Amplitube 3 -- a RAM hog like its predecessors?

[Kontrast13]

Man, I have a cheap laptop that's 3 years old and I never really thought of A3 to be particularly ram hungry. Then again... I always use a set of rules to treat it like an actual amp. Record my part, keep the unprocessed input just in case, make the render, and then unload it so I can work on another part of the song~ *shrug*

Now I do like GR as well... but "Yeah, you could always go with a more expensive competitor if you want artificial lemons instead of real Oranges." is still pretty funny

[geroyannis]

The latest version of Amplitude 3 has seen a reduction in RAM usage, but still it eats much more RAM than Amplitube 2. Specifically, Amplitube 2 uses 107MB while Amplitube 3 uses 234MB. I'm on WinXP 32 bit.

[Agreed]

The latest version of Amplitude 3 has seen a reduction in RAM usage, but still it eats much more RAM than Amplitube 2. Specifically, Amplitube 2 uses 107MB while Amplitube 3 uses 234MB. I'm on WinXP 32 bit.

Is there any preset/patch change latency for you using Amplitube 3? I have effectively none, so whatever they did to optimize it must be pretty heavy lifting given all that gear that has to be ready to go immediately. Amplitube 2 has a relatively small percentage of the models in a fully-loaded Amplitube 3 Custom Shop setup. Having all that ready to go when clicking a button has to cost something, and I'll give it memory for that purpose without too much complaint. I've been thinking about upgrading to 32GB just so I can run larger projects without any issues but 16GB has been totally sufficient so far. Never felt the need, as of yet anyway, to look at a Xeon platform or a SNB-e or other platform that allows for really absurdly high numbers for RAM totals. But now is really a buyer's market for DDR3, even 8GB DIMMs are surprisingly affordable.

Back when I was first using Amplitube I had a one core computer (Athlon XP 2800+ Barton Core overclocked represent!), one gig of RAM and this was much more of an issue. Then I upgraded to a Q9550 Core2Quad with 8GB, and never had issues with that, really... Now I'm using a 2600K at 4.7GHz with 16GB and all my recording software and operating system on SSDs as well, and man oh man that's speed. I've thought about just turning the page file off but it seems some applications are coded with the assumption that it exists, and it's not hurting anything, so on it stays, but I've never seen close to full utilization of 16GB. I don't work with gigantic sample libraries, though, just multi-track audio, tracking and mixing.

I appreciated the speed and resource utilization improvement nonetheless because my laptop is less robustly specced but I still need to tool around when using it, so its pre-Sandy Bridge i5 processor and 4GB of RAM have to manage (and they do just fine, really).

[Hink]

IMHO 16gig of ram is serious overkill at this point, I could run 32 gig as well but tbh I would consider that being foolish with my money (YMMV). Even adding 8 gig for 16 gig would yield very little gain for the cost if any

[Agreed]

IMHO 16gig of ram is serious overkill at this point, I could run 32 gig as well but tbh I would consider that being foolish with my money (YMMV). Even adding 8 gig for 16 gig would yield very little gain for the cost if any

Really depends on what you're doing, imagine if I were running a huge orchestral library with enough samples to seriously eat up that RAM and it can become clearer pretty quickly where it all goes. The real thing to be careful about is less the extravagance of a 16GB setup - with DIMMs as affordable as they are, that's not so much at all, depending of course on financial circumstances - but rather to make sure that one isn't getting rooked by purchasing unnecessarily fast RAM. Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors both more or less top out at 1333MHz RAM, 9-9-9-24 and even 2T is just fine. You can pay a lot of money to get very fast RAM but the efficiency of the integrated memory controllers and the pathway from the disc (or, in my case, NAND flash) to the execution pathway is unparalleled in previous processors.

AMD's processors show more scaling, but not superior scaling... Bulldozer was, unfortunately, a flop that deserves the title "of epic proportions," with the whole company withdrawing from high-performance competition and leaving Intel with a virtual monopoly on high-end desktop and server processors. And their architecture benefits as little as 6% going from 1333MHz DDR3 to 1800MHz+ DDR3, and that only in highly sequential operations (long compression/decompression operations - so if you do a lot of video encoding, maybe the price difference works out to a real world performance difference, or if you routinely extract large compressed files). For other uses, there's pretty much no difference between the fast expensive stuff and the run of the mill commodity stuff. More a question of getting RAM that'll fit under your heat sink; at 1.5V and lower, the gigantic peacock-plumage of some RAM companies is just a bad joke that prevents clearance with modern affordable and high performance air coolers.

Anyway, it's a little academic for that gent, who is using XP 32-bit... It won't see more than 4GB, it won't let the user allocate more than a portion of what it sees (keeping about .75GB or so to itself for operating system stuff). So I can understand why he would want to have the most efficient memory utilization possible.

I really might upgrade to 32GB, though, I've been looking into some large sample libraries and it would be a good supplement to the rather substantial amount of SSD space I've got on my computer (up to three SSDs now, the technology is practically addictive, totally unleashes the processor to run like it can run - no waiting for random reads or loading times, just the quickest possible pathway from storage to execution, and the most telling difference in computing advancements at the user experience level since the introduction of the first dual core desktop chips back in 2003).

I do agree for most purposes 8GB is probably more than enough, and 16GB thus double overkill, 32GB quadruple overkill. No argument there. Certainly useless on a 32-bit system.

[Hink]

well of course I'm running 64 bit with Samp pro X suite, but keep in mind what I said...for me the cost would not be worth it. It's not cheap for 32 gig of RAM, by the time I need it I hope the prices come down a bit. FWIW my machine is built by PC-audiolabs and is an i7 2600, 3.5 ghz Gigabyte GA-Z68X motherboard.

[lingyai]

Can someone help me reconcile these?

With AmpliTube 3.7.1 and up you can expect at least 30% less CPU power consumption, and at least 35% less RAM usage, compared to previous versions.

vs.

The latest version of Amplitude 3 has seen a reduction in RAM usage, but still it eats much more RAM than Amplitube 2. Specifically, Amplitube 2 uses 107MB while Amplitube 3 uses 234MB. I'm on WinXP 32 bit.

The only sense I can make of it is that "compared to previous versions" means compared to previous versions of Amplitube 3. I have v2, so v3 would still leave me worse off...or am I missing something?

[asseca]

Amplitube v3.8 x32 uses about 200MB for the first instance and 130MB for any extras instances.

Amplitube v3.8 x64 uses about 220MB for the first instance and 160MB for any extras instances.

Amplitube v2.1.4 x32 uses about 105MB for the first instance and 85MB for any extras instances.

However, AmplitubeXGEAR v1.5.1 x32 uses about 225MB for the first instance and 180MB for any extras instances.

Basically Amplitube 3 is a continuation of AmplitubeXGEAR ...


Both measured using VstHost and Sysinternals' Process Explorer on win7-64 SP1.

[lingyai]

Amplitube v3.8 x32 uses about 200MB for the first instance and 130MB for any extras instances.

Amplitube v3.8 x64 uses about 220MB for the first instance and 160MB for any extras instances.

Amplitube v2.1.4 x32 uses about 105MB for the first instance and 85MB for any extras instances.

However, AmplitubeXGEAR v1.5.1 x32 uses about 225MB for the first instance and 180MB for any extras instances.

Basically Amplitube 3 is a continuation of AmplitubeXGEAR ...


Both measured using VstHost and Sysinternals' Process Explorer on win7-64 SP1.

Thanks, asseca, that makes it very clear

[Agreed]

RAM usage used to be substantially higher for Amplitube 3, too, I believe that's what was referred to in the patch notes. 300MB+ per instance. And that's without all the CS additions, too, I've got everything except the Jet City stuff and the two Seymour Duncan pedals (I like the idea, but I don't want to spend $30 on them). Fully loaded it still has a lower system footprint than it used to, and switches instantaneously between presets/patches (does it do that for other systems? I'm genuinely curious, because as mentioned I've got a pretty heavily overclocked setup - 2600K at 4.7GHz, running all my recording software from an SSD, I'd like to know if I'm just seeing the benefit of a fast I/O path or if it's part of optimizations by the IK devs).

[guitarking79]

Is there a fix yet for Amplitube 3.8's latency in REAPER? Because REAPER handles latency in multiples of the soundcard's latency (i.e. the 7 samples of Amplitube end up being treated as 256 samples, the 320 samples of another plugin are treated as 512 samples, etc) the newer versions of Amplitube are unusable for live playing. Is there a way to turn off the 7 samples that Amplitube reports? Or is there a way to disable the unusual latency handling in REAPER? I enjoy using Amplitube, but I don't want to have to buy a new DAW in order to use it.

[Brian @ IK Multimedia]

guitarking79 - we cannot "fix" the way Cockos handles latency. The workaround is to disable PDC on AmpliTube within Reaper.

With regard to the RAM usage of AmpliTube, each update that adds new gear is going to increase that usage slightly. More gear = larger filesize.

[guitarking79]

guitarking79 - we cannot "fix" the way Cockos handles latency. The work around is to disable PDC on AmpliTube within Reaper.

How do you do that? There was a convenient way to do that in earlier versions of REAPER, but I cannot find the option to do that in the current version.

[Brian @ IK Multimedia]

My understanding is that it can be done on a per-plugin basis. I don't use Reaper, though, so I couldn't tell you the specific process to do it, or if it is still possible.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

IMHO 16gig of ram is serious overkill at this point, I could run 32 gig as well but tbh I would consider that being foolish with my money (YMMV). Even adding 8 gig for 16 gig would yield very little gain for the cost if any

Well I will have some serious overkill John my friend But considering how I rarely update things, I decided to go for 16GB now incase a few years later I'll get close to using more than half of it. Its simply also a 'don't worry, You'll never run out of power' thing/comfort thing for me. The CPU is not going to be an Intel one but a departure for me being an AMD, Still got alot of cores with a shit ton of power per-core. The other thing is an SSD for the OS and program files. Hopefully it will do me for a good 6 years

When I get it finished I can try all the software which I have not been able to do due to a laptop that was just not upto much and a dead audio machine I kept on putting off updating because sometimes I just get wierd about things. Basically enough was enough when Paul's mixes sounded nearly as good as mine: That was the straw which broke this camel's back He is building it for Me also so I'm just paying for the parts which is cool/can not complain

I only mention it here as I can really try AmpliTube 3 properly and within a full-on mix/multi-tracked session whereas at the moment it wouldn't even run standalone on what I've got. Hell I am getting more excited as it draws closer

Still before the shittop went down, I was getting IK's fine AmpegSVX running just fine and used it heavily on these tracks:

Shit one of them is not on soundcloud, Will sort that out and then edit this post with linkage and sorry for the moment

Cheers and best to all as always

Dean