DIVA CPU Usage benchmark

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[fmr]

Mhh reaper doesnt like my E-mu card that much (never noticed, until diva), gives me alot of crackles on the last patch and some spikes on the second, my cpu usage stays under 50% for each core though, and stays most of the time at idle clockspeed. With flstudio i can play the same patches in devine mode with more voices. Iam on an overclocked 2500k.
So ya it realy depends on the system config what works and what not.

Edit: could be the bit bridge in reaper since i ve reaper x86 installed and it doesnt find the x86 .dll of diva somehow and loads the x64.

But not realy up to inverstigate that further tbh. I posted my "INIT ALPHA result" in the other thread.

You probably need to point Reaper to the correct VST folder. In Windows 7, there are usually two VstPlugIns folders, one inside Program Files (x64 plug-ins), and another under Program Files (x86) - the 32-bit plug-ins.

Point Reaper to that last one, and it will "see" the 32-bit Diva.

[whet]

Yeah, it was because i forgot to give userrights to the Diva folder, weird it found the x64.dll. I have a dedicated vst folder on a seperate HDD.

Well i figured out that my asio performance is slightly better in FLstudio because of the "mix in buffer switch" option there. I can squeeze out more asio performance with E-mu soundcard at lower latencies like that.
Diva runs okay at 80-90% then, in reaper i get crackles and spikes at around 70%.
The cpu load is abit better too, i cant max out any core though, before it crackles.
It runs alot better with multiple instances anyway (instances will be put on different threads i guess) and patches with long releases i would rather just cut down the voices if needed or do it the other way around and shorten the release.
Tbh, i cant hear any difference between great and divine mode and even in draft mode, diva still sounds great to me .

[VitaminD]

To answer your question -- For those considering upgrading computers, of course. They obviously can't test something they don't have (new computer).

the answer is simple then really, buy the fastest computer you can afford, isnt?

or, put this test on the reaper forum, then post the results here? you'll prob get more takers.

It is not that simple I'm afraid.

Why should we spend 400% more (in some cases) when we'd only see 20% performance gains if that ends up the results of the benchmark.

Besides.. benchmark results would be a good asset for Urs to see how his software is performing on various setups.

[Kriminal]

maybe just use a MIDI file/Preset so everyone can load it into their host?

[kpsychedelic]

Oh man, too much talk and zero action.

I for one, embrace this test.
Come on guys, no benchmark in the world is perfect as it depend on the current state of the given machine it was performed at, the CPU load ATM and so on...
I see this as a poor man's version of "GeekBench" or "Cinebench", "3DMark", name-your-one, for Diva and that's it.

And I join the bandwagon of benchmarks being useful for smelling performance of future purchases.
It's not always about the "buy the most you can afford", as it turns out, you can actually get something even cheapier that what you can afford, and it can meet your needs perfectly (and also leave room for other gadgets or yummy plugins or software )

So anyway, I present my results, with this machine that I will sell soon because I got tired of bulky desktop PCs and will probably get a Mac Mini and will post results then, to see how crazy I was for selling this one

Core i7 2600 @ 3.39, 8 GB RAM

Windows 7 x64 - Reaper x64
1. 31.9%
2. 50.1%
3. 56.4%

Windows 7 x64 - Reaper x32
1. 42.9%
2. 53.1%
3. 70.4%

Mac OS Lion 10.7.3 - Reaper x64
1. 7.3%
2. 7.4%
3. 7.3%

Mac OS Lion 10.7.3 - Reaper x32
1. 7.2%
2. 7.1%
3. 7.1%

And just for laughs:

Lenovo S10-3T (Intel Atom @ 1.66, 2GB RAM)

Windows 7 x32 - Reaper x32
1. 341.9%
2. 627.8%
3. 763.9%