u-he

ddeez · Post by **ddeez** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:29 am

Am i correct in saying that I read Urs say somewhere in the forum that the final version of Diva won't be as CPU intensive because right now it's all running on 1 core and multicore usage will be working in the final version?

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:24 am

I think you are correct. Anyway what confuses me is that usually multicore support should be handled by the DAW (Ableton Live 8 in my case) and not by the plugin but it looks i am wrong in this case.
Maybe the support in the DAW only works for handling multiple instances and not for spreading the voices over multiple cores.

I have noticed that if a Diva preset uses around 28-30% in Ableton Live 8 the CPu display in Windows 7 only shows around 13-15%. I am not able to uses more than 25% in the windows display so Diva really seems to use only a single core in my Core 2 Quad Q6600 CPU. I could only reach over 25% at the Windows display when i use multiple instances.

Ingo

ddeez · Post by **ddeez** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:31 am

^ VERY interesting because I notice that when I have diva running in cubase and i turn on the divine setting the cpu meter (in cubase) will go all the way up...but in my task manager it only goes up to about 20 percent...but still the audio gets messed up... interesting.

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:41 am

ddeez wrote:^ VERY interesting because I notice that when I have diva running in cubase and i turn on the divine setting the cpu meter (in cubase) will go all the way up...but in my task manager it only goes up to about 20 percent...but still the audio gets messed up... interesting.

At the current state multiple cores seem to be used only for multiple instances. If i use a layer of 2 instances i get the same CPU use in Ableton Live 8 but almost the double amount in the Windows display.
Spreading the voices of a single instance over multiple cores seems to be exactly the stuff Urs is currently working on.

AFAIK Diva is not the only plugin having this problem.

Ingo

Krakatau · Post by **Krakatau** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:56 am

Ingonator wrote:AFAIK Diva is not the only plugin having this problem.

Obviously...

jupiter8 · Post by **jupiter8** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:57 am

Making it run on several cores will actually make it less CPU efficient but allow you to use more CPU on a single instance. So if you want say 16 voices of divine accuracy and a single core can't take the load, multithreading will make it possible. But the overall efficiency will be lower.

Krakatau wrote:
Ingonator wrote:AFAIK Diva is not the only plugin having this problem.
Obviously...

As long as a single core can take the CPU load it's much more efficient to run it on a single core. The only other plugin i can think of where this might be a problem is NI Kontakt (due to it being multitimbral) and it ,incidently, alreay is multi threaded.

Krakatau · Post by **Krakatau** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:33 am

jupiter8 wrote:Making it run on several cores will actually make it less CPU efficient but allow you to use more CPU on a single instance. So if you want say 16 voices of divine accuracy and a single core can't take the load, multithreading will make it possible. But the overall efficiency will be lower.

Thanks for the interesting info
I assume that if diva would be multitimbral, the multicore handling between channels would be much easier to achieve

ddeez · Post by **ddeez** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:35 am

It would be awesome if Diva was Multi timbral. Diva is becoming my favorite soft synth of all time. I just REALLY wish it was easy to make patches on as zebra.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:50 am

It's actually easier to make a patch than in Zebra - less parameters and not as modular structure

jupiter8 · Post by **jupiter8** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:50 am

Krakatau wrote:
jupiter8 wrote:Making it run on several cores will actually make it less CPU efficient but allow you to use more CPU on a single instance. So if you want say 16 voices of divine accuracy and a single core can't take the load, multithreading will make it possible. But the overall efficiency will be lower.
Thanks for the interesting info
I assume that if diva would be multitimbral, the multicore handling between channels would be much easier to achieve

I guess but if you "only" run instances (as opposed to voices) on several cores you're back to where you started and might as well just leave it as it is and let the host deal with the threading.

Krakatau · Post by **Krakatau** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:53 am

ddeez · Post by **ddeez** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:55 am

EvilDragon wrote:It's actually easier to make a patch than in Zebra - less parameters and not as modular structure

For me the modification and trimmers page is tough to understand. I found zebra very easy to understand. It made more sense visually to me too.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:56 am

So you didn't have any experience with a real modular, or at least ACE?

ddeez · Post by **ddeez** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:58 am

Never had an experience with a real modular and I had the same problem with Ace. Zebra has been the one U-He product that I've really understood well.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:00 pm

I've been working a couple of days on multicore support, but it's not the be all end all salvation. I'll spend another day on it, and then we have to see what people think.

As jupiter8 pointed out multicore support will be useful to run a single DIVA with more voices than a single core can handle, but the overall performance of the computer suffers.

Multicore support won't replace the need to freeze or keep voices/release times low.

Cheers,

Urs

u-he

KVR Audio

Diva question about CPU efficiency