LIVE 4 PERFORMANCE TEST

j · Post by j » Mon Sep 06, 2004 8:19 am

Adamjay

Thanks for the reply...well I feel much more informed. I know this test was not A PC/MAC thing...but I'm really finding that Live does so much for me creatively and I have been up above 70% regularly so power has become a concern. Maybe in the future I'll use both together?

But I won't focus on it too much. Jeez I'm lucky to have a lappy period!

j

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 8:34 am

Is it the same with Cubase and Logic etc.. ad infinitum.

Do PC's perform faster than Mac's with other software??

Just a question, not a diss toward Macs.

j · Post by j » Mon Sep 06, 2004 8:59 am

not sure...I'd guess the PC's are gonna just be faster...???

But I will say my Pbook is great for graphics production...and I need this for work.....not talking speed but overall experience.

But for how much I paid for this machine i feel it should do well with both.

I would consider using a mac lappy and a PC lappy together and will scour the forum to research this.

j

polyslax · Post by **polyslax** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 9:59 am

That's crazy!! I'm feeling total, unadulterated ENVY!

Not sure why everyone seems to be surprised by the G4's lack of muscle. I'm running a G4 myself and I don't need to run the test to know this 5 year old cpu would fail miserably.

But, I'm very encouraged by the G5 results and will be picking one up before the end of the year.

rand wrote:Well, to run the test I didn't want to close my current applications bacause they are HUGE and they would require too long right now to reload... (I'm running LogicPro with Space Designers, softsynths & BIG EXS streaming samples and such... I'm ALSO running Live4 & it's doc is 19.3 megs... crazy. )
So I duped my LIVE ap and ran it too. ;=)
voila 'for now', I'll update it latter with only Live4 running...
1=peak 20-22
2=PowerMac G5 2x2.5,
3=OSX 3.5
4=PowerPC G5 970fx, 2x2.4
5=4gigs PC3200 DDR ram
6=motherboad stereo out (waiting for RME to fix my hammerfall 9652)
7=HDs are 512mb Sata (with the Live files now), 150 scsi raid, 100ata...firewire here n there.
(Remember I'm running other aps simultaneously. )
rrRand

rand · Post by **rand** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 10:11 am

There are just tooOooo many other factors to get all high and mighty on this test... Try running 3 other 'hughmongous' aps at the same time on Windows. Don't really know how well that might work for you but here on my OSX Mac it is smooth, smooth, smooth. I could run even more stuff...

At this very moment I have RUNNING SIMULTANEOUSLY:
LogicPro with Space Designers, soft synths galore, 20+ EXS streaming samplers,
+ Live4 with hundreds of slots and a jam seq that is 4+ hours long (19+meg doc),
+ FCP4
+ DVD StudioPro
+ Safari & Mail & 6 other lil aps...
Ya could say I'm trying to find the new G5s limit but I haven't hit it yet...
I'm happy.

Sometimes I feel that Live wouldn't go 'much' below 20% even with a G6.
But I don't care...
Also, I am sure the new iMac G5s could make music with Live with no worries - just pure fun... get real ya'll.

FWIW, I think the new iMac G5 IS portable..
ONE powercable - that's it!
i.e. Airport the net with one of those new small apple doodads that also steams audio... Bluetooth the keyboard and mouse. Done.
Put the few items in a briefcase and go.. sets up in 2 minutes and ya have a gorgeous OSX screen ta work in...

BTW, 'M' comes before 'P' on most lists.
rrRand

Kas. · Post by **Kas.** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 10:14 am

AdamJay wrote:I took 8 large stereo warped tracks. each about 6 minutes in length.
all originally .aiff 16 bit, 44.1khz. on the ibook G4 800mhz, the performance was the same when playing them all as .aiff , and as .wav. The CPU Meter even fluctuated in exactly the same manner.

sent the same files to my Athlon box via the network, both .wav and .aiff. I got the same results.

i really don't think the nature of the samples' format is an issue.

so it would apear then. i guess reordering bits is nothing compared to the other stuff live does and trivial for a modern cpu. since live streams off the h.d. instead of from memory, converting samples ahead of time and keeping a modified version around is no option for live so i would´ve predicted that live would be more affected by this than other audio programs.

ah, well, we had a theory, did the tests and disproved it. nothing like a bit of freestyle science. next up; portable nuclear reactors and grounding issues.

cheers!

Kas. · Post by **Kas.** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 10:27 am

rand wrote:There are tooOooo many other factors to get all high and mighty on this test. Try running 3 other 'hughmongous' aps at the same time on Windows. Don't really know how well that might work for you but here on my OSX Mac it is smooth, smooth, smooth. I could run even more...
I'm happy.

actually i think it´s praiseworthy that very little "mine is bigger than yours" type comments are going on. i think it´s quite clear that macs excell at some things, pc´s at others. still, considdering that, at the kind of time that you only run live there´s a fair chance some amount of people is watching you, possibly paying cash for the privilige so you want to apear your best. i got a laptop mainly for performing live and Live is my tool of choice. these tests are quite relevant to me and others like me. for elaborate production work in a mostly software environment you´d want other tests.

oh, and about those lists; "alpha-dec" still comes before "apple" in such lists ;¬)

FaX-01 · Post by **FaX-01** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 10:46 am

I'm gonna wait for someone to pull a test off a G5 i-Mac it maybe my choice of PC (as in personal computer) for Metasynth 4.0 and Xx on OSX

.

rand · Post by **rand** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 11:00 am

I certainly did not say 'mine is better', use whatever ya want.
I'm just pointing out that there are MANY issues to consider when one compares speed tests... i.e. how well does the ap/os behave when other things are going on. & in performance stability is king.
BTW, there isn't a "alpha-dec" on the list (yet) so it's irrelevant to 'neutral' alphabetizing...
Cheers
rRand

Kas. · Post by **Kas.** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 11:20 am

rand, we don´t disagree at all. nobody is using dec´s, but then again nobody is alphabetising either, it was just a silly answer to your silly joke.

cheers.

Michel H. · Post by **Michel H.** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:23 pm

1) 25-29%
2) Clevo D500P Laptop
3) XP SP2
4) Intel Pentium 4 3,00GHz; HT disabled; 800MHz FSB; Intel 865PE; 512 kb L2 cache
5) 1 GB DDR333 (Dual channel)
6) RME Multiface; 512 Buffer Size
7) HITACHI_DK23FB-40 5400 rpm

Note:
Same performance with HT enabled and XP SP1

netchaiev · Post by **netchaiev** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:58 pm

1) Ableton Live CPU Meter %/// 54%
2) Laptop/Desktop? Make/Model// PB 15" Alu
3) Operating System//// OS X.3.5
4) CPU Make Model and Speed // 1.33ghz
5) Amount of Ram // 768Mb PC 2100 333
6) Soundcard // stock
7) Hard Disk Drive Speed // 4200

Buffers at 512 samples indicate 12ms +12ms= 24ms
Surprising tests after the one we did w/ Live 4 w/ near 0% on demo before hitting play (as oppose to 12% w/ live 3)
[/b]

knowa · Post by **knowa** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 3:34 pm

1) Ableton Live CPU Meter: 22 - 29%
2) Toshiba M15-S405
3) XP Home SP1
4) Centrino 1.4
5) 512 RAM
6) Echo Indigo I/O
7) HD 5400 RPM

Thanks for organizing this test. Last summer's tests at this forum helped me choose my Toshiba and I've been very happy.

Best,

knowa

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 8:40 pm

Rand, i think you may have misunderstood the point of the test.

The point was to compare the broad capabilities of Ableton Live 4 as a Standalone application across a variety of computer configurations and platforms. So that folks can gauge how well different computers perform wtih Ableton Live 4 and Ableton Live 4 alone.

If this were a test of Ram allocation, Memory Bandwidth, and integrity of a given platform - then yea i suppose one would want to know if they could still keep their high track count and Reverbs while burning a DVD, playing Chess, and updating their stock portfolio.

I won't speak for everyone else, but i personally don't check my email, surf the net, and tinker within Final Cut Pro whilst performing on stage. I've got music to worry about. I'm glad you can do all of that stuff, you should be able to, you paid enough money for the machine. And we all want to get what we paid for.

The fact of the matter is people ARE buying laptops these days for the sole purpose of performing live. And this test is for them.

I don't think anyone was getting "high and mighty".
I was impressed that the thread went 8 pages before any negativity, and i would love to keep it that way.

cheers.

rajcoont · Post by **rajcoont** » Mon Sep 06, 2004 9:34 pm

1) Ableton Live CPU Meter: 72%(!):(
2) Apple 12" pb
3) 10.3.5
4) 1Ghz g4
5) 768 RAM
6) motu828
7) 4200 RPM

shocking and awful...luckily i write tracks in a far different manner, and have only once written something too fx heavy to continue without renders, but is still a shock to see how well other set ups are performing....iMac here i come (when you get to rev b that is)

LIVE 4 PERFORMANCE TEST

OK

the same?

Re: aiff, wav, data structures.