Suggestions for a CPU friendly alternative to Pigments?

[WasteLand]

I have a Ryzen 5 3600 6 core 3.6 (4.3 boosted) ghz, 32 RAM, and I have it installed on SSD. Figured it would be good enough as it meets spec requirements given on their site but I guess not.

in your OP you mention 70+ with a pad...

that is extreme, Pigments indeed can use a lot of CPU, one core, it does not do multi-core.
i am middle in a project with 2 instances of Pigments, own patches, MPE, harmonics engines both, and per instance both are enabled, 256 partials max. a lot of modulation, via MPE, and some other stuff...

MPE is always a 'cpu killer' or it takes a lot of plugin, than a normal patch.

i have a Ryzen 9 5900X (which can do all-core 4.6, undervolting/PBO2), so the cores are the same, except the amount of cores..

it demands a lot of the sample buffer, but this project is in Cubase 11 Pro, so asio guard helps, but even when all is rec armed, with other MPE or demanding plugins, no probs... the project is more than Pigments....

anecdotal evidence, i know..

but your system must hold it. a few instances. but 70+ is really on the extreme side...

[AsgardBS]

I disagree, on my side, Pigment is damn efficient, averaging at <15% of one cpu core, very few preset goes above that.

Way lower than vital, similar to phaseplant

What machine? What cpu and gpu? Did you compare by creating same patch in all these synths?

Vital's GUI is the reason of high cpu. CPU usage reduces significantly once you close the interface. Sound engine is well optimized.

It is well known that Pigments uses more cpu than Diva.

M1 Max

[DCrown]

Swiss Army knifes: Zebra2 and SurgeXT. They give you roughly 7000 quality presets for a hundred bucks currently.

It would take me one month or more to try and play 7000 presets! Lol
That's indeed a lot

[whassup]

Swiss Army knifes: Zebra2 and SurgeXT. They give you roughly 7000 quality presets for a hundred bucks currently.

It would take me one month or more to try and play 7000 presets! Lol
That's indeed a lot

[Tobi MM]

Coding cpu efficient plugins require very good team of computer programmers and mathematicians. u-he, Synapse Audio, Cytomic etc are a few great examples.

I wouldn't Put U-he on that list.
Try to add some Amp Release on a init Diva preset and play some Chords.

I mean. It's Diva. It's build this way; Sound over Stability, this thing burns your cpu down, but it sounds excellent... same goes for repro.

the ugly truth nonetheless: since hive 2 (the new filters, i guess), this also can be said about the initially very efficient hive...

[chk071]

Yes, that is what we have to distinguish: Lack of optimization and high end sound with a lot of modelling of the stuff that's going on in analog synths.

If you listen to Arturia's newer versions of their synths, there's a lot more top end sizzle going on, they sound a lot cleaner, and, in general, the modelling seems more detailed.

I also remember an interview with one of Arturia's guys, who said that it takes a decent amount of processing power to have "good sound". And, Pigments is one of those flagship synths, which lets you play an insane amount of voices. It's still pretty heavy compared to other synths, but, Massive X, for example, can be pretty heavy as well.

Again, cutting a long story short, the OP needs a better CPU. Or live with certain shortcomings or differences with "alternatives".

I always struggle with naming alternatives though. Pigments is unique, like so many other synths. If I could Frankenstein, I would pack the synth engines of Spire and Massive X in there, alongside the great GUI and operation of Pigments itself, and call it a day.

[syntonica]

Lack of optimization and high end sound with a lot of modelling of the stuff that's going on in analog synths.

Unfortunately, good optimization is mutually exclusive with high-end sound. Most possible optimizations compromise the sound. We just need faster computers... like starting with 10x faster, although I'll take the pocket Cray at 100x faster.

[chk071]

Lack of optimization and high end sound with a lot of modelling of the stuff that's going on in analog synths.

Unfortunately, good optimization is mutually exclusive with high-end sound.

I'm pretty sure that most high end sounding synths are very well optimized.

I remember Diva got an update which split the CPU in half, for example. And, Spire got an update which 1/3'd the CPU usage.

[bmanic]

And, Spire got an update which 1/3'd the CPU usage.

I may be alone on this but to my ears, before that update, Spire sounded better (mainly the oscillators and the original filters). Not sure what happened to it but it lost "something" in that update.

.. but I'm sure it could also be a case of the old dreaded Mr Placebo on my part.

As for Diva, that got almost halved by the multicore update that came many years ago. At least on my system I could suddenly run a lot more voices/instances of Diva.

[chk071]

And, Spire got an update which 1/3'd the CPU usage.

I may be alone on this but to my ears, before that update, Spire sounded better (mainly the oscillators and the original filters). Not sure what happened to it but it lost "something" in that update.

.. but I'm sure it could also be a case of the old dreaded Mr Placebo on my part.

I didn't notice anything, but, that doesn't have to mean anything, of course.

I guess it would have made a difference to existing patches.

[bmanic]

Yeah I remember the difference being very small. I had some of those "abused" presets where I modulated things all over the place and absolutely abused the aggressiveness of it all and thought I heard it become slightly more "fizzy" than previously. Then again, that could actually have been an improvement technically with better OS filtering or something. Whatever it was, it was only very slight tonal changes and hasn't bothered me at all since.

[QuietSheep]

I have a Ryzen 5 3600 6 core 3.6 (4.3 boosted) ghz, 32 RAM, and I have it installed on SSD. Figured it would be good enough as it meets spec requirements given on their site but I guess not.

in your OP you mention 70+ with a pad...

that is extreme, Pigments indeed can use a lot of CPU, one core, it does not do multi-core.
i am middle in a project with 2 instances of Pigments, own patches, MPE, harmonics engines both, and per instance both are enabled, 256 partials max. a lot of modulation, via MPE, and some other stuff...

MPE is always a 'cpu killer' or it takes a lot of plugin, than a normal patch.

i have a Ryzen 9 5900X (which can do all-core 4.6, undervolting/PBO2), so the cores are the same, except the amount of cores..

it demands a lot of the sample buffer, but this project is in Cubase 11 Pro, so asio guard helps, but even when all is rec armed, with other MPE or demanding plugins, no probs... the project is more than Pigments....

anecdotal evidence, i know..

but your system must hold it. a few instances. but 70+ is really on the extreme side...

Hmm thats the CPU I was planning on upgrading to in two years. Interesting to know how numbers of CPU cores works. I wonder, why more plugins dont use multicore? Diva went from the most cpu intensive to fairly cpu friendly with it on.

Also to go into detail as I feel I haven't due to poor use of exaggeration. "70%+", thats when I play a chord on a pad/string patch that has a good amount of modulation. On simpler patches its usually 30%+ on my projects where id have to freeze them to use another track of Pigments.

I demo'd Parawave Rapid and I believe I found an alternative thats for me. Its quick, powerful, cpu efficient, and I love how its filters/fx sounds.
Zebra sounds powerfully unique so ill wait on Zebra 3, and Surge has to be the most CPU efficient synth ive used yet (highest cpu usage was 2%) while being free so ill still use it despite its clunk and usage overlap.

Thanks for the help everyone

[Boy Wonder]

I have a Ryzen 5 3600 6 core 3.6 (4.3 boosted) ghz, 32 RAM, and I have it installed on SSD. Figured it would be good enough as it meets spec requirements given on their site but I guess not.

in your OP you mention 70+ with a pad...

that is extreme, Pigments indeed can use a lot of CPU, one core, it does not do multi-core.
i am middle in a project with 2 instances of Pigments, own patches, MPE, harmonics engines both, and per instance both are enabled, 256 partials max. a lot of modulation, via MPE, and some other stuff...

MPE is always a 'cpu killer' or it takes a lot of plugin, than a normal patch.

i have a Ryzen 9 5900X (which can do all-core 4.6, undervolting/PBO2), so the cores are the same, except the amount of cores..

it demands a lot of the sample buffer, but this project is in Cubase 11 Pro, so asio guard helps, but even when all is rec armed, with other MPE or demanding plugins, no probs... the project is more than Pigments....

anecdotal evidence, i know..

but your system must hold it. a few instances. but 70+ is really on the extreme side...

Hmm thats the CPU I was planning on upgrading to in two years. Interesting to know how numbers of CPU cores works. I wonder, why more plugins dont use multicore? Diva went from the most cpu intensive to fairly cpu friendly with it on.

Also to go into detail as I feel I haven't due to poor use of exaggeration. "70%+", thats when I play a chord on a pad/string patch that has a good amount of modulation. On simpler patches its usually 30%+ on my projects where id have to freeze them to use another track of Pigments.

I demo'd Parawave Rapid and I believe I found an alternative thats for me. Its quick, powerful, cpu efficient, and I love how its filters/fx sounds.
Zebra sounds powerfully unique so ill wait on Zebra 3, and Surge has to be the most CPU efficient synth ive used yet (highest cpu usage was 2%) while being free so ill still use it despite its clunk and usage overlap.

Thanks for the help everyone

Congrats on picking Rapid. I think it's a nice synth as well.

[Igro]

I have tested Pigments, PhasePlant2 and Surge XT with same unison settings (5 voices, major chord). This is what Studio One CPU meter showed me:
PhasePlant2: 4%
SurgeXT: 9%
Pigments: 11%

Now there is one thing - Pigments while IDLE was already showing 4%. Ohers - 1%.

Anyway, PhasePlant2 won.

[AsgardBS]

On my M1 max, have made some test and come up with the following ;
Synth testing summary (hitting 4 keys at the same time, testing 100's of included preset, under M1 Max CPU) :
Pigment : On average, about 20% of one of my CPU core usage, some some preset goes up to about 40%, one preset was about 70%, many preset around 15%
Phaseplant ; average preset usage is about 12-15% : Some preset goes up to 25-30%, two preset went to above 60%, and some where 3-6% usage
Vital : Average under vital so far is more around 30-35% with many around 50-60% area

Those where all under my efficient core (M1 has some efficient core and some high performance core, since the computer was not under heavy load, mostly the efficient core where used)