Hi! I use MUX7 as a subhost VST shell for many years. I use it inside Reaper almost at every channel (it can be 30 instances or more). One of it's nice features is an extra-low CPU load. With no any processing but direct in-out connection only, the load of my i5 Intel CPU per one instance is ~0.1%
Today I've tried new MUX8 demo and was disappointed a bit to find that the CPU load raised to ~0.5%. It's rather critical for me since 30 tracks x 0.5% is 15% of additional CPU load.
It would be nice to know is there some serious reason behind that or this is simply some kind of raw product imperfection which could be optimized in future.
Many thanks!
High CPU-load of empty MUX 8
-
- KVRAF
- 13863 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
I compared MUX 7 and MUX 8 cpu usage in Reaper and don't see the difference you're reporting.
Which MUX preset did you use to do the test?
Which MUX preset did you use to do the test?
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 83 posts since 11 Jul, 2011
Thanks for the quick response!
It was some kind of "zero-preset". No modules inside. Just audio input and midi input connected to audio output and midi output.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wmOjk ... q6-KfUyfeA
It was some kind of "zero-preset". No modules inside. Just audio input and midi input connected to audio output and midi output.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wmOjk ... q6-KfUyfeA
-
- KVRAF
- 13863 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
Ok i've stacked 32 M8 instances of your zero-preset patch can indeed see a bit higher cpu usage compared to M7. I've also repeated that test with 32 instances of the more complex "Ensemble" patch and the difference was approx the same, certainly not exponentially higher due to the more complex modular patch. With the 32 "Ensemble" instances M7 = 0.6%, M8 = 1.7%. So it seems to be some fixed little extra cpu usage per instance (in this test 0.034%), not per modular complexity. I constantly try to minimize cpu consumption but sometimes certain choices are necessary. I won't research this specific case further on short term (busy on some other high prio aspect) but will certainly continue to give attention to minimize cpu usage as much as possible. Thanks for reporting this.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 83 posts since 11 Jul, 2011
Hello!
Tried MUX8.6.9 vs MUX7.7.4 once again with rather complicated patch using Multi-Sample_Player with huge modulation and event processing (~100 of native MUX modules). The result is still upsetting: 3.0% vs 0.7% of my CPU when sending the same MIDI sequence to it.
See two MUX versions play the same MIDI via the same patch:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z6wfDc ... sp=sharing
Check up the patch:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15fF8Kq ... sp=sharing
Any thougts?
Tried MUX8.6.9 vs MUX7.7.4 once again with rather complicated patch using Multi-Sample_Player with huge modulation and event processing (~100 of native MUX modules). The result is still upsetting: 3.0% vs 0.7% of my CPU when sending the same MIDI sequence to it.
See two MUX versions play the same MIDI via the same patch:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z6wfDc ... sp=sharing
Check up the patch:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15fF8Kq ... sp=sharing
Any thougts?
-
- KVRAF
- 13863 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 83 posts since 11 Jul, 2011
Thanks for your response!
Last time I described this issue I thought that's only about the CPU load of empty MUX 'shell'. But now, as it can be seen, it's the same with the patch having much processing.
Should I think of this as of normal situation and accept this fact (that v8 takes x4 more CPU power then v7 on some native MUX patches) as plugin's immanent feature?
Or there's some problem with my staff?
Or there's some problem with the plugin which could be fixed sometime later?
Or this can be caused by my comparison of registered v7 with demo v8?
If it had a sense, I could play with it a bit to find if there are some critical MUX modules that give such a result. Would you be interested?
Last time I described this issue I thought that's only about the CPU load of empty MUX 'shell'. But now, as it can be seen, it's the same with the patch having much processing.
Should I think of this as of normal situation and accept this fact (that v8 takes x4 more CPU power then v7 on some native MUX patches) as plugin's immanent feature?
Or there's some problem with my staff?
Or there's some problem with the plugin which could be fixed sometime later?
Or this can be caused by my comparison of registered v7 with demo v8?
If it had a sense, I could play with it a bit to find if there are some critical MUX modules that give such a result. Would you be interested?
-
- KVRAF
- 13863 posts since 24 Jun, 2008 from Europe
I quickly checked playing one of the demos in both M7 and M8 and they generally uses approx the same amount of cpu. I cannot answer your questions atm as it needs specific research on the specific cases you're focusing on, but i'm working hard on something else and it needs focus. So maybe i'll have another look at this later this year. Sorry for my dev time limitations.
-
- KVRian
- 1126 posts since 30 Oct, 2013 from Scarborough
@ortseam
Have you tried re-saving the patch using Mux v8. then testing it again? I don't know if it may help, and cannot try it myself atm, but I seem to recall this having an effect wrt other issues. There's been a lot of changes between those versions.
Have you tried re-saving the patch using Mux v8. then testing it again? I don't know if it may help, and cannot try it myself atm, but I seem to recall this having an effect wrt other issues. There's been a lot of changes between those versions.
https://rjsemper.wixsite.com/website
One Synth Challenge - https://sites.google.com/site/kvrosc/about
One Synth Challenge - https://sites.google.com/site/kvrosc/about
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 83 posts since 11 Jul, 2011
@RichardSemper
Thanks for the idea. Now I'm playing only with v8 demo (just to understand if there is a reason for upgrading from v7). And so I can't save presets. But maybe I'll buy it and then try this thing.
Thanks for the idea. Now I'm playing only with v8 demo (just to understand if there is a reason for upgrading from v7). And so I can't save presets. But maybe I'll buy it and then try this thing.