Any Q6600 users out there?

kb420 · Post by **kb420** » Fri May 02, 2008 1:52 am

What kinda performance are you getting from Live running vst plug ins?

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Fri May 02, 2008 2:19 am

after getting a quad core, i have for the first time in my life started being able to produce music in the way i have always envisioned..

no rendering, no freezing, everything rocking and live channels with any plugin i choose and i think i have to be doing something retarded to push past 45% cpu..

djc · Post by **djc** » Fri May 02, 2008 2:19 am

Very good! I had the e6300 before the quad-core processor. The e6300 was good but I needed more power and the Q6600 is MORE POWER!

andy hunt · Post by **andy hunt** » Fri May 02, 2008 8:16 am

i have an q6600 clocked at 3.0 ghz( you can go even higher) and its a blast! with normal musicmaking i never come over 40 % and i use a lot of softsynths and plugins like NI massive or reaktor. so get one, i think this is real musicmaking and it makes really fun! i´ve made some cpu tests to test stability with this clocking and i´ve made ca. 40 Tracks all with zebra 2 playing 4 voices and in every channel was the free plugin Ambience (cpu killer) with the longest reverb tail set + 8 send tracks also with Ambience and this all with a 128 Buffer setting

so when you "normal" making music you will never reach the limit

madhattared · Post by **madhattared** » Fri May 02, 2008 12:12 pm

i haven't been able to push live's cpu meter beyond 18%. I haven't been able to push tops utilization beyond 12%

And trust me I tried. It is excellent.

Pasha · Post by **Pasha** » Fri May 02, 2008 12:43 pm

sweetjesus wrote:after getting a quad core, i have for the first time in my life started being able to produce music in the way i have always envisioned..

no rendering, no freezing, everything rocking and live channels with any plugin i choose and i think i have to be doing something retarded to push past 45% cpu..

I noticed that on my Dual Core racks does not scale:
The CPU Power needed to run two instances of Analog with different presets,
doubles the one needed when I split the Analog instances between two tracks.
This should be a Live implementation design of multi-core utilization so you should spot it even on a Quad Core. Can you confirm?

- Best
- Pasha

Pasha · Post by **Pasha** » Fri May 02, 2008 12:44 pm

Pasha wrote:
sweetjesus wrote:after getting a quad core, i have for the first time in my life started being able to produce music in the way i have always envisioned..

no rendering, no freezing, everything rocking and live channels with any plugin i choose and i think i have to be doing something retarded to push past 45% cpu..
I noticed that on my Dual Core racks does not scale:
The CPU Power needed to run two instances of Analog with different presets,
doubles the one needed when I split the Analog instances between two tracks.
This should be a Live implementation design of multi-core utilization so you should spot it even on a Quad Core. Can you confirm?
BTW Mac or Windows?

- Best
- Pasha

Kozak · Post by **Kozak** » Fri May 02, 2008 1:05 pm

Can these babies be installed on a laptop?

Sweet I'm gonna get one...I have a 3 Ghz computer but when I have a drumrack, some compressors and a limiter and 3 synths running it starts behaving awkward.

EDIT: Do any of you guys have a USB soundcard and if so how does it hold up latency wise when there is such a big processing demand?

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Fri May 02, 2008 1:38 pm

Pasha wrote:
sweetjesus wrote:after getting a quad core, i have for the first time in my life started being able to produce music in the way i have always envisioned..

no rendering, no freezing, everything rocking and live channels with any plugin i choose and i think i have to be doing something retarded to push past 45% cpu..
I noticed that on my Dual Core racks does not scale:
The CPU Power needed to run two instances of Analog with different presets,
doubles the one needed when I split the Analog instances between two tracks.
This should be a Live implementation design of multi-core utilization so you should spot it even on a Quad Core. Can you confirm?

- Best
- Pasha

can you send me a test .als file ?

basically all i know is that Live distributes the processing on a per channel basis.

something 'like' this:

Track 1 - Core 1
Track 2 - Core 2
Track 3 - Core 1
Track 4 - Core 2
Track 5 - Core 1
etc..

Pasha · Post by **Pasha** » Fri May 02, 2008 2:00 pm

sweetjesus wrote:
Pasha wrote:
sweetjesus wrote:after getting a quad core, i have for the first time in my life started being able to produce music in the way i have always envisioned..

no rendering, no freezing, everything rocking and live channels with any plugin i choose and i think i have to be doing something retarded to push past 45% cpu..
I noticed that on my Dual Core racks does not scale:
The CPU Power needed to run two instances of Analog with different presets,
doubles the one needed when I split the Analog instances between two tracks.
This should be a Live implementation design of multi-core utilization so you should spot it even on a Quad Core. Can you confirm?

- Best
- Pasha
can you send me a test .als file ?

basically all i know is that Live distributes the processing on a per channel basis.

something 'like' this:

Track 1 - Core 1
Track 2 - Core 2
Track 3 - Core 1
Track 4 - Core 2
Track 5 - Core 1
etc..

Hi I discovered this last week.
I can't send you a project right now but I can describe how to do it in 2 minutes.

1. Empty Project
2. Instrument Rack in Track1
3. Place Analog preset 'Washpad & VoicyPad in the rack as two different chains (look under Analog/Synth/Pad they're at the bottom of presets list)
4. Play a C chord made of 4-6 notes. (this happens with every chord though..)
5. Look at CPU Usage
6. Add 2 MIDI Tracks
7. Track2 Drag 'n' Drop VoicyPad
8. Track3 Drag 'n' Drop WashPad
9. Mute Track1
10. Set Track2 & Track3 to Monitor In
11. Play the same Chord

In my case (a 2.0 GHz MacBook C2D Nov 06) when using rack I get 80% CPU (and cracks @256 samples) while when using two tracks I get 64% and clean sound.
Racks doesn't scale while I think they should, otherwise when you build even easy Racks you get limited by single core speed, no matter how many cores you have.

- Best
- Pasha

Kozak · Post by **Kozak** » Fri May 02, 2008 2:01 pm

How does Live actually run on a dual core processor? Do you really need a quad core ATM?

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Fri May 02, 2008 2:05 pm

Pasha wrote:6 samples) while when using two tracks I get 64% and clean sound.
Racks doesn't scale while I think they should, otherwise when you build even easy Racks you get limited by single core speed, no matter how many cores you have.

- Best
- Pasha

aah

i dont need to test this.

racks do not scale.

tracks do.

Pasha · Post by **Pasha** » Fri May 02, 2008 2:43 pm

sweetjesus wrote:
Pasha wrote:6 samples) while when using two tracks I get 64% and clean sound.
Racks doesn't scale while I think they should, otherwise when you build even easy Racks you get limited by single core speed, no matter how many cores you have.

- Best
- Pasha
aah

i dont need to test this.

racks do not scale.

tracks do.

Do you know if this has been submitted as an enhancement request?

- Best
- Pasha

donnydonny · Post by **donnydonny** » Fri May 02, 2008 6:08 pm

sweetjesus wrote:after getting a quad core, i have for the first time in my life started being able to produce music in the way i have always envisioned..

no rendering, no freezing, everything rocking and live channels with any plugin i choose and i think i have to be doing something retarded to push past 45% cpu..

I'm 100% with you on that one. After running a P4 for almost 3 years, I'm totally appreciative of the ridiculous amount of power that's in my machine. It's hard to comprehend how much power Core 2 Extremes and Quads really have unless you've had to bounce down almost all your tracks and deal with not being able to play your own session after finishing it.

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Fri May 02, 2008 6:41 pm

Pasha wrote:
sweetjesus wrote:
Pasha wrote:6 samples) while when using two tracks I get 64% and clean sound.
Racks doesn't scale while I think they should, otherwise when you build even easy Racks you get limited by single core speed, no matter how many cores you have.

- Best
- Pasha
aah

i dont need to test this.

racks do not scale.

tracks do.
Do you know if this has been submitted as an enhancement request?

- Best
- Pasha

I don't think so... it's not something that seems to come up around here in discussion much.