I'm surprised so many still don't understand the performance meter in a DAW reflects ASIO performance and has little correlation with Windows' CPU meter.
The meter in a DAW reflects ASIO throughput, a realtime process. In order to find bottlenecks in the chain, you need to run LatencyMon for at least a half hour with a large project looped and see what's what in the report.
Different programs and plugs utilize CPU cores differently in how/ if they spread loads over multiple cores. A single core reaching near 100% utilization can cause ASIO issues, also.
With W10, unsigned drivers are subject to unapproved update to signed versions. I've seen where working USB Controller as well as NVidia drivers have been overwritten with the latest signed drivers and introduced issues.
Again, LatencyMon needs to be run to find the bottleneck in the ASIO chain.
FL Studio poor CPU / Audio performance compared to Presonus Studio / Cubase. How to optimize?
-
- Banned
- 411 posts since 17 Jan, 2007
-
- KVRist
- 259 posts since 16 Jun, 2015
To understand FL's performance problems, you have to first understand a bit of background about FL vs. other DAW's. Let's start with other DAW's, Cubase for example.
From the point of it's creation 3+ decades ago, it has been highly structured, mimicking traditional musical score in its layout: rows of instruments, with each row getting notes. It's undergone some radical evolution in the intervening years, but it's always had that same fundamental structure -- a structure which it essentially forces you to adhere to. And because of the architectural certainty that structure provides, Cubase can do lots of "magic" under the hood to make a whole lot of things Just Work. Performance is one of those things, but this also applies to things like delay compensation, track freezing, MIDI latency correction, etc.
FL, on the other hand, started life ~20 years ago as a simple drum machine. And its evolution has been... chaotic. Intentional or not, one of the results of this evolution has been unprecedented structural freedom. You have this unique pattern-based paradigm. You can put anything anywhere in the playlist. You can route anything to anywhere in the mixer. You can stick any number of things inside any number of patchers and go crazy. Nothing else gives you this kind of flexibility -- but the downside is that FL can't force you into doing things in an optimal way. It is very, very easy to structure your song in FL such that performance nosedives relative to the same kind of song created in Cubase (or whatever). Thing is, if you know what you're looking for, you'd realize that almost without exception, you can get performance parity out of FL if you structure things differently.
So, what are the relevant adjustments for improving performance? Good question, and you can consult the manual and the forums to learn more, there's plenty that's been written about it. But the bottom line is that you'll have to learn this stuff and consciously implement it -- FL won't do it for you. And this has always been the case, but my observation has been that FL11 and earlier were so incredibly lean that even if you put together a monster of a project you could still get great performance relative to the competition. However, ever since the vectorial interface arrived with FL12, FL's built-in performance advantage seems to have disappeared -- which is understandable, since vectorial rendering is inherently more resource intensive than bitmaps. But that means you really have to pay attention to how you structure your project if you care about performance.
SIDE NOTE: I have a really big soft spot in my heart for FL, but personally, in it's present state, I feel like it's in this weird no-man's-land for me. It's no longer the super-tight, lean, and focused DAW that it once was, where you could use it to crank-out loop based electronic music at a phenomenal clip, but couldn't really use it at all for less structured genres like indie or folk or whatever. Nowadays it's certainly much more capable overall, but I still wouldn't pick it to produce a country album, and the added complexity means it's no longer the most streamlined DAW around for 128 trance or whatever. If old FL was like a 5 speed manual transmission, and things like Cubase are like automatic transmissions, new FL is like a 50 speed manual transmission. And what's the point of that?
Actually, there is a point, and that is if you're doing inherently complex electronic projects. SeamlessR is the canonical example here -- I think FL has a very significant edge for this kind of music. Otherwise, from a raw "how does the DAW help me get things done quickly" perspective, I come up empty. The big new feature of 12.5 was the pattern picker panel -- but the last thing I want to do is play pattern secretary. I go back to the transmission metaphor: Cubase takes care of all that media management stuff for me behind the scenes, including not just MIDI data but audio as well (automatic transmission); old school FL with the blocks was much more hands on and limited, but it was also very straightforward and accessible (5-speed); whereas new FL keeps piling on the complexity, with each new capability being like another gear in the transmission (picker panel brings us up to 50-speed). Again, this is probably actually uniquely useful for certain kinds of production, but for me, FL is in a sort of uncanny valley right now, where whenever I use it, I miss both the old-school simplicity of previous versions and the sophisticated capabilities of other DAW's like Cubase.
That said, big changes are rumored to be afoot for 13, so we'll see what happens.
From the point of it's creation 3+ decades ago, it has been highly structured, mimicking traditional musical score in its layout: rows of instruments, with each row getting notes. It's undergone some radical evolution in the intervening years, but it's always had that same fundamental structure -- a structure which it essentially forces you to adhere to. And because of the architectural certainty that structure provides, Cubase can do lots of "magic" under the hood to make a whole lot of things Just Work. Performance is one of those things, but this also applies to things like delay compensation, track freezing, MIDI latency correction, etc.
FL, on the other hand, started life ~20 years ago as a simple drum machine. And its evolution has been... chaotic. Intentional or not, one of the results of this evolution has been unprecedented structural freedom. You have this unique pattern-based paradigm. You can put anything anywhere in the playlist. You can route anything to anywhere in the mixer. You can stick any number of things inside any number of patchers and go crazy. Nothing else gives you this kind of flexibility -- but the downside is that FL can't force you into doing things in an optimal way. It is very, very easy to structure your song in FL such that performance nosedives relative to the same kind of song created in Cubase (or whatever). Thing is, if you know what you're looking for, you'd realize that almost without exception, you can get performance parity out of FL if you structure things differently.
So, what are the relevant adjustments for improving performance? Good question, and you can consult the manual and the forums to learn more, there's plenty that's been written about it. But the bottom line is that you'll have to learn this stuff and consciously implement it -- FL won't do it for you. And this has always been the case, but my observation has been that FL11 and earlier were so incredibly lean that even if you put together a monster of a project you could still get great performance relative to the competition. However, ever since the vectorial interface arrived with FL12, FL's built-in performance advantage seems to have disappeared -- which is understandable, since vectorial rendering is inherently more resource intensive than bitmaps. But that means you really have to pay attention to how you structure your project if you care about performance.
SIDE NOTE: I have a really big soft spot in my heart for FL, but personally, in it's present state, I feel like it's in this weird no-man's-land for me. It's no longer the super-tight, lean, and focused DAW that it once was, where you could use it to crank-out loop based electronic music at a phenomenal clip, but couldn't really use it at all for less structured genres like indie or folk or whatever. Nowadays it's certainly much more capable overall, but I still wouldn't pick it to produce a country album, and the added complexity means it's no longer the most streamlined DAW around for 128 trance or whatever. If old FL was like a 5 speed manual transmission, and things like Cubase are like automatic transmissions, new FL is like a 50 speed manual transmission. And what's the point of that?
Actually, there is a point, and that is if you're doing inherently complex electronic projects. SeamlessR is the canonical example here -- I think FL has a very significant edge for this kind of music. Otherwise, from a raw "how does the DAW help me get things done quickly" perspective, I come up empty. The big new feature of 12.5 was the pattern picker panel -- but the last thing I want to do is play pattern secretary. I go back to the transmission metaphor: Cubase takes care of all that media management stuff for me behind the scenes, including not just MIDI data but audio as well (automatic transmission); old school FL with the blocks was much more hands on and limited, but it was also very straightforward and accessible (5-speed); whereas new FL keeps piling on the complexity, with each new capability being like another gear in the transmission (picker panel brings us up to 50-speed). Again, this is probably actually uniquely useful for certain kinds of production, but for me, FL is in a sort of uncanny valley right now, where whenever I use it, I miss both the old-school simplicity of previous versions and the sophisticated capabilities of other DAW's like Cubase.
That said, big changes are rumored to be afoot for 13, so we'll see what happens.
Makin' Music Great Again 
-
- Boss Lovin' DR
- 14312 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from the grimness of yorkshire
Easy now!aumordia wrote:couldn't really use it at all for less structured genres like indie
.
-
- Banned
- 5357 posts since 7 May, 2015
You read the posts. We went from people trying to help to belittling the guy. Anyways, I hope the op is listening and is getting things worked out.gas pump wrote:Can someone please translate this to English for me?incubus wrote:But everyone knows it's all about the power-play!
Facts? PWWWWET! Info, no. Slamming someone with an issue? Hell yeah. Cuz that's how forums (all the f**king forums) roll.
-
- KVRAF
- 3369 posts since 16 Jan, 2005 from Ottawa, Ontario
Aside from optimization - ASIO, interpolation, sampling rate, buffer, ppq and all that SETTINGS shite, there is a very special consideration in FL for how it handles threads, and how the user manages this.
There was also a video that showed most importantly a trick: you had to always manage how things worked in the mixer. Large serial chains caused problems very quickly, but if you were deliberate and spread them out, you got better muticore usage... bad explanation, but something like this guy says here...
https://www.reddit.com/r/WeAreTheMusicM ... _more_cpu/
...you have REMAIN cognisant of how you're putting things in the mixer.
RTFM
https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHe ... el_cpu.htm
unfortunately it is the EXACT opposite of how you'd use send tracks to minimize cpu usage.
There was also a video that showed most importantly a trick: you had to always manage how things worked in the mixer. Large serial chains caused problems very quickly, but if you were deliberate and spread them out, you got better muticore usage... bad explanation, but something like this guy says here...
https://www.reddit.com/r/WeAreTheMusicM ... _more_cpu/
...you have REMAIN cognisant of how you're putting things in the mixer.
RTFM
https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHe ... el_cpu.htm
unfortunately it is the EXACT opposite of how you'd use send tracks to minimize cpu usage.
-
- Banned
- 5357 posts since 7 May, 2015
Too complex for me. I tried EVERYTHING prior to windows 10. Scott helped me a bunch, nothing worked.
Then there was a windows 8 vid that showed what a difference "power settings" were, which didn't work on win7.
Got the free upgrade to win10, and it's been cool. SAME EXACT COMPUTER.
No need to "rtfm"
Then there was a windows 8 vid that showed what a difference "power settings" were, which didn't work on win7.
Got the free upgrade to win10, and it's been cool. SAME EXACT COMPUTER.
No need to "rtfm"
-
- KVRist
- 198 posts since 20 Jan, 2014 from Latvia
I try Fl demo time after time, but every time i hawe big cpu problems! 
I like FL ecosystem, but can't get it work on any of my studio computers.
My tests:
12 track of spire/sylent1 (64bit) in fl studio (64bit) (and yes tried different buffer sizes and audio configuration) i have cpu overload,
32 track of same synts(also 64bit) in Bitwig not overloding my cpu, how????????
I will definetdly try FL demo after some time, and if this problem will be fixe, i will buy FL imeditly!!
I like FL ecosystem, but can't get it work on any of my studio computers.My tests:
12 track of spire/sylent1 (64bit) in fl studio (64bit) (and yes tried different buffer sizes and audio configuration) i have cpu overload,
32 track of same synts(also 64bit) in Bitwig not overloding my cpu, how????????
I will definetdly try FL demo after some time, and if this problem will be fixe, i will buy FL imeditly!!
Mac OSX, Bitwig Studio, Spire, Massive
-
- Banned
- 3889 posts since 3 Feb, 2010
Check Bitwig settings, it might be that it have some additional setting wich adds latency but also relieves CPU (like Studio One 3 has, but in my case its not very useful), it might explain why is that, because FL Sudio here is very efficient.kaspy003 wrote:I try Fl demo time after time, but every time i hawe big cpu problems!
My tests:
12 track of spire/sylent1 (64bit) in fl studio (64bit) (and yes tried different buffer sizes and audio configuration) i have cpu overload,
32 track of same synts(also 64bit) in Bitwig not overloding my cpu, how????????
I will definetdly try FL demo after some time, and if this problem will be fixe, i will buy FL imeditly!!
-
- KVRist
- 198 posts since 20 Jan, 2014 from Latvia
My Bitwig audio settings is the same as FL, but maybe Bitwig plugin sandbox each plugin give me better cpu resultsElektronisch wrote:Check Bitwig settings, it might be that it have some additional setting wich adds latency but also relieves CPU (like Studio One 3 has, but in my case its not very useful), it might explain why is that, because FL Sudio here is very efficient.kaspy003 wrote:I try Fl demo time after time, but every time i hawe big cpu problems!
My tests:
12 track of spire/sylent1 (64bit) in fl studio (64bit) (and yes tried different buffer sizes and audio configuration) i have cpu overload,
32 track of same synts(also 64bit) in Bitwig not overloding my cpu, how????????
I will definetdly try FL demo after some time, and if this problem will be fixe, i will buy FL imeditly!!
But common, 2x better? No way! Something wrong is with FL ;(
I tried in different pc's
Mac OSX, Bitwig Studio, Spire, Massive
-
- Banned
- 3889 posts since 3 Feb, 2010
I dont think its FL studio. Something at your end because otherwise i would also expierience slow CPU performance. Alot of my collegues are also using FL and dont complain about CPU usekaspy003 wrote:My Bitwig audio settings is the same as FL, but maybe Bitwig plugin sandbox each plugin give me better cpu resultsElektronisch wrote:Check Bitwig settings, it might be that it have some additional setting wich adds latency but also relieves CPU (like Studio One 3 has, but in my case its not very useful), it might explain why is that, because FL Sudio here is very efficient.kaspy003 wrote:I try Fl demo time after time, but every time i hawe big cpu problems!
My tests:
12 track of spire/sylent1 (64bit) in fl studio (64bit) (and yes tried different buffer sizes and audio configuration) i have cpu overload,
32 track of same synts(also 64bit) in Bitwig not overloding my cpu, how????????
I will definetdly try FL demo after some time, and if this problem will be fixe, i will buy FL imeditly!!
But common, 2x better? No way! Something wrong is with FL ;(
I tried in different pc's
it really has to be at your end because well yoi are one of the few Also did you measured cpu usage by task manager showings? Try to use exactly same midi and same instruments and observe by task manager for some proper results.
-
- KVRist
- 259 posts since 16 Jun, 2015
I've always found FL to be relatively prone to buffer underruns -- I also find the user community mostly just shrugs those off, because it doesn't really cause problems unless you're recording audio, which FL users don't tend to regularly do.
Makin' Music Great Again
-
- Banned
- 5357 posts since 7 May, 2015
If not windows 8.1 or above, I'm on the side of people having issues. If I'm one windows 10 (I never did I've been fine.
If not already, please go to power settings/high performance and see if this helps. Again, it's a lot like live in that one instance can show a really high cpu load but as you keep adding stuff, the load stays the sameish.
Since nobody lists their specs, I can't say more than that.
People here are helpful. But you need to provide some info.
@community: When Scott answers (which is often) he's usually good at getting to the heart of the matter.
I've been fine.If not already, please go to power settings/high performance and see if this helps. Again, it's a lot like live in that one instance can show a really high cpu load but as you keep adding stuff, the load stays the sameish.
Since nobody lists their specs, I can't say more than that.
People here are helpful. But you need to provide some info.
@community: When Scott answers (which is often) he's usually good at getting to the heart of the matter.
-
- Banned
- 57 posts since 4 Aug, 2017
incubus wrote:But everyone knows it's all about the power-play!
Facts? PWWWWET! Info, no. Slamming someone with an issue? Hell yeah. Cuz that's how forums (all the f**king forums) roll.
Give me a break.
As you can see he didn't even mention increasing of ASIO buffer size, nor he was aware of smart disable.
These 2 things are basically crucial ones and the first things you do.
If you want to believe that someone who is claiming to be a FL Studio user since version 9, which came out back in 2009 and the last update for version 9 was in 2011, to be not even aware of those 2 things,
if you want to believe that someone in 6-8 years of using FL Studio didn't even bother to open its Help and to read about audio settings which is all well documented in FL Studio's Help - be my guest.
It's more than obvious that he downloaded a cracked version 9 back in a day and spent a few days playing with it, then he saw that 12.5 version came out and he again downloaded a cracked version and being absolutely clueless how to optimize FL Studio and what to look for.
The whole point is that he would run into the same problem years ago, not just today, unless he was using only 3xOSC, Synth1 and nothing else.
I've been using FL since version 3 and I'm able to smell a turd from a mile away when it comes to these things.
-
- Banned
- 5357 posts since 7 May, 2015
Nope, no breaks. Not everybody knows everything and even if the OP is a playa, I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt and simply try to be helpful.
Which BTW, nobody cares about my trying to be helpful, so, I'm out
Which BTW, nobody cares about my trying to be helpful, so, I'm out
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 152 posts since 19 Mar, 2016
Hello, I updated my topic with a video.
I really want to use FL Studio, I love it, but its CPU performance (for me atleast) is 100% behind other daws. If you watch the video you can see.
I don't understand... Somebody told me about routing and busing instruments is bad, I read the mixer route and core thing, but TBH I don't seem to get anymore performance when unrouting them.
I'm on an I7 4790, 16GB ram, Windows 8,1 pro.
I tried filling 5 tracks with FL HARDCORE, it took 41 instaces on single tracks to bring my CPU to 100%, I then tried filling each track individually with just one FL HARDCORE, it took 55 instances to bring my CPU to 100%
So there is some benefit, but I have the project setup the EXACT SAME as cubase
I was copying the project into FL Studio, because I'd RATHER USE FL STUDIO
but cubase can play the project back and only use around 80% CPU, it can even take like 5 more ampsims and still play, in the video the cubase CPU performance looks worse then it is, I tried later and it wasnt spiking so high, and I could add more and more ampsims, but how come CUBASE can handle that project with the midi, and FL Studio cant even handle half of it's plugins? grrrrrrrrrrr
while on FL STUDIO the project won't even play midi back, it's 100% and above just with the loaded mixer plugins
I have to disable like 4 tracks of mixer plugins to get it to 90%, then when U play midi with the 90% it spikes to 100%
What is up with that?
EDIT// disable plugin brings it to 0%, as soon as midi plays 100% again.
computer is all optimized for audio
the plugins I'm using in that project are
5 x Neutron, an Ozone 7, A RC48 verb, a abbey roads stereo plate verb, T Racks saturator x 2, a few EQ's, a guitar rig 5, 2 amplitube 4's. A bass amp...
I really want to use FL Studio, I love it, but its CPU performance (for me atleast) is 100% behind other daws. If you watch the video you can see.
I don't understand... Somebody told me about routing and busing instruments is bad, I read the mixer route and core thing, but TBH I don't seem to get anymore performance when unrouting them.
I'm on an I7 4790, 16GB ram, Windows 8,1 pro.
I tried filling 5 tracks with FL HARDCORE, it took 41 instaces on single tracks to bring my CPU to 100%, I then tried filling each track individually with just one FL HARDCORE, it took 55 instances to bring my CPU to 100%
So there is some benefit, but I have the project setup the EXACT SAME as cubase
I was copying the project into FL Studio, because I'd RATHER USE FL STUDIO
but cubase can play the project back and only use around 80% CPU, it can even take like 5 more ampsims and still play, in the video the cubase CPU performance looks worse then it is, I tried later and it wasnt spiking so high, and I could add more and more ampsims, but how come CUBASE can handle that project with the midi, and FL Studio cant even handle half of it's plugins? grrrrrrrrrrr
while on FL STUDIO the project won't even play midi back, it's 100% and above just with the loaded mixer plugins
I have to disable like 4 tracks of mixer plugins to get it to 90%, then when U play midi with the 90% it spikes to 100%
What is up with that?
EDIT// disable plugin brings it to 0%, as soon as midi plays 100% again.
computer is all optimized for audio
the plugins I'm using in that project are
5 x Neutron, an Ozone 7, A RC48 verb, a abbey roads stereo plate verb, T Racks saturator x 2, a few EQ's, a guitar rig 5, 2 amplitube 4's. A bass amp...