Arturia Pigments 7

[Lbdunequest]

RTX 3050 here doesn't use much of it's memory no matter how many Pigments are open.
Five instances of Pigments take up around 7 GB in my case.
2560x1440, RTX 3050, Ryzen 5950X, Win11.
I hope they will offer some kind of solution, maybe option to turn off visual eye candy or something similar.

Gpu is irrelevant thats why pigments is not using vram

[mitt]

Just noticed that memory usage drops drastically after a while, now it's 2 GB instead of 7 GB on startup with five instances active. I'm on Cubase.

[bjm4tt]

Unfortunately still happening with the latest version (7.0.0.6447).

Did Arturia acknowledge that they are aware of it, maybe on their official forum?

I wanted to test it with a more recent GPU before reporting it, which I have just done, but unfortunately it's the same. I'm experiencing the same with an older nVidia 1050 GTX and a new RTX 5060 too. Reported it a few minutes ago.

It seems like it's resolution dependent, on a 2560x1440 screen it allocates 1.5-1.8 GB for me.

This week I tested it with a Radeon RX 7600 XT and after the 3rd GPU, I can confirm that it's not GPU dependent.

I'm in contact with their support, so far the suggestions didn't make any difference, but hoping that it will lead to a solution.

[Lbdunequest]

Unfortunately still happening with the latest version (7.0.0.6447).

Did Arturia acknowledge that they are aware of it, maybe on their official forum?

I wanted to test it with a more recent GPU before reporting it, which I have just done, but unfortunately it's the same. I'm experiencing the same with an older nVidia 1050 GTX and a new RTX 5060 too. Reported it a few minutes ago.

It seems like it's resolution dependent, on a 2560x1440 screen it allocates 1.5-1.8 GB for me.

This week I tested it with a Radeon RX 7600 XT and after the 3rd GPU, I can confirm that it's not GPU dependent.

I'm in contact with their support, so far the suggestions didn't make any difference, but hoping that it will lead to a solution.

Guys, please separate GPU memory and Operational Memory. These are 2 different memory units, GPU HAS 0 TO DO WITH PIGMENTS, no need to waste your time testing GPUs with Pigments

There is no confirmation needed because GPU is graphic processing unit, Pigments is using Operational Memory, RAM sticks in your computer

[bjm4tt]

I didn't specifically test another GPU because of Pigments, but for testing linux audio (unrelated to Pigments). What I confirmed, is that the higher memory usage is present on the same system, with different GPUs. I can tell GPU memory and system memory apart, please stop being a condescending jerk.

[Lbdunequest]

I didn't specifically test another GPU because of Pigments, but for testing linux audio (unrelated to Pigments). What I confirmed, is that the higher memory usage is present on the same system, with different GPUs. I can tell GPU memory and system memory apart, please stop being a condescending jerk.

But from what you wrote, you did tested GPUs to see if Pigments use more or less RAM

Im not being a jerk, im just saying you are wasting your time testing and i explained why. If you dont believe me, test it again, the outcome will be the same. If you dont believe me you can always ask AI.

[bjm4tt]

Allright, I appreciate your input and I believed you, my point was not disproving you.

We are still emailing with Arturia, we'll see.

[maxym.srpl]

Im not being a jerk, im just saying you are wasting your time testing and i explained why. If you dont believe me, test it again, the outcome will be the same. If you dont believe me you can always ask AI.

Your statement is too definite.
Regardless of Pigments, it's not ultimately impossible to delegate some computations to other units, such as a GPU. It could sound processing or rendering plugin's graphics. Yes, GPU can do math for audio processing. It's nothing unusual.
Again, I doubt it has the place (besides gfx acceleration requested by OS), but arguments about memory banks are way too weak to support anything.

[Lbdunequest]

Im not being a jerk, im just saying you are wasting your time testing and i explained why. If you dont believe me, test it again, the outcome will be the same. If you dont believe me you can always ask AI.

Your statement is too definite.
Regardless of Pigments, it's not ultimately impossible to delegate some computations to other units, such as a GPU. It could sound processing or rendering plugin's graphics. Yes, GPU can do math for processing audio. It's nothing unusual.
Again, I doubt it has the place (besides gfx acceleration requested by OS), but arguments about memory banks are way too weak to support anything.

You really dont understand computers and what it's modules do and what kind of resources audio plugins require, do you? because it does sound like you have no clue, or at least a very surface understanding. How is my argument too weak? Please elaborate

Audio plugins use CPU and RAM (not video ram). There are only few plugins that use GPU for audio processing by https://www.gpu.audio/

[maxym.srpl]

because it does sound like you have no clue,

Man... I'm a SW engineer with 30 years of experience, lol.
Among us is the only you, who doesn't understand how computers are built and what their components might be used for. Isn't it the result of believing in AI responses a bit too much?

How is my argument too weak

The fact that these memory banks are members of different boards, originally dedicated for different purposes, does not mean that the GPU cannot be used for audio processing by some plugins.
Whether such use cases exist or not is a different story. But definitely, your reasoning based on the fact that GPU memory is located on a GPU board, doesn't imply that it cannot be utilized by a sound processing plugin.

Besides audio processing:
Every plugin uses GPU and its memory indirectly. The OS delegates rendering of parts of your desktop to the GPU. In the past, it was called GPU acceleration, and if not available, it taxed the CPU. Today every gfx unit does that.

Also, it's not hard to imagine fancy particles and/or 3D, ray-traced animations shown within audio plugins. Such ones might require GPU. Why not...

[Lbdunequest]

because it does sound like you have no clue,

Man... I'm a SW engineer with 30 years of experience, lol.
Among us is the only you, who doesn't understand how computers are built and what their components might be used for. Isn't it the result of believing in AI responses a bit too much?

How is my argument too weak

The fact that these memory banks are members of different boards, originally dedicated for different purposes, does not mean that the GPU cannot be used for audio processing by some plugins.
Whether such use cases exist or not is a different story. But definitely, your reasoning based on the fact that GPU memory is located on a GPU board, doesn't imply that it cannot be utilized by a sound processing plugin.

Besides audio processing:
Every plugin uses GPU and its memory indirectly. The OS delegates rendering of parts of your desktop to the GPU. In the past, it was called GPU acceleration, and if not available, it taxed the CPU. Today every gfx unit does that.

Also, it's not hard to imagine fancy particles and/or 3D, ray-traced animations shown within audio plugins. Such ones might require GPU. Why not...

You being SW engineer makes me doubt your competence. Pigments 7 is using CPU and System memory. Only very small amount of GPU processing happens. Problem is Pigments 7 is now using System memory, alot of it, much more then before.

So you are saying it is a smart behaviour to check out Pigments 7 System RAM usage (not GPU) by swapping different GPUS because swapping them might result in Pigments 7 using less system memory? different memory then gpu right? If you dont agree then i dont understand what point in this discussion are you trying to make.

[maxym.srpl]

Your statement (as well as the AI answer provided by you) was about audio plugins and computers in general. I responded to this part.

[Lbdunequest]

Your statement (as well as the AI answer provided by you) was about audio plugins and computers in general. I responded to this part.

I also said that there are plugins that use GPU for processing audio

Audio plugins use CPU and RAM (not video ram). There are only few plugins that use GPU for audio processing by https://www.gpu.audio/

But rest of VSTs that do not specifically outline they use GPU for processing - they use CPU and RAM. This was known before AI, i dont need AI to know that GPU is only used for graphic processing for smoother animations.

Also as a SW engineer for 30 years (which im starting to doubt now) you should know that GPU processor is different and runs different code because of different CPU architecture then regular x86 CPU's meaning it most likely would be impossible for the same 1 plugin to use at the same time 2 different CPU's or alternate them.

[maxym.srpl]

Nobody here mentioned running the plugin on a GPU. It's about delegating some tasks (explicitly programmed to do so) to the GPU, while the plugin is still running on the CPU.

[bjm4tt]

I'm not familiar with how today's plugins are rendered, but I would assume that loading bitmaps in the GPUs memory is not a far fetched concept. When I open Pigments, my GPUs memory usage is up by ca 200MB, while the system memory 2GB. I could imagine, that because of a bug the 2GB should have landed in the GPUs memory, but it did not.

But I don't think that is the problem, but the new visualizer, which even though not visible all the time or even disabled has a memory leak, which gets garbage collected for some eventually (see mitt's comment above) and for some not.

Would love to see this solved, because the new filters are great.