|
Just bought a powerful computer but its slower than my old crappy laptop?! Fl Studio
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ Robby Rox |
This is almost making me sick.
I bought an emachine from tigerdirect.com. This computer was built to be roughly 8 times quicker than my laptop. If someone can figure this out PLEASE help me. Its not an easy question but it should be.
Specs (new pc): Pent D dual core processor 3.0 ghz.
2.0 gb ram.
500 gb hardrive.
Mach Speed P4MST-890 mother board
It was suppose to be an improvement on my laptop:
Mobile AMD Sempron 3000+ 1800mhz
A little over 1/2gb ram
80gb hardrive
Now on the new (top) computer I'm having 90% cpu loads with 2 vsts when my laptop can easily handle around 8-10 (similiar loaded patches). Its NOT buffer latency and they both have the same soundcards. When I run a free benchmark test (PC wizard 2008) its giving my new computer a much higher rating (1300 compared to 800) BUT it is not working even close to how it should.
I called the manufacturer of the parts and they said it can't be a hardware problem. I've asked people and noone has a clue. The short question is how is it possible I have a powerhouse computer that is running tons slower than a slower computer?
I'm losing my mind trying to figure this out and I'm just lost. If anyone has any idea I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks - Rox |
|
|
| kopi_luwak |
Check your Bios out, make sure all is configured properly.
Kopi =o. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Linked from the FAQ:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...&postid=5282717
If that doesn't answer your question, nothing will.
Since I heard you say the words "buffer latency", I have to wonder if maybe you're using some crappy built-in audio controller and DirectSound.
Also, I know this isn't what you want to hear, but eMachines and the Pentium D both suck. You really should have picked up at least a Core Duo if you want to do music production. And eMachines... ick. Did you at least remove all the pre-installed crapware?
Edit: One other thing, I'm looking at the specs and... how exactly do you figure it's going to be 8 times quicker? |
|
|
| echosystm |
Enable multithreaded generator processing. It should help a bit.
Also, what sound card do you have? If its onboard or made by Creative, it is a piece of and therein lies your problem. |
|
|
| Fledz |
I just want to know why you bought a Pentium D? Core 2 Duo's are dirt cheap these days. Dirt cheap.
Could possibly be the soundcard. Also, how many background processes are there? |
|
|
| Lunar Phase 7 |
Sorry to hi-jack this thread, but anyone have any ing idea why audio would stutter during DVD and CD playback, when for 1 1/2 years there has been no issues, and everyhting else handles fine?
Video is unaffected during playback, just audio stutters.
It's mad gay, yo. |
|
|
| Oreoh142 |
| i did the same thing...if its a laptop make sure that on the batter its on high performance...i had mine on low for about a month until i found out i was using a 1/10 of its power |
|
|
| knight54 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Oreoh142
i did the same thing...if its a laptop make sure that on the batter its on high performance...i had mine on low for about a month until i found out i was using a 1/10 of its power |
could you explain this comment to the technically challenged.... thanks |
|
|
| Oreoh142 |
| quote: | Originally posted by knight54
could you explain this comment to the technically challenged.... thanks |
um..yeah....i guess
ok so if you have a laptop there are features for the labtop to use X% of its rram and cpu which burns up the battery X times faster. When you first by a laptop, its set to average, so you use an average amount of your CPU and RRAM and your battery last an average amount. If you click on the battery symbol (different for all computers this is just mine) you can change it to high performance where you use more of rram and CPU but your battery goes to hell (which doesn;t matter if it is always plugged in) |
|
|
| MERiDiAN5i2 |
Let me guess... It came with Vista, you're using the junk onboard audio and you thought "mach speed" was something more than a marketing tactic? :toothless
How is it the laptop and your new desktop have the same audio? they may have a similar sound chip, but implementations vary.
The P4MST-890 is a $60 Via P4M890-based microatx desktop board. |
|
|
| DJ Robby Rox |
Ok the computer was built from a kit and the only software that was installed was windows xp and virus protection (same basics on my laptop).
When I said it had the same card as my laptop I meant that I'm using Realteck HD audio output on both. My brother is a computer freak and use to build computers but now he manages websites for hi end companies like kodak and what not. I would definetly say he's some what of a genious when it comes to computers.
The one thing he mentioned was the bios (like somebody said) but than he mentioned why it wouldnt be the bios and had some long explanation why (that I can't remember).
I know most of the basic ways to conserve cpu like latency, converting to wav, sharing fx for channels that was mentioned in the link. And all though they all have an effect on cpu its extremely minor in comparison to how this computer is performing. The 8'xs faster estimation was roughly how much quicker my brother said it would be than my laptop *before I bought everything.
We even got into the discussion that people can make weak processor chips that lie to the computer and say they're something like a pentium 4 when its really a Mobile Sempron AMD. But the fact is EVEN with a weak chip like that my computer should STILL be a ton quicker.
I have more ram, a huge harddrive, and a dual core processor. And its running at like 1/10th the speed as my laptop which has a crappy Mobile Sempron processor.
I've ran bench marks that rate it a 1300 though and my laptop an 800. So I cannot figure out how its still running so much slower than my laptop. And when I say slow I mean opening one vst eats most of the cpu, EVEN with multithreading. Just from a logical standpoint with the hardware I have I can't see how thats possible.
I'll probaly wind up giving the computer back to my brother so he can look at it but he keeps saying it has to be a software issue with FL Studio that I'm overlooking. The only thing thats unfamiliar to him is FL Studio's software. I've been using FL for years and thought I knew everything but something still is just not right. I could have spent wayyy less $$ at bestbuy and still got a faster crappy dell with a lot slower hardware specs. Makes no sense. =[ |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Dude, you're using the ty Realtek onboard audio. That's clearly your problem. Read the thread I linked above before posting another reply, please.
Dual core will only help you if your sequencer makes proper use of both cores. FL is terrible at this (yes, I know, VST instruments are sort-of multithreaded, wonderful).
RAM won't really affect performance unless you're running out of it. If your old computer wasn't starved for RAM - and it probably wasn't, unless you make heavy use of samplers - then adding more wouldn't have much of an effect. It certainly wouldn't improve performance by a factor of 2 as you seem to believe.
Hard disk size will have no effect whatsoever on performance. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Do you even know what these "PC Wizard" benchmarks are telling you, or do you just think that because one number is higher than the other, everything is going to be several times faster?
You *could* have saved yourself a whole lot of coin - not by buying a Dell, which would have just landed you in the same spot, but by buying a proper audio interface from M-Audio, MOTU, RME, or even some low-end POS from PreSonus or Creative. Don't blame the computer, or your brother; next time do your research before shelling out the cash.
I'm sure you can still salvage this one and end up with a decent-performing machine by shelling out another $150-$200 for a proper sound card. And DON'T ask us which one - there are enough threads about that already. |
|
|
|
|
