Live 6 - CPU usuage ?

wildcon · Post by **wildcon** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:00 pm

Hi,

Just a quick one.

I'm at the point of moving back over to Cubase for recording as I'm getting pops and clicks at 70% cpu and can only load few plugs before it happens.

Live was absolutely fine for my DJ'ing but I finding it more and more frustrating.

I do use pretty intensive plugs like Gtr Rig and Reaktor, but should be able to load more than a few without problems.

I'm loathe to go back to Cubase as it is cumbersome compared to Live but at lease I know I'll be able to record.

BTW - I have a fully spec'd and optimised laptop from Millenium music with an EMU 1616m soundcard, so shouldn't be a hardware issue.

So - simple question.

How does the CPU usuage compare in Live 6 to Live 5 ????

Cheers

hoffman2k · Post by **hoffman2k** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:04 pm

On a dual g5 i have about 40% increase in power. But these numbers may still change...
Live 6 is still a toddler

SubFunk · Post by **SubFunk** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:04 pm

How does the CPU usuage compare in Live 6 to Live 5

oh yeah please, in detail, someone of the "campers", that is the only factor i care about in 6 so far.

it is the all to important and only issue i have with 5.

word · Post by **word** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:07 pm

Yes I'm curious about this as well, in live 5 I get pops and clicks when the cpu hits 70% as well.

DeadlyKungFu · Post by **DeadlyKungFu** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:18 pm

crank your buffer size up, plug-in buffer, audio in buffer, audio out buffer.

turn the CPU threshhold limit up.

when you want to record external stuff with low delay, bounce the rest of the set to audio and turn the buffers down.

with large vsts, bounce them to audio and turn them off. turn them back on again if/when you want to tweak on them again.

Live 6, dual core support, I bought a laptop with dual core just for this reason.

this is me ->

<- stoked.

People still made better tracks with the beta of Live 1.

peeddrroo · Post by **peeddrroo** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:20 pm

as i said in another thread, i think it's just better to completely avoid this question right now.
i mean it's an alpha, there's some debugging code in it and there's plenty of time to improve the performance, or make it worse.

all the "campers" agreed that the performance is good for an alpha (i almost don't find a difference with L5), and that it's surprisingly stable.

that's all we can say really (that's for single core users)....

SubFunk · Post by **SubFunk** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:26 pm

DKF wrote:

crank your buffer size up, plug-in buffer, audio in buffer, audio out buffer.

turn the CPU threshhold limit up.

when you want to record external stuff with low delay, bounce the rest of the set to audio and turn the buffers down.

with large vsts, bounce them to audio and turn them off. turn them back on again if/when you want to tweak on them again.

Live 6, dual core support, I bought a laptop with dual core just for this reason.

this is me -> Very Happy <- stoked.

People still made better tracks with the beta of Live 1.

the question was not how to work around it (nor being able to create good tracks!), which everyone knows anyway how to do that, but thanks!, the question is will 6 be able to live up to the "standard" of efficiency of other apps around.

cherry-k · Post by **cherry-k** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:29 pm

hi to all,

this is probably a silly question, but do I also have on my old system,
P4-2,4, 1 GB RAM DDR 200,
a benefit in CPU usage with Live 6?
Maybe other users with older systems would like to know this, too?

thanks in advance

michael

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:30 pm

peeddrroo wrote:as i said in another thread, i think it's just better to completely avoid this question right now.
i mean it's an alpha, there's some debugging code in it and there's plenty of time to improve the performance, or make it worse.

all the "campers" agreed that the performance is good for an alpha (i almost don't find a difference with L5), and that it's surprisingly stable.

that's all we can say really (that's for single core users)....

And I can only say, as a dual core user: HOLY CRAP, this is good!

Seriously though, Live 6 alpha has been pounded pretty hard by me... I might have to do my own performance testing to see how much poly I can get out of Operator or something.

DeadlyKungFu · Post by **DeadlyKungFu** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:36 pm

SubFunk wrote:the question is will 6 be able to live up to the "standard" of efficiency of other apps around.

Of course not, people will piss and moan about every version of Live as long as there's an online soapbox for them to shout it from. Dual core will be a huge leap, but that won't stop the complaining. Whaddya mean I can't run 29 tracks of Guitar Rig and 48 simplers without closing down my e-mail, web browser and World Of Warcraft running in the background?? I shouldn't have to upgrade from 256Mb RAM and why could I reinstall this morning and at lunch but not after dinner?

I don't see it as a workaround so much as the proper way to use and understand a DAW.

don't mean to argue, just saying that when it comes to judging 'standards of efficiency' it just takes 1 or two people on the planet to make a lot of fuss over their own experiences, whether they know what they're talking about or not.

<goddamn I hate mondays, I'm so out of it!>

SubFunk · Post by **SubFunk** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:44 pm

easy tiger, i ain't moaning, just asked a direct question and expect a straight answer! that's it.

Of course not, people will piss and moan about every version of Live as long as there's an online soapbox for them to shout it from. Dual core will be a huge leap, but that won't stop the complaining. Whaddya mean I can't run 29 tracks of Guitar Rig and 48 simplers without closing down my e-mail, web browser and World Of Warcraft running in the background?? I shouldn't have to upgrade from 256Mb RAM and why could I reinstall this morning and at lunch but not after dinner?

LMFAO, unfortenuately i don't fall under that category, mate.

why is it not rendering my video file on top of it???

na that's rubbish, they should really do something about it!

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:47 pm

hoffman2k wrote:On a dual g5 i have about 40% increase in power. But these numbers may still change...

Okay, apart from getting a sweet 14% in the Live5 performance test with Live6 alpha on a duoCore 2ghz I decided to see how far I could push my machine.

I did a really complex Operator patch, with algo 10 ( A, B, and C->D), all four oscillators on, 12db lpf, and 20 voices.

Using this method I could go to 11 instances and:
203 voices ( a total of 812 Operator oscillators running) while staying under 100 percent. Lemme say that again: 812 oscillators.... 812.....

****
THE BEST PART:
Live didn't choke until *EXACTLY* 100% cpu!!! This little detail alone gives me about 30% more cpu power over Live 5.
****

hoffman2k · Post by **hoffman2k** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:49 pm

Only 812?

Damn. I'll never get this piece finished

SubFunk · Post by **SubFunk** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:49 pm

thanks! that's an answer!

DeadlyKungFu · Post by **DeadlyKungFu** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:54 pm

itsallgood subfunk, you're definitely not one of those users, when it comes to the general public it only takes 1 to make a stink. I don't know how high peoples' expectations will be. Sorry if I came off like a prick, I've said it before, I shouldn't post before lunch on a monday (or post at all

).

Are other DAWs dual core??

812!!! My god...

Machinate - Would it be an interesting test to see how many copies of the Live 5 performance test you could run in one .als? I mean, open the test then copy all the tracks a few times until Live 6 runs out of steam.