Scamp sounds sweet but it's a bit cpu hungry.
-
- Banned
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
-
- KVRian
- 520 posts since 11 Sep, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
Scamp IS a great CPU hog.. but 30% sounds like a lot. are you sure that your pentium-M is not running in power saving mode with reduced clockrate?
edit: as a reference: one single instance of SCAMP @44.1 uses about 4% of my machine's CPU power (AthlonX2 4400+). Your CPU should be roughly half as fast, so you should expect something like 10% max, I'd say...
edit: as a reference: one single instance of SCAMP @44.1 uses about 4% of my machine's CPU power (AthlonX2 4400+). Your CPU should be roughly half as fast, so you should expect something like 10% max, I'd say...
-
- KVRAF
- 3617 posts since 26 Sep, 2003 from Bradford - The Armpit of Britain
I believe AQ's philosphy is to focus on the quality of the sound rather than the cpu 'friendliness' of the effect.
I gave it a short demo, but decided it wasn't for me as it appeared to be comparatively cpu intensive & I am (personally) of the opinion that devs should at least attempt to make their fx as cpu friendly as possible.
Not dissing the plugin - it may sound excellent, I didn't play with it for that long tbh after watching the cpu meter on my amd 4400 x2 leap up.
I gave it a short demo, but decided it wasn't for me as it appeared to be comparatively cpu intensive & I am (personally) of the opinion that devs should at least attempt to make their fx as cpu friendly as possible.
Not dissing the plugin - it may sound excellent, I didn't play with it for that long tbh after watching the cpu meter on my amd 4400 x2 leap up.
-
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
- KVRAF
- 7872 posts since 21 Dec, 2002 from MD USA
Well at least the maker warns people "SCAMP closely models the actual circuit paths of real world analog circuits, which makes it a processor-intensive effect; expect SCAMP to require processing power similar to the level of a powerful soft-synth.
"
"
-
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
- KVRian
- 1398 posts since 9 Dec, 2002
The sound definitely didn't justify the CPU utilisation for me. I couldn't really hear anything special about it, and that was before comparing it to a handful of other filters - and all the ones in my comparison sounded better with less CPU usage.
And I did want to like it...
And I did want to like it...
Now available with added Inherently Suspect Justification!
-
original flipper original flipper https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=8999
- KVRAF
- 2544 posts since 14 Sep, 2003 from Essex
HI
I found it to go a bit lower (hz) than most filters and sound a touch beefier down there as well.
Probably best used early in a project whereby you can render the result.
I agree that Tone2 runs it close for a big difference (saving) in overhead.
Flipper.
I found it to go a bit lower (hz) than most filters and sound a touch beefier down there as well.
Probably best used early in a project whereby you can render the result.
I agree that Tone2 runs it close for a big difference (saving) in overhead.
Flipper.
-
- KVRian
- 520 posts since 11 Sep, 2003 from Berlin, Germany
I think it's 2.2gHz, but whatever...ttoz wrote: So, it's obviously optimized or simply runs better on athlons.
i set the speed temporarily to 1.8 and it still was around 20%.
so if yours uses 4%, your actually clockspeed is 2.4ghz right? It actualy almost sounds about right.
As much as I despise Pentium4's and all it's descendants, the Pentium-M is a pretty powerful chip. Maybe there's a bug inside SCAMP that does not recognize the Pentium-M properly and "forgets" to use SSE or something.
Maybe it's time for the Admiral himself to pipe up?
-
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
- KVRer
- 15 posts since 13 Aug, 2005 from London
I have a centrino 2ghz dothan, 400mhz fsb, 2MB L2 cache and 2GB ram.
In Sx 3 scamp uses about 5-8% but in Wavelab 5 cpu goes off the scale and audio doesn't even play, seems like its fussy about certain hosts.
It does sounds good but in some cases certain other filters are more suited to the job in hand.
In Sx 3 scamp uses about 5-8% but in Wavelab 5 cpu goes off the scale and audio doesn't even play, seems like its fussy about certain hosts.
It does sounds good but in some cases certain other filters are more suited to the job in hand.
-
- KVRAF
- 3617 posts since 26 Sep, 2003 from Bradford - The Armpit of Britain
It was using around 20-25% cpu in ableton Live, just filtering a simple drum loop - AMD 4400 X2, using one core (Live doesn't support multiple cores yet).