% on my powerbook. (17 inch / stock).
Using demo of Live 4.

Mac users need to be sure they are running CPU at full speed, I do not believe your result, turn the processor to highest performance and do it again.

NOTE MAC USERS: Please check before you test that the Energy Saver settings under System Prefererences/Energy Saver/Options/Processor peformance are optimized. This needs to be set to HIGHEST for any OSX laptop to give a realistic result

Adam, Any chance you could pop that note on the first page? The mac laptops come stock configured to "Automatic" rather than "highest" so if people aren't aware it will be giving them inaccurate results.

Kas. · Post by **Kas.** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:24 am

perhaps some mulitiplatform wizzards can shed some more light on this, but i´ve always thougt that on macs one should use aiff and wav on pc due to the way the repsective processors sort bits (let´s not go into the details here and now). the court is still out on which one is better, if any, but i believe it´s well established that wav on mac is bad and aiff on pc is similarly bad. this would be due to the processors being relied on for resorting the bits before anything usefull is done.

currently my audio pc is not hooked up to the network so i can´t post my specs without rewireing, but i did grab the zip and had a look. indeed most of the samples are wav so that would put the poor macs at a disadvantage, however the samples are also very short so one might debate exactly how significant this is. i would sugest that mac users convert all the waves to aiff before doing this test and pc users could also convert the single aiff to a wav. honestly, i don´t expect this to make a lot of difference due to the small samples but i did think it would be fair to point it out. also, as somebody who is used to pc´s yet occasionally does some audio work in a mac environment i thought it would be usefull to point this out as many people are unaware of these differences and at times they can become quite significant.

a single soul willing to do a "before/after" test of this on a mac would probably tell us what difference we are talking about here, percentage wise.

Keyboard · Post by **Keyboard** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:42 am

"a single soul willing to do a "before/after" test of this on a mac would probably tell us what difference we are talking about here, percentage wise."

done. no difference at all. macs are just slow

FaX-01 · Post by **FaX-01** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:54 am

Whilst I scored a 22% on my Machine which suprised me with a 512k cache but the 800mhz FSB would compensate somewhat ... I would really like to see a Hyperthreading enabled version on Live 4.0.
If it runs this well without it I'd like to see my specs with it enabled.
I can easily run 10-11 Vst instruments + effects and audio tracks at the moment no problems what so ever which IMHO is more than enough.
It would still be interesting to see though.

Loopy C · Post by **Loopy C** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 3:21 am

1) 68% (70% peak)
2) Apple Powerbook 17"
3) OS 10.3.4
4) G4 1GHZ
5) 1G SDRAM
6) Stock
7) 5400 rpm (also tried Lacie FW 800, no difference)

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 3:25 am

FaX-01 wrote:Whilst I scored a 22% on my Machine which suprised me with a 512k cache but the 800mhz FSB would compensate somewhat ... I would really like to see a Hyperthreading enabled version on Live 4.0.
If it runs this well without it I'd like to see my specs with it enabled.
I can easily run 10-11 Vst instruments + effects and audio tracks at the moment no problems what so ever which IMHO is more than enough.
It would still be interesting to see though.

one of my mates did the test on his Pentium 4 2.8ghz.
under SP2 - 31% with HT off. 38% with HT on.
your mileage may very

Until the audio engine is designed for multi-threading, you can expect HT to be a hinderance to performance.

LIVE 4 PERFORMANCE TEST

aiff, wav, data structures.