KVR Audio

Arksun · Post by **Arksun** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:24 pm

So far I've been using the AirEQ in 'generic processor' mode. The cpu hit in this mode has been nice and low, along similar lines to Sonalksis.

You know how on installing it it asks you to choose between 'SSE' 'SSE2' and 'Generic'

Well just now I decided to uninstall it and re-install, selecting SSE2 instead, thinking this would be even more optimal and run with lower cpu.

To my surprise the cpu usage went up!

This is on an AMD 4400+ X2, any thoughts on this?. Seems generic mode runs better.

Anyone find similar findings with Intels?

I then tried 'SSE' mode, and that was very close to generic on cpu usage, perhaps just a fraction more. But SSE2 was the worst on the AMD.

Load a few of them up to see the accumulative difference.

Eiosis · Post by **Eiosis** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:06 pm

Arksun wrote:Well just now I decided to uninstall it and re-install, selecting SSE2 instead, thinking this would be even more optimal and run with lower cpu.
To my surprise the cpu usage went up!

Yes, in the first version we released and in the early test versions, the SSE intructions gave a CPU improvement, but it seems that the latest compilations have not given the results we hoped for !! In fact SSE optimization is very compiler dependant, and we cannot control precisely how the SSE instruction set will be used. So a slight change in the algorithm may produce a big difference in CPU optimization regarding the SSE instruction set.

Arksun wrote:This is on an AMD 4400+ X2, any thoughts on this?. Seems generic mode runs better.
Anyone find similar findings with Intels?
I then tried 'SSE' mode, and that was very close to generic on cpu usage, perhaps just a fraction more. But SSE2 was the worst on the AMD.
Load a few of them up to see the accumulative difference.

It seems to be the same thing on Intels, but it may vary for different CPUs. We are looking at this issue these days, but this kind of SSE development is unfortunately more like "let's try and see what's happening".
But I promise that we will work on this issue, and we'll maybe have to buy more efficient profiling tools.. So please be patient !
I can say that AirEQ will be constantly improved regarding CPU usage, with standard algorithm optimization (even if it's already highly optimized, we can do more.. but it will take some time !), SSE , SSE2, 3 & 4 optimization..

Since AirEQ is intended to be a Track EQ, it has to be the most efficient possible.

Fabrice,
Eliosound

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:12 pm

So if you are experiencing less CPU with the non-SSE setting, should you leave it there? Is there a sound quality difference?

Arksun · Post by **Arksun** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:19 pm

Given its such a low hit on generic mode anyways its no biggy, just thought I'd mention the increase on SSE2 incase people were defaulting to that without realising it might run even better on generic

Let us know if/when SSE2 is more optimised!

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:39 pm

Well, I noticed that the last update, while having some great new features, felt a little more "sticky" than before. Maybe that's it.

Eiosis · Post by **Eiosis** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:52 pm

bduffy wrote:So if you are experiencing less CPU with the non-SSE setting, should you leave it there? Is there a sound quality difference?

Absolutely, for the moment the non SSE setting is the one you may choose without any further test. The algorithm remains exactly the same, in fact this is only specialized instructions for DSP processing that are computed more efficiently.

Arksun wrote:Let us know if/when SSE2 is more optimised!

For sure I'll do !

Fabrice,
Eliosound

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:03 pm

Eliosound wrote:
bduffy wrote:So if you are experiencing less CPU with the non-SSE setting, should you leave it there? Is there a sound quality difference?
Absolutely, for the moment the non SSE setting is the one you may choose without any further test. The algorithm remains exactly the same, in fact this is only specialized instructions for DSP processing that are computed more efficiently.

Awesome! That's what I thought.

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

This does not have anything to do with the mac version, does it?
I didn't noticed anything like that.

Eiosis · Post by **Eiosis** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:12 am

OMU wrote:This does not have anything to do with the mac version, does it?
I didn't noticed anything like that.

For the moment the SSE optimizations are for PC only, you are rignt, but with the coming MacIntel version, there will also be some SSE optimizations on Mac, for MacIntel only.

Fabrice,
Eliosound

OMU · Post by **OMU** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:47 am

OK, by the way, did you heard the news?
I'm your new customer

, starting yesterday night

AirEQ works just fine, the WaveBurner problem is still there though.
All the best!

Eiosis · Post by **Eiosis** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:06 am

OMU wrote:OK, by the way, did you heard the news?
I'm your new customer , starting yesterday night

For me, our customers are the most important thing.. As it should be the case for all companies !
So I say welcome, and please drop your whish list here for the next AirEQ updates !

OMU wrote:AirEQ works just fine, the WaveBurner problem is still there though.
All the best!

Thanks ! An update is on the way and it should solve the problem, I beleive that it will be uploaded before the end of the week..
I'll keep you informed about that !

Fabrice,
Eliosound

OMU · Post by **OMU** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:53 am

Hi Fabrice and thank you.
My first wish is to keep it optimised with the ppc architecture and not go just for the intel optimisations in the future. I'm stil on a g4, and, as it works great, I don't intend to change it soon. But I do want to have your EQ up to date!
I really like AirEQ just like it is; it's very well thought and I can't really say that I wish it to be different.
All the best!

OMU · Post by **OMU** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:53 am

oh... maybe one wish...
When is AirComp coming?

Eliosound AirEQ CPU Optimization differences