Huh? That is exactly what we are talking about herechk071 wrote:I don't think they do really. It has always been recommended here and elsewhere to use the task manager as a measuring tool for CPU load.fluffy_little_something wrote: Why do other DAW's manage to enable the resource manager to show correct values?
No, really not, i'm focusing on the right goal, imho.fluffy_little_something wrote:A really weird attitude for a programmer...
Really the best answer i can give is: Check it out in practice!!Having an AMD processor instead of an i7 or Xeon, I do have to plan how many tracks I can use, which instruments I can use etc. That is why I want and need to know what is going on in terms of CPU usage...
You fail to see the point. The Task Manger is there for a reason. Mulab is misleading the Task Manager, making it display values that don't allow me to see how much of my CPU power I still have available for additional tracks, effects or whatever.pljones wrote:What, wanting their software to do what their software is meant to do as well as it can? Or do you think that displaying numbers in Windows Resource Manager is what the software intended for? That seems like a weird attitude for someone wanting to make music.fluffy_little_something wrote:A really weird attitude for a programmer...
It's simply not my way of thinking at all. I am the wysiwyg kind of person. I want to see the real status whenever I feel like it. I don't want to wait for crackling in the sound to inform me that my CPU is at its limitsmutools wrote:No, really not, i'm focusing on the right goal, imho.fluffy_little_something wrote:A really weird attitude for a programmer...
To be straight, and that's not meant disrespectful, i think you didn't understand my technical explanation.
Really the best answer i can give is: Check it out in practice!!Having an AMD processor instead of an i7 or Xeon, I do have to plan how many tracks I can use, which instruments I can use etc. That is why I want and need to know what is going on in terms of CPU usage...
Do a practical stress test with at least as many parallel tracks/racks as you're using cores. And of course keep all parameters the same when comparing DAWs, as mentioned before.
It's without anything loaded at all, only master rack, but think that's because of on-board audio and lower buffer that can't be changed unfortunately, Logic is 7% in idle on highest buffer and more as it goes down, but it starts getting crazy when things start adding up fast, but than it holds up nicely overall until the end, remember testing it against Reaper and difference was that initial idle one, which surprised me, it turns out were just getting extra with Reaper what Logic eats in idle and that's it, nothing more, TBH, wasn't excited about it, because Logic stock stuff is way better and use so little resources.Nielzie wrote:That's really high and I can't imagine it has something to do with either the mda e-piano or MuLab, especially when idle.. I'm a Windows OS user though, but even with that in mind.. that's extraordinary high.Zexila wrote:Got 16.5% in idle without anything loaded on my 2.0ghz late 2006 MacBookMichael L wrote:Out of curiosity, I loaded mda e-piano in MuLab on my old 2-core 2.66 i7 MBP running OSX and it almost hit 1% on the OSX Activity Monitor, even playing chords. That's good enough for me.
ShawnG PS: Note that the more accurate 'cpu reporting to the system's resource manager' also costs a little bit cpu which cannot be used for making music. It depends on the OS how much that 'little bit' is. So your preference also has a price.mutools wrote:Ok if you're looking for a DAW that has the best 'cpu reporting to the system's resource manager' then MuLab will not be your best choice.
Oh, you've meanwhile changed your mind then? Or did i misunderstood something?fluffy_little_something wrote:I don't need precise real-time tracking of CPU usage
The sense has been explained but you don't seem to understand it. Maybe you don't want to understand it?either, but I do think it makes little sense to see 6/6 cores occupied when in reality only 1/6 is
Ok, have fun making music! It's all about the musicNever mind, if that's the Mulab way, so be it...
I will also try Lumit at the weekend, judging from the screenshots it seems to be rather colorful, ergonomic and visual, which suits me better than reading labels and menus.
Maybe i'll add more control over buffersize in some future version. Yes that's indeed on the (long) wishlist, just double-checked it.Zexila wrote:It's not fair to do any on-board test against MuLab, because buffer can't be changed, so that's how it is for me, 16.5% in idle on this thing.
Awesome, this old relic would appreciate it.mutools wrote:Maybe i'll add more control over buffersize in some future version. Yes that's indeed on the (long) wishlist, just double-checked it.Zexila wrote:It's not fair to do any on-board test against MuLab, because buffer can't be changed, so that's how it is for me, 16.5% in idle on this thing.
ShawnG
To be honnest i can't advice in this because i assume this changes from new model to new model. And also other aspects are important when choosing a computer setup, eg price, other uses for that machine, ...sl23 wrote:Though, I'm curious, Jo, which is better for mulab, AMD or Intel?
Without doubt: The more real cores the better and the faster they can work the better. Also the more RAM the better, especially if you're using lots of samples. Anyway, optimizing a computer for music production is not specific for MuLab. Pls search the web, there are many great websites that go into detail.Or, more cores or more powerful architecture?
© KVR Audio, Inc. 2000-2024
Submit: News, Plugins, Hosts & Apps | Advertise @ KVR | Developer Account | About KVR / Contact Us | Privacy Statement
