wicked! live 6 outperforms live 5 by 223%!!!!

barrywjrobb · Post by **barrywjrobb** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:33 am

my old live 5 projects created a 58% CPU load... these same projects in live 6 create a CPU load of just 26%! AWESOME! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

Post by **Alex** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:49 am

Always nice to hear stuff like that

However, I moved this thread into the General forum.

Regards,
/Alex

j0shu@ · Post by **j0shu@** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:47 am

can anyone else confirm this?

njh · Post by **njh** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:50 am

j0shu@ wrote:can anyone else confirm this?

nope...its been exactly the same as live 5 with me..

Post by **Alex** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:55 am

How effective the multi core/processor support works for you totally depends on the Live set. The general rule is to distribute the CPU usage about several tracks and not concentrate effects within one track.
Another rule is to check if to eliminate all not needed routing between tracks and sends. This also includes to disable sends knobs when they are not used.

Regards,
/Alex

barrywjrobb · Post by **barrywjrobb** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:32 am

njh wrote:
j0shu@ wrote:can anyone else confirm this?
nope...its been exactly the same as live 5 with me..

no offense njh, but you're nutz. live 6 is a CPU smart-beast! I created a simple 4 track project within live 5 and added plenty of effects & EQs to each track. while half of the tracks were audio, half were midi instruments (vst)... I started the sequence recorder, created some simple automations and with all the tracks playing, the highest CPU reading I got in live 5 was 58%... I then saved that project and opened it within the live 6.0b20 app... it topped out 26% CPU usage with my AMD 4800 X2 2.4GHz dual core socket 939 processor. my system specs are in my signature... I'm an end user with no reason to lie about this. when a software company adds support like this, I have to shout about it. really nice job ableton!

http://www.stomp.com.au/product.asp?lng ... stID=18136

I am sphere... sphere I am... check out those reviews on my past work.

leisuremuffin · Post by **leisuremuffin** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:45 am

maaaaaan. I want a dual core.

.lm.

forge · Post by **forge** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:45 am

leisuremuffin wrote:maaaaaan. I want a dual core.

.lm.

only dual?

http://www.ableton.com/forum/viewtopic. ... highlight=

Pitch Black · Post by **Pitch Black** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:37 am

When I get an 80-Core computer, I'll use it to surf the web for rumors of the 128-Cores being released "any day now".

forge · Post by **forge** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:41 am

Pitch Black wrote:When I get an 80-Core computer, I'll use it to surf the web for rumors of the 128-Cores being released "any day now".

by then you might actually surf the web literally - with an iSurfboard

friend_kami · Post by **friend_kami** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:45 am

forge wrote:
Pitch Black wrote:When I get an 80-Core computer, I'll use it to surf the web for rumors of the 128-Cores being released "any day now".
by then you might actually surf the web literally - with an iSurfboard

omg i want one of those.

even · Post by **even** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:52 am

njh wrote:
j0shu@ wrote:can anyone else confirm this?
nope...its been exactly the same as live 5 with me..

same here... on a single core pentium 4

mbenigni · Post by **mbenigni** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:29 am

Actually, I was just about to post that I was disappointed in this. CPU usage is identical for me between Live 5 and Live 6 - I was hoping for a major improvement. System is a Core Duo laptop running Windows XP Pro. Live 5 shows 15% idle, peaking at about 40%, Live 6 running the same set shows the same. Task Manager CPU meters are also comparable between the two versions. Now the big question is whether audio dropouts occur at peak in v6, as they had in v5.

robin · Post by **robin** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:49 am

It's a beta, i'd expect there to be instrumentation in the code that won't really help with efficiency of running (though will help with efficiency for the abes finding bugs).

I'd wait until the full release before doing any real comparisons.

peeddrroo · Post by **peeddrroo** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:27 am

Alex wrote:Always nice to hear stuff like that
However, I moved this thread into the General forum.

Regards,
/Alex

j0shu@ wrote:can anyone else confirm this?

yeah, i can confrim: it's been moved to the general forum.

wicked! live 6 outperforms live 5 by 223%!!!!

wicked! live 6 outperforms live 5 by 223%!!!!

live 6 is far twice as CPU friendly as live 5