Normal CPU Usage

[debrad]

Hey folks.

I know the CPU "optimization" thing has been discussed to death and I have done my best to read as many posts as I can on this...all of which have been useful; however, I am *STILL* wondering if I need to be concerned or not.

Here's my issue:

I recently picked up a used dual core machine to use for my "home studio". It has an AMD 64 X2 4200+ dual core processor and I currently have 2 GB of RAM. I'm using 3 internal drives (1x80 GB for XP and programs, 1x80 GB for "libraries", and 1x500 GB for "data") and I have a Presonus Firepod with my latency set around 4ms...all sounds good to me

BUT...

The other day created a one track project and loaded ONE VSTi...Native Instruments' "Massive"...and noticed that after playing a few notes, I got some terrible "static/distortion". I took a look at my Reaper Processor window and I was showing anywhere from 20 - 60% depending on how many simultaneous notes I was playing.

I tried various latency settings and toyed with a few other "multi-processo" settings in the audio device window but am still getting at least 50% CPU usage with the one plug-in...even worse if I add any more.

Does it make ANY sense that my system would be taking such a big hit? Anything MAJOR I should be investigating?

Like I said, I've read over lots of the optimizing advice and have done many of the things suggested.

Any help would be MUCH appreciated.

[Ollie]

Welcome to the forums!

I don't have Massive but from what I could find out on Google, it's pretty much a CPU hog.

Originally Posted by someone on the interwebz

Hey Guys, I just spoke with NI, and they said that Massive, was desighned for "best" sound possible regardless on prossesing power usage, so there would be no "performance updates" to make it take less power, and they said that it was desighned to almost have a dedicated computer just for it, So anybody that wants to buy it Keep that in mind...

Also, it seems to have a "high quality mode" that affects that. Your 4200+ is somewhat at the low end of dualcore CPUs and getting close to the possible limits of latency on your computer like you seem to do may contribute to the "jumpiness" of the meter. But before you hang your head, wait for replies from some guys who actually have it on their computers.

[manning1]

debrad
i have a similar dual core.
done a slew of songs with it.
the KEY is to be selective in not useing cpu/ram hogs.
whether fx plug ins or instruments.

[debrad]

Thanks for the quick replies.

I understand "massive" to be quite the hog but one track with one vsti pushing things over 50% seems a little over the top - especially when running "massive" on my friend's quad core barely registers on his meters.

Truth be told, most of my recording will probably be "off the floor" guitar/drum/bass/vocals which won't have a lot of effects; however, I'm still in that whole "newbie obsessed with collecting and testing vst's" mode so, with very little actual recording experience, this high CPU usage issue has made me a little fearful...you know, "is this even going to work?", "should I have bought a better machine?", etc.

Am I right in thinking that this is more of a cpu issue than RAM though (i.e. bumping my memory from 2GB to 3 or 4 probably won't improve things THAT much will it?)?

[Ollie]

A quad core can have up to 8 times the power of your Athlon - in simple benchmarks not even taking the amount of L2 cache much into account. In the same CPU comparison list (Passmark), your 4400+ is just on par with my entry-level T5800 mobile C2D and maybe you shouldn't expect that much from it. But it should (and probably will) be sufficient for quite many instances of "normal" synths.

Memory will not help unless you're running Vista and Massive uses to eat giant amounts of memory for a synth (which I don't think it does).

OTOH, there may be another issue with your computer causing crackling at higher loads. Try increasing your ASIO buffers and check if it's still crackling. Then, where are you measuring that load? In Reaper's Performance Meter or Task Manager with display of both cores turned on? You should actually do both, Task Manager for the overall load of the system and Performance Meter for the CPU consumption of that particular track (and hence the plugin itself). Brutal differences could point to an issue someplace else.

Another thing we could try is reporting the CPU load of a freebie synth so we can compare that instead (since my CPU is roughly in the same ballpark). Or download Olga http://www.stillwellaudio.com/?page_id=37 (payware but simple, non intrusive demo installer, fully functional demo [/SPAM]) and use that to measure the load on the first preset when playing let's say 4 notes, Olga puts a little higher load on your CPU than the average freebie so we can see differences better.

[debrad]

OK...a bit more info:

I'm running Reaper version 3.161.
My ASIO config for the FirePod is 4.0ms

Under the Buffering Window:
autodetect is set and showing 2 processors
media buffer size = 1200ms
pre-buffer = 100%
anticipative fx processing is checked
render ahead 200ms
allow live fx multiprocessing on 2 cpu is checked
all "advanced I/O settings" are set to default values.

I loaded Olga and found the following:

Windows meter (olga loaded in only track of project with "accept no substitute" patch but no input) ~ 8-11%
Windows meter (olga loaded as above but playing 4 simultaneous notes) ~ 15%

Reaper meter (olga loaded and idle) ~ 2-4%
Reaper meter (olga loaded playing 4 notes) ~ 4-9%%


I loaded Massive with the "Aphex Rosin" patch:

Windows meter (idle) ~ 4-9%
Windows meter (4 notes) ~ 20-30%

Reaper meter (idle) ~ 1-3%
Reaper meter (4 notes) ~ 20-30%

Sound reasonable for my CPU?

Can I simply upgrade my CPU down the road if I like (faster dual core or REALLY upgrade to a quad)...I have an AsusM2A-VM motherboard.

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by debrad

allow live fx multiprocessing on 2 cpu is checked

This is sometimes worth trying if unchecking (or checking) this helps a bit with crackling. My laptop for example doesn't like it so much.

Originally Posted by debrad

I loaded Olga and found the following:

Windows meter (olga loaded in only track of project with "accept no substitute" patch but no input) ~ 8-11%
Windows meter (olga loaded as above but playing 4 simultaneous notes) ~ 15%

Reaper meter (olga loaded and idle) ~ 2-4%
Reaper meter (olga loaded playing 4 notes) ~ 4-9%%
[...]
Sound reasonable for my CPU?

Pretty much, yes. Here's what I get:



The Reaper meter is showing ~the same here, my Task Manager readings are a bit lower (<10%), but that can be caused by pretty much everything in the system, starting with the OS, services, background processes, internal soundchip (me) vs. FW interface (you), which tends to use a little CPU), GPU+GFX driver and so on. What you got in the last test with Massive sounds umm...massive but not surprising if that thing is really that CPU intensive as reported elsewhere. So nothing seems to be really wrong with your system or Reaper so far.

One more thing is that Reaper tends to waste CPU cycles when it's bored (it becomes increasingly efficient when the load rises), and it probably is pretty bored with only 1 track and 1 synth and that causes some confusion as well sometimes.

Originally Posted by debrad

Can I simply upgrade my CPU down the road if I like (faster dual core or REALLY upgrade to a quad)...I have an AsusM2A-VM motherboard.

I guess you can put pretty much every AM2-CPU on that board and quick googling reveals that Phenom-II seem to be unsupported but working (wouldn't recommend that w/o thorough research though) as well. OTOH, if you're using Massive wisely and render/record/"apply FX" it before you run out of CPU, you can do pretty complex productions on your existing CPU.

[Sheppola]

I've never been impressed with NI's coding.Their software always seems to hog CPU time.

My 10 penn'th.

[debrad]

Thanks everyone...REALLY appreciate the feedback. Like I said, I have a feeling most of my REAL recording will use less "massive" plug-ins but, since I'm just experimenting right now, this made me a little nervous. Sounds like there's hope for me at least!

[ChaseEversole]

Originally Posted by debrad

Thanks everyone...REALLY appreciate the feedback. Like I said, I have a feeling most of my REAL recording will use less "massive" plug-ins but, since I'm just experimenting right now, this made me a little nervous. Sounds like there's hope for me at least!

Yeah, like the user above said.."Massive" almost requires a computer just for that effect..which is ridiculous.

[debrad]

OK...I have come to the VERY upsetting conclusion...one that involves me admitting I was WAY too eager to pull the trigger on my home studio computer...

I just ran a couple experiments...one with an addictive drum track an imported *.wav track and 14 tracks of "amplitube" guitar tracks and the entire thing ground to a stand-still. it would only play once I got down to 6 total tracks and even then there were hints of crackling here and there.

the second test involved the kind of band set-up I might typically use - 2 guitar inputs driving guitar sims, a bass input driving another amp sim, a midi drum track driven by me V-Drum kit, and a single vocal input. again, crackling, etc. seems hard for me to believe that this dual core machine with 2gb of RAM should be struggling like this...

I figure there's no point in spending the money on something that I am going to have to fuss and fidget with just to get things to barely work. i want to be able to load up 20 tracks of soft synths and guitar sims and not have to worry about whether things are pushing the envelope (ok...maybe that's an exaggeration...but you get my point!).

guess i'll make images of my two 80GB drives and put this rascal up for sale. now i have to cross my fingers that i get something close to the money I just wasted...errr...spent...

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by debrad

OK...I have come to the VERY upsetting conclusion...one that involves me admitting I was WAY too eager to pull the trigger on my home studio computer...

You wouldn't be the first one. Many people think "Hey I have a computer that works kinda good, there is that DAW software and it's just a software after all, that's gotta run fine". But the hard truth is that DAW software and low latency audio drivers have pretty high demands and the ability to run something in "realtime" all the time without the faintest interruption by other things is what distinguishes regular computers and DAW computers. I guess the chance to grab a (more or less, sometimes tweaking fixes that, sometimes not) lemon off the shelf is 50%. That's why there are pro DAW builder companies and 200 new threads per day asking "what hardware should I buy" in muso forums. But it's not clear yet if your computer suffers from these subtleties or just your CPU requirements.

Originally Posted by debrad

I just ran a couple experiments...one with an addictive drum track an imported *.wav track and 14 tracks of "amplitube" guitar tracks and the entire thing ground to a stand-still. it would only play once I got down to 6 total tracks and even then there were hints of crackling here and there.

IIRC Amplitube is not exactly a lightweight software as well.

Originally Posted by debrad

the second test involved the kind of band set-up I might typically use - 2 guitar inputs driving guitar sims, a bass input driving another amp sim, a midi drum track driven by me V-Drum kit, and a single vocal input. again, crackling, etc. seems hard for me to believe that this dual core machine with 2gb of RAM should be struggling like this...

Are you talking about recording the whole band one-take simultaneously via ampsims and SW instruments? This could raise the bar a little for your computer indeed, depending on the load all the stuff on the computer causes.

Really low latencies are often only possible at low CPU loads because the lower the latency, the higher the CPU consumption peaks may be and that's what separates the wheat from the chaff in interfaces, their drivers and again your computer of course. That's why the first question is "how much ASIO buffers" when someone reports a crackling problem. But simply increasing them (or turning off other plugins as long you need that low latency) is no option for you then.

I don't know how fast the Firepod is supposed to be there but 4ms (= min. 8ms+"safety buffers" etc. round-trip latency for ampsims) is relatively low for external interfaces and it might not be possible to maintain that all the way up to 90-100% CPU load. A faster computer can mean more CPU headroom for the ASIO driver to run fast and for the host to run more stuff without stealing to much CPU from the driver.

Originally Posted by debrad

I figure there's no point in spending the money on something that I am going to have to fuss and fidget with just to get things to barely work. i want to be able to load up 20 tracks of soft synths and guitar sims and not have to worry about whether things are pushing the envelope (ok...maybe that's an exaggeration...but you get my point!).

Softsynths are something else, they are affected only by half the latency of an ampsim (only the "output latency of the driver) and you can get along with 10ms latency if needed. 20 softsynths are quite possible on your computer (but not 20x Massive, you have to check if "cheap" synths can do the job for you as well. )

Originally Posted by debrad

guess i'll make images of my two 80GB drives and put this rascal up for sale. now i have to cross my fingers that i get something close to the money I just wasted...errr...spent...

Again, CPU type+speed is only a part of the story, check these things:

- Does the crackling go away when you increase the latency?

If you can answer this with "yes", it could be best to keep this computer and put in the fastest CPU it can swallow and save yourself the money and headaches needed to find other hardware. If not:

- Run the DPC Latency Checker (http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml) for 2-3 minutes when the computer is idling and look out for red (bad) spikes on the DPClat.exe display. If you're getting some, start Reaper, let it crackle and pop and run DPClat.exe at the same time to check if the spikes coincide with the crackling. If they do, there are at least tools to find out what might be causing this. If they don't, the troubleshooting gets much harder. In both cases you might end up at a point where you realize that you can't do anything about it.

Part of the troubleshooting is that the OS (what are you using?) on DAW computers often needs to be optimized for audio, some computers don't like e.g. Vista at all in this regard and running WLAN, the network card or generally doing all the things you would do with a normal computer just doesn't work sometimes.

[debrad]

Steindork:

Thanks SO much for all your feedback and advice - I REALLY appreciate you (and everyone else) taking the time to answer my questions and provide input. Obviously there are a LOT of things to consider when setting up a DAW computer!

Your comments alone have made me feel a LITTLE better but I am pretty sure that this is really a CPU issue for me - especially with the comments about tracking a live band. While I won't always need two guitars and bass running VST effects (plus vocals and V-Drums), there's a good chance I often will so I want something that can handle that kind of demand AT THE VERY LEAST.

Last night I was in full "panic attack" thinking about the terrible mistake I had made, how I was going to have to sell off this machine, and how I'd have to try finding another "affordable" quad core. In a slightly more relaxed state this morning I was looking over the CPU compatibility chart for my Asus M2A-VM motherboard and it looks like I can definitely drop a faster CPU into it.

Now, you mentioned something about an "unsupported" Phenom CPU but the "Support List" at http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=St3pWpym8xXpROQS# indicates there are several Phenom quads that work with my motherboard. Unfortunately for me though, I don't TOTALLY understand all the technical spec's on these things...what's better/stronger/faster but, at the very least, it looks like I can move up to a quad core for about $100 - $150.

Keeping everything else the same (XP, 2GB RAM, 2x80GB 7200RPM drives, 1x500GB 7200RPM drive), do you think that simply switching from AMD X2 4200+ dual core to an AMD quad core will solve a good part of my issues?

[Ollie]

According to the official support list, you can use a Phenom X4 9850 on that board. This will get you roughly in the range of an Intel Q6600 quad and that's probably more than only twice the power you have now. Q6600 users usually report having a hard time to hit the limits on those.

Though the question whether the mainboard is really apt for audio work or not is still unclear. Alas I can't find much about this on Google, but one post in our forums seems to indicate that there could be a problem. http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php...&postcount=113 Hard to tell from here if that's the same on yours and if there can be done anything about it.

Also please understand that it's incredible hard to predict how well everything will actually run on a specific system. From the specs it should solve your CPU related woes pretty much, but there are more factors that can put a spoke in the wheel in someone's very individual usage scenario. Since this topic is a genuine can of worms, this disclaimer is mandatory. The only way to be halfways sure is buying the same stuff that has been proven to run as expected elsewhere and only a pro DAW builder can give you a real warranty that stuff will run as expected.

That being said, I'd check the mainboard with DPClat.exe and with ~10ms latency settings in Reaper for a while and when no DPC troubles and crackling occurs, I'd buy that Phenom. If that doesn't work out, you can still sell the whole thing with the quad and the surplus 4400+ on eBay.

[debrad]

Just to clarify...when you say that the Phenom X4 9850 is "probably more than ONLY twice the power" you're saying that's a good thing right (including "only" makes me wonder if I should be looking for a solution that gives me MORE than "twice the power"...).

Also, when you say that Q6600 "report having a hard time to hit the limits" do you mean that they aren't hitting their CPU limits or that they can't satisfy the kind of demand that my "live band with plug-ins" type of recording?

Don't worry, I TOTALLY understand the difficulty of predicting how everything might react inside my specific machine. I guess I'm just curious to know if the $100 - $150 would be well spent on just upgrading the CPU or if it will just give me MARGINAL improvement. That would basically put me near the $350 range in terms of what I've invested in this machine. Does that $350 give me a machine that I will be happy with long term or would a FEW extra dollars go a long way to giving me a MUCH better machine (I have to keep in mind that a) this is a hobby not a job and b) I don't exactly have a lot of spare cash at this point in time!).

Finally, the other question (and I think I already know the answer) is that, at some point I plan to upgrade the RAM from 2GB to 4...Am I safe in assuming that a memory upgrade alone won't solve the problems and/or that the CPU upgrade would be more effective than a bump in memory?

[QuIcK]

A cpu upgrade would definately be the way to go.
do what steindork says, but it looks like the mobo should be good. unless there is an inherent flaw in the mobo's design, that it cant handle a lot of data throughput. DPClat.exe should show this
chances are the CPU's L2 cache is whats limiting you here.
everything else seems to be peachy!

[Ollie]

More memory speeds up things a little because Win has more room for caching etc. and doesn't need to swap memory so much. When you're low on RAM (e.g. you're running Vista on 1GB), it will speed up things quite a lot.

But that can't solve your problem and it can't beat a CPU that's more than twice as fast as yours. These graphs are pretty unambiguous (sorry):

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...9850+Quad-Core

vs.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...l+Core+4400%2B

Like I said, this benchmark is pretty basic and doesn't take all of the CPU architecture into account, the actual results with DAW software and plugins should be even better. Q6600 users are usually very satisfied with that amount of CPU power.

So this will solve your CPU problems, whether or not this will make your "simultaneous band recording via ampsims" scenario possible is not only depending on the CPU though. The Phenom will have all the power needed but I have no idea how good the whole shebang will cope with "multiple track recording with the extra finesse of multiple ampsims+monitoring 'through the DAW' creating some subtle extra technical demands on your system's behavior", I just never tried it and can't predict or say anything about that. In general, when everything in hard- and software is working ok and playing nice with each other, it will be able to do that.

Sorry to leave you a bit in obscurity about all that but I don't want you to be disappointed when problems come up anyway, so I think it's better you know you should be prepared for trouble. That's what we all have to deal with when new hardware is needed and the budget is limited.

[minerman]

Hey everybody,
I have a similar system (Acer Aspire AMD Athlon x2 64 4400+, 2GB, Vista), & have been wanting to buy a quad core. But, money is really tight now, & will be for quite a while it seems. Would upgrading my PC be worthwhile in the long run for me? I've read this thread several times now, & I'm thinking if I upgrade the CPU & RAM, it would help my performance a lot. It's not too bad as of now, but it does have it's limitations. Any suggestions? And sorry for so many newbie questions, but where/how do I find info for compatibility (what CPU will work with my PC, etc) for my PC? Thanks in advance!!!

[ArmAndPlatter]

Originally Posted by minerman

Hey everybody,
I have a similar system (Acer Aspire AMD Athlon x2 64 4400+, 2GB, Vista), & have been wanting to buy a quad core. But, money is really tight now,.....

Hey Minerman

In order to answer those questions, you need to list more details. We need to know, how many audio tracks, VSTI tracks you usually have running? And which VSTIs you have running.

For instance, I have Core 2 Duo and 4 gigs of ram and I have no problem running 40 audio tracks at one time, and most if not all tracks have at least two plugins running. I dont run any VSTIs, so I dont need as much of a system as others might. It all depends on what you are wanting to do.

[minerman]

Thanks Arm & Platter,
My last project had about 35 tracks, with only 1 VSTi (EZ Drummer, this is usually always in my projects, btw...), & about 40 effects (usually a compressor & eq on each track BUT I do have the multi-outs on EZ Drummer, I have fx busses for my guitars, vocals, etc.). My system does decent, I suppose, but with all the tracks & fx running, my CPU meter shoots up to around 90%. A few of the tracks I did do the "apply fx as new take" & it did help, but it still occasionally stutters etc. There may even be other issues with my setup, I may need to turn off some things, but I'm a newbie/unexperienced with things like this, & honestly, afraid I'll screw up my PC. Any suggestions about turning off any of the services/apps/etc I don't need in my PC? Like I mentioned in my previous post, I've been wanting a quad core, from what I can tell, this would allow the freedom to do about anything, but I can't swing the cash right now. Are there any links you can shoot me that has compatibilty for swapping parts in PC's? Thanks again, I'm sure all these questions have been asked/answered before, so I apoligize. Thanks!!!!

[debrad]

Originally Posted by Steindork

Run the DPC Latency Checker (http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml) for 2-3 minutes when the computer is idling and look out for red (bad) spikes on the DPClat.exe display. If you're getting some, start Reaper, let it crackle and pop and run DPClat.exe at the same time to check if the spikes coincide with the crackling. If they do, there are at least tools to find out what might be causing this. If they don't, the troubleshooting gets much harder. In both cases you might end up at a point where you realize that you can't do anything about it.

Ran it on my system tonight...not really sure how to interpret the output other than the fact that I was pretty well getting ALL green bars BELOW 500us when the system was at idle. "Current" waffled between about 30 and 140 while the "Max" was 150.

When I loaded Reaper, I got a spike of 4805 but that was just one bar and then I was back to well under 500. Got another yellow spike when I first loaded my "3 guitars/drums/vocal" project and then it dropped back down to under 500 again...waffling around 70 - 150.

[Ollie]

Does't sound bad. You should check though if disk access causes DPC spikes in general (that's what the behavior when loading Reaper and a project could point to) or not. Copy a large file from one place to another while watching the DPC checker.

Still the question remains if the actual crackling disappears even at a high load (maybe use Massive to create one) when you increase the latency to 10ms. This determines whether there's maybe an inherent problem with high loads caused by the mainboard (or something else) or not.

[debrad]

Crackling is still there when I change the latency...

I've done some investigative work (probably not enough) and I'm probably going to pull the trigger on an AMD Phenom x4 9650 quad core processor. I would really prefer to go with the 9850 but my Asus board only supports the 95 watt version and it appears to be WAY more rare than the 125 watter.

My local TigerDirect store has the 9650 in stock for $99 CDN as well as the 9750 for $132. The 9750 is 2.4GHz and the 9650 is 2.3 but, aside from that, the spec's look identical.