Tell me about your CPUS! & Can they withhold a complete session?

MacBook w/ dual 1.83, 2Gb of ram. So far, it's been handling 35 tracks (including bus's) with 50+ plugins with no problems whatsoever. I keep my buffer setting at 64 for tracking, 128 for mixing. I find anything less than 64 for tracking and I notice the latency, at least when reamping.
 
I have a 3.2P4 Ht with 2 gigs of ram. I currently have projects with 40 + tracks, a few synths, and a billion plug-ins running with little problems. What software host are you using? Its all about resource managment. I use sonar and it is very easy and efficent to archive tracks so its never been a problem. Also, with out plugs I could get up to about 80 + tracks running at the same time. When I mix though I jack my latency up because at that point it does not matter and it sazes a lot of cpu cycles.
 
DSS3 said:
MacBook w/ dual 1.83, 2Gb of ram. So far, it's been handling 35 tracks (including bus's) with 50+ plugins with no problems whatsoever. I keep my buffer setting at 64 for tracking, 128 for mixing. I find anything less than 64 for tracking and I notice the latency, at least when reamping.
Click to expand...

Cubase, right? That app (also Logic) seems to be the most resource efficient by far. DP really needs to optimize their resource usage.
 
for the first time yesterday, i tried running mine with 8 drum tracks; compression, eq, and verb on most of them, and it wasn't doing well @ all for real time play back

stuttering about every 7 seconds or so...with adobe i've got a decent workaround tho, i can add the effects in the edit view and it's got a nice undo system; still a bit of a pain tho
 
This has been a great read so far guys! How do you reckon dual core improves things?

I don't know how many DAWs are optimised for dual core currently? I remember hearing Nuendo 3 is, not sure about Nuendo 2 (probbaly not). No doubt pro tools would be.
 
prowlergrig said:
interesting.. so, during mixing, increasing the soundcard's latency in ASIO frees up some cpu? ..how come i never thought of that :D
Click to expand...

Yup...it works like a charm....I usually just up mine to like 250 milliseconds and it drops the load on my cpu by about 25%.
 
Kazrog said:
Cubase, right? That app (also Logic) seems to be the most resource efficient by far. DP really needs to optimize their resource usage.
Click to expand...

Logic, actually. Cubase for Intel's was just released about 3-4 weeks ago, and I had already bought Logic and gotten accustomed to it. But yeah, it's incredibly resource efficient.
 
Sorry, I will exspand a little:

Powerbook G4 solo 1.5ghz CPU
1256MB RAM
ATI graphics 64MB mem
Exsternal 160gig HD (seagate)
Internal 80gig HD

I run Cubase SL 3 and sometime Reason 3.0 at the same time.

The most I have ever done is (remix song):

60 audio tracks in cubase
8 midi tracks in Reason.

25 vst effects (had to print some vst effects are what eat CPU usage)
only 10 effects running in Reason.

CPU usage in Cubase was around 60%
CPU usage in Reason was around 20%
My CPU settings were set to high.

As far as playback of alot of tracks no problem, as long as no vst effects or instroments are on. I am pretty confident to say I could probably playback at least 100 or more audio tracks 5 mins in length with no vst effects on them. Really it comes down to those god damned effects.

Why do I want to go to a tower?

3 reasons:
I would love to have a dsp card.
I would love to have dual monitors.
I would love to be able to run more effects and possibly a drum program like DKFHS.
 
Kazrog said:
Cubase, right? That app (also Logic) seems to be the most resource efficient by far. DP really needs to optimize their resource usage.
Click to expand...

Not entirely related, but PC-wise I find Sonar more CPU friendly than Cubase. Running dry tracks Sonar takes a couple of percent more CPU, but once you start adding effects, it doesn't seem to go up as quickly on my setup as Cubase does - which seems odd since I though Sonar uses a workaround for VSTs.

Steve
 
Audition 2.0 is supposedly dual core optimized. And it does seem a shade faster than 1.5:rock:
I just gotta catch the learning curve.....with all the sends, submixes, new effects, routing.....and all the other new stuff for 2.0:hypno:
 
Suicide_As_Alibi said:
Not entirely related, but PC-wise I find Sonar more CPU friendly than Cubase. Running dry tracks Sonar takes a couple of percent more CPU, but once you start adding effects, it doesn't seem to go up as quickly on my setup as Cubase does - which seems odd since I though Sonar uses a workaround for VSTs.

Steve
Click to expand...
Yeah Sonar's my world! I have a 3.4gig processor, with 2 gig of ram. I usually get 25-30 tracks with plugs on most, before bounce! I was given a dual core motherboard the other day, so I may upgrade as well. I don't really know shit aboot the dual core stuff, but if it's even better than what I run now! Fuck yeah!
 
Gnash said:
Yeah Sonar's my world! I have a 3.4gig processor, with 2 gig of ram. I usually get 25-30 tracks with plugs on most, before bounce! I was given a dual core motherboard the other day, so I may upgrade as well. I don't really know shit aboot the dual core stuff, but if it's even better than what I run now! Fuck yeah!
Click to expand...

So weird. What version of Sonar are you using. I am using almost the same setup and I push about 40 with plugs and a synth or 2.
 
Gnash said:
Yeah Sonar's my world! I have a 3.4gig processor, with 2 gig of ram. I usually get 25-30 tracks with plugs on most, before bounce! I was given a dual core motherboard the other day, so I may upgrade as well. I don't really know shit aboot the dual core stuff, but if it's even better than what I run now! Fuck yeah!
Click to expand...

So weird. What version of Sonar are you using (I am using Sonar 6 but 5 got me the same numbers). I am using almost the same setup and I push about 40 with plugs and a synth or 2.
 
I'm still on 5, soon to upgrade to 6. Yeah, when I first fired up the new system, I made it to 40 some tracks before meltdown.:heh: I seem to end up with 25 or so tracks, with kick, snare, toms, oh, and bass tracks cloned, bussed, and squashed. Counting the busses, I guess I do run around 30 tracks. Not to mention the multiple takes within a track. I'm going for Drumagog real soon. I tried the demo on one snare track, and nearly ate up 50% of my cpu. So that has me worried.:erk: How do you like Sonar 6?
 
I am enjoying Sonar 6 a lot. I just got about 2 weeks ago though so I really have not had time to try a lot of things out. One thing I love is the ability to arrange you plug-in folder anyway you want it. I made folders for Comps, Eq's, Effects, and verbs. As small as that sounds it really saves a lot of time. As far as performace goes I have had no problems. It is just as solid as 5.
 
You can rename plugs in Sonar 5. It's a little cumbersome, but can do it via plug-in manager. It just reads the plug in name and groups those with the same characters at the front of the name in folders (usually the product...e.g. Waves). But these can be changed. For example, with my compressor plugins, I just renamed them all by sticking "comp" in front of the plugin name and it automatically batches those plugs together in a folder.
 
chadsxe said:
So weird. What version of Sonar are you using. I am using almost the same setup and I push about 40 with plugs and a synth or 2.
Click to expand...
I just realized, I'm using 96k. I've been thinking of going back to 44.1 to ease the cpu. I should get 50 with plugs easily! And cd is 44 anyway... yada, yada, yada. Are you using 44.1 or 96?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom