TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Fruity 5.0 Bad with Cpu?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Fruity 5.0 Bad with Cpu?

So i bought a new pc today.

Pent 4 2.8 gighz.

Downloaded the demo of FL en what i noticed is, some of the flp took more than 50% cpu.

Like the styrus mix flp. (or something like that)


Anyway just curious.

So ya, is it normal?

i didnt notice any significant CPU load hit when moving from floops 4.51 to floops 5.0

but then im used to adding 2 vanguards, boshing up a pad patch, striking an 11 chord on both of them and watching the CPU meter shoot up to 100% thus crashing my PC. didnt notice that it was any worse though.

Adjust your sample rate for the audio buffer. It defaults at a very low rate, move it up to like 200 ms atleast.

for me, the CPU load doesn't change for a flp between FL 4.52 and FL 5.0



check your settings, as SoM said. you can't leave it slow like that

switching from reason to FL man ?

music software always eats cpu

quote:

Originally posted by staticblue for me, the CPU load doesn't change for a flp between FL 4.52 and FL 5.0 check your settings, as SoM said. you can't leave it slow like that switching from reason to FL man ?

Donno

I know it eats Cpu, but i thought a pentium 4 2.8 gighz could eat some instruments before reaching 70%

i'm sure it can

got a good soundcard ?

quote:

Originally posted by staticblue i'm sure it can got a good soundcard ?

nope,not yet..

but will buy probably some where in febraury when i have money, and mite upgrade RAM to 1.5 gig.

I use FL5 with a Athlon 64 3000+, 512 RAM and an onboard soundcard ( ) and it works just fine, except I have bad latency (because of the soundcard).. Stuff that wouldn't play before on the old P4 1,7 Ghz only reach about 15-20 CPU now.

quote:

Originally posted by State of Matter Adjust your sample rate for the audio buffer. It defaults at a very low rate, move it up to like 200 ms atleast.

doesn't quite improve the musical side of producing..
I run fully automated logic songs with a few vanguards playing 4 note pads, a few es2's and about 10 esx 24's and some other sw synths controlling 6 hw synths on 10 ms latency while recording the outputs of my mixer on a 1-year old pc so I really can't see why people with a recent pc should set the latency this high. I prefer playing notes realtime so I couldn't live with it anyway.
Instead of spending loads of money on top notch cpu's I think it's a wiser decision to spend money on a decent soundcard. Top notch cpu's are wasted money anyway, just look how much they cost after 2 years. I know I won't impress anyone with my 2.6 cpu but at least I can do what I want with it when it comes to producing

quote:

Originally posted by DeZmA doesn't quite improve the musical side of producing.. I run fully automated logic songs with a few vanguards playing 4 note pads, a few es2's and about 10 esx 24's and some other sw synths controlling 6 hw synths on 10 ms latency while recording the outputs of my mixer on a 1-year old pc so I really can't see why people with a recent pc should set the latency this high. I prefer playing notes realtime so I couldn't live with it anyway. Instead of spending loads of money on top notch cpu's I think it's a wiser decision to spend money on a decent soundcard. Top notch cpu's are wasted money anyway, just look how much they cost after 2 years. I know I won't impress anyone with my 2.6 cpu but at least I can do what I want with it when it comes to producing

Well a new pc was a must for me.

I couldn't continue on my old pent 3 866..

But does this mean that a good soundcard increases the work performance?

in any case it increases the workflow/confort, because it gives you a DECENT latency

it seems that people with AMD's run sequencers and vsti's more stable. Is this true...do you think?

Nah, not more stable, but they are generally able to squeeze some more power out of music apps than an equivalent Intel cpu. That's because AMD cpu's have better floating point calculation performance (though the latest Intel cpu's have closed the gap considerably).
But on some very rare occasions, some plugs don't work with AMD. On the other hand, the P4 (even the recent ones) still have problems (more often than with AMD's) with denormals, if the programmers of the plugs haven't taken care.

Personally, I'm used to working with Dual CPU setups, and frankly, it's a pain to return to singles If you want responsiveness and stability, it's the way to go. So much my DAW is going dual soon (and frankly, with such setup, you're good for at least 10 years, and if not, then you're probably using your gear wrong). But then again, I don't use it solely for home project stuff. Stability and responsiveness is an absolute requisite in what I do.

As for the soundcard, latency and stability is mostly down to the quality of the drivers. Usually, good interfaces have solid ASIO drivers. ASIO allows you to have minimal latencies, but once you get to the very small values, it starts to impact on CPU too. But 10 ms is a good figure (some older hardware didn't even respond that fast). If you're doing audio recordings (with foldback) it might still throw of some musicians (but that's rather rare, and you can still resort to Direct Monitoring). Even better interfaces (RME/MOTU for example) include DSP's. Contrary to popular belief, those DSP's aren't used to run plugins (like Creamware stuff or Powercore/UAD cards). The DSP's in those cards take care of all internal audio routing and mixing, so relieving the host CPU even more from some cycles.

For those who don't have nice expensive cards, you can still resort to ASIO4ALL (http://michael.tippach.bei.t-online.de/asio4all/ ) to get low latencies, but be aware that it is not guaranteed. Like I said, a good card has solid drivers written specifically for it, and such generic drivers like ASIO4ALLall and KX CAN deliver good performance, but can totally throw your system off too (if it happens to be an incompatible combination). But, it's still worth a try.

BTW, before I forget, so many times I've encountered this.
If you got a good interface, in most ASIO compatible programs, you still have a choice out of different ASIO drivers. Usually ASIO DirectX Full Duplex, ASIO MME and ASIO "Brand or Model of the interface". Always choose the last one. The DirectX and MME ones are wrappers, and their performance is always worse than the dedicated driver (read : they should only be used when the best choice doesn't work, and even then you should research why it doesn't work).

One more question


I have 512 ram now, should i make it 1 gig?

That helps me with producing allot or just a bit? or not at all??


Thanks

quote:

But does this mean that a good soundcard increases the work performance?

and

quote:

I have 512 ram now, should i make it 1 gig?

no it wont and no you shouldnt unless you feel you need more memory for other applications that require it (currently, videogames, scanning VERY large images for image editting, manipulation, digital painting or if you multitask alot etc).

a good soundcard provides only the following

1) midi connectivity
2) analog (and digital) inputs/outputs
3) stable ASIO drivers for low latency MIDI control

really good ones will have stuff like wordclock connectivity (keeping MIDI clock from an external device), ADAT (for shit loads of ins/outs), extra stuff like that.

a good soundcard will *not*

1) improve CPU load *at all*
2) allow you to run more VSTis or load more VSTis into system memory

things that REALLY *kill* your CPU:

1) high polyphony and large chords
2) the effects you put on the the big high poly chords
3) poorly designed synths (the freesynth dirtbag is an example of this)

dirtbag has problems with floating point maths and rounding errors and this is not exclusive to this synth. it happens with some others too and causes chronic performance issues. 1 dirtbag is enough to kill my PC on its own owing to this problem. but its rare. vanguard doesnt seem to have this issue or zeta or any of the big synths out there. but some of them (like zeta especially) just like to hog CPU.

usually it only takes 2 vanguards running simultaneously with a big 11 chord to slay my PC. this is normal. i just think of the number of processes at work. your PC has to crunch multiple oscillators per filter per voice whilst calculating more often than not a reverb tail and the big killer, a delay. a basic delay will quadruple the existing strain on your CPU. more or less depending on the delay time and the delay sustain. not to mention the other processing effects you may use. not to mention the other instruments and percs you are running at the same time, all with effects on them, all being crunched simultaneously.

adding more system memory allows you to load more instruments into memory but ive got 512mb and i can have a stack of 3 albinos, 3 vanguards and 2 3oscs running in unison (i got the flp file too!). my CPU load will be on 100% and it will stutter to death but i have loaded all of that into 512mb of RAM and i could load more but the CPU load was getting stupid anyway so its not an issue. seeing as most PCs would die pretty quickly under that strain i would say you dont need more RAM. you already have nearly double the CPU i have so i would say you need to streamline your working practices. get used to bouncing things down and reassembling parts as wavs. thats the most efficient way to produce. my delta 1010 does *not* alleviate CPU load over my internal intel integrated soundcard. there is less static in the audio output and less interference on the 1010 though because all the DATs are housed in a breakoutbox whereas my integrated soundcard picks up electrical interferance from the innards of my PC. other than that my 1010 allows me to hook up my virus b. it lets me hook up midi controllers. thats what its for. if you only use software you really dont need a big 10 in/10 out expensive soundcard.

Question:

Would a socket 939 Athlon 64 3000 be better then a Pentium 4 3ghz(prescott or northwood)?

I know the prescott has 1mb of L2 cache, and the northwood only has 512k, so uhm, what's performance difference?

I'm just about to get a new computer and don't know what to go for

Depends what you wanna do with it.

If it's mainly software based (softsynths, software effects etc...) and some hardware audio recording, ie like in most home studio setups, I'd recommend AMD, as for a similar price you can squeeze out a little more performance than a similar Intel. The times that AMD stood for unstable and incompatible platforms is far away (much to do with older VIA chipsets).

If on the other hand, you want to do heavy multitrack recording or you want to get a full blown Protools TDM or HD rig, you'd better go with Intel. Digidesign still doesn't support AMD for their big Protools systems.

If you go for Intel, it's a common fact that the Prescott runs hotter and performs a little less good than a Northwood at the same speed. Performance wise, the difference is so small you won't see it, but for cooling it can mean you need better cooling.

So to answer your question Rob, as I think you'll be more into the home studio thing, AMD would be a sensible choice. It's mostly the combination with the motherboard that will be the most important choice here. I'd say, play it safe and stick with ASUS or ABIT.

To add what Derivative said about RAM, I'd say the only thing that could still eat up all your RAM are older samplers, where most of your samples go into the memory. But since the coming of Direct Streaming (or DFD for Kontakt) this problem isn't so bad anymore. Anyways, if you still want to go for more ram, unless you are using hard/software than specifically uses lots of ram (3D Studio, servers etc...), I don't advice going for more than 1 gig. In normal use, with up to 1 gig you can see your system (especially XP) run a little smoother, beyond that it's useless.

Cheers for the info Thy. Would opting for the Athlon 64 be the wiser option seeing as it would be optimized to run 64 bit applications (namly the future versions of cubase and windows)?

Indeed, the Athlon64 is already 64 bit ready. So you are future proof.

Let it be said that "officially", the 64 bit version of Windows will only be released end 2006. There are already 64 bit ports of Linux, but I don't think that will be useful to you. Cubase SX 3 is already optimized for 64 bit, but this will only be used under a 64 bit OS...

Intel Itaniums have 64 bit capability also, but they are 64 bit native, which means they need to emulate 32 bit behaviour (meaning loss of performance). Athlon64 still have 32 bit instructions so they can run it like any normal actual processor. Besides that, memory management in A64 is very solid, so you'll benefit right away from some technological advancements.

On the other hand, with the technology advancement like today, it's probable too that by the time 64 bit apps get fully implemented, the actual A64's will already by outdated

quote:

Originally posted by Massive84 nope,not yet.. but will buy probably some where in febraury when i have money, and mite upgrade RAM to 1.5 gig.

What OS? I've experienced bottle necks at the processor but not memory.

HYPER-THREADING??? Do you have it? If so, FL does NOT like it. You MUST disable it in the BIOS. Then, you should have better results.

quote:

Originally posted by Massive84 Well a new pc was a must for me. I couldn't continue on my old pent 3 866.. But does this mean that a good soundcard increases the work performance?

LOL...I'm runnin an 900 AMD comp 260 ram along with FL Studio 5

i had gotten it not too long ago and was hesitant because i would have to re-install everything...but once i noticed that FL Studio 5 was alot more cpu friendly then 4 i quickly changed over to 5.

Dunno what the prob could be...u must be runnin multiple apps along with spyware...cuz im havin no probs whatsoever

Sebasano

P.S. welcome to the FL Darkside brother

Re: Fruity 5.0 Bad with Cpu?

quote:

Originally posted by Massive84 So i bought a new pc today. Pent 4 2.8 gighz. Downloaded the demo of FL en what i noticed is, some of the flp took more than 50% cpu. Like the styrus mix flp. (or something like that) Anyway just curious. So ya, is it normal?

styrus eats cpu. not FL

quote:

Originally posted by 4am HYPER-THREADING??? Do you have it? If so, FL does NOT like it. You MUST disable it in the BIOS. Then, you should have better results.

Did anyone see my post? If you have HT Technology, turn it off in the BIOS. Sytrus does not eat CPU. I have an AMD Athlon XP 2400+ (1.6ghz) and I can run every patch in sytrus with several other insturments and get NO crackling.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.