cpu benchmark inside plugin
-
- KVRer
- 24 posts since 12 Mar, 2014
i'm unaware of whether this cpu benchmark is in every meldaproduction plugin.
if they are, are they all the same test?
is the test using the settings of the plugin at the time?
i'm on a core2quad & i wanted to see some benchmark results from newer processors for comparison.
if they are, are they all the same test?
is the test using the settings of the plugin at the time?
i'm on a core2quad & i wanted to see some benchmark results from newer processors for comparison.
-
MeldaProduction MeldaProduction https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=176122
- KVRAF
- 14339 posts since 15 Mar, 2008 from Czech republic
They are all the same
. So if you take a project, move it to another computer, then you can compare.
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 24 posts since 12 Mar, 2014
here's my results from a q6600:
audio stream length: 30 seconds
processing time: 0.07 seconds
single core cpu usage: 0.22%
single core can run: 454.7 instances
audio stream length: 30 seconds
processing time: 0.07 seconds
single core cpu usage: 0.22%
single core can run: 454.7 instances
- KVRian
- 1059 posts since 28 Jun, 2006 from Germany
I am not sure what you want to tell us, but keep in mind that the result depend on the plugin from which you used this benchmark.anwaypasible wrote:here's my results from a q6600:
audio stream length: 30 seconds
processing time: 0.07 seconds
single core cpu usage: 0.22%
single core can run: 454.7 instances
System: Win 10 64 bit / i9 9900K (8x 3.6 GHz) / 16 GB DDR4-3200 RAM / 1TB M.2 SSD + 2x 500 GB SSD / RME Babyface / Reaper
Tagirijus.de
Tagirijus.de
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 24 posts since 12 Mar, 2014
not sure why you chose to assault me but:Tagirijus wrote:I am not sure what you want to tell us, but keep in mind that the result depend on the plugin from which you used this benchmark.anwaypasible wrote:here's my results from a q6600:
audio stream length: 30 seconds
processing time: 0.07 seconds
single core cpu usage: 0.22%
single core can run: 454.7 instances
MeldaProduction wrote:They are all the same.
- KVRAF
- 2700 posts since 9 Jul, 2015 from UK
It shows how many instances of the plugin you can use. So it does depend on the plugin. Try for example to use MMorph or another more cpu intensive plugin and you will see that it shows more cpu usage and you will be able to run less instances.
I think when Vojtech said they are the same he meant that you can use 1 plugin to compare between different computers.
But you must use the same plugin with the same settings.
I think when Vojtech said they are the same he meant that you can use 1 plugin to compare between different computers.
But you must use the same plugin with the same settings.
Jason @ Melda Production
-
- KVRAF
- 10374 posts since 2 Sep, 2003 from Surrey, UK
There was no assault, but the benchmark measurement will depend on the particular plug-in and its current settings; you would need to post those details for the measurement to be useful. . I cannot see how, say, MAutoDynamicEq can use the same test as MMultiBandPhaser for example.
( ... what jmg8 said)
( ... what jmg8 said)
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 24 posts since 12 Mar, 2014
oh but there was & you are guilty of it too.
i asked if the benchmark was the same, they said it was the same.
thus run the benchmark for a baseline example.
why you chose to tort rather than add something positive to the thread, i can't speak for you.
both of you got i7 processors & failed to post your results too.
i'd say you are a threat to others as well as yourselves.
i asked if the benchmark was the same, they said it was the same.
thus run the benchmark for a baseline example.
why you chose to tort rather than add something positive to the thread, i can't speak for you.
both of you got i7 processors & failed to post your results too.
i'd say you are a threat to others as well as yourselves.
- KVRAF
- 2700 posts since 9 Jul, 2015 from UK
We are not trying to tort you, we are trying to help, so that you have the correct information.anwaypasible wrote:oh but there was & you are guilty of it too.
i asked if the benchmark was the same, they said it was the same.
thus run the benchmark for a baseline example.
why you chose to tort rather than add something positive to the thread, i can't speak for you.
both of you got i7 processors & failed to post your results too.
i'd say you are a threat to others as well as yourselves.
I can post my benchmark for you no problem, but in order to make it a fair comparison I need to know which plugin you used and with which settings to do your benchmark?
Jason @ Melda Production
-
MeldaProduction MeldaProduction https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=176122
- KVRAF
- 14339 posts since 15 Mar, 2008 from Czech republic
Holy crap
12000 MNotepads

- KVRian
- 1059 posts since 28 Jun, 2006 from Germany
Hey anwaypasible,anwaypasible wrote:oh but there was & you are guilty of it too.
i asked if the benchmark was the same, they said it was the same.
thus run the benchmark for a baseline example.
why you chose to tort rather than add something positive to the thread, i can't speak for you.
both of you got i7 processors & failed to post your results too.
i'd say you are a threat to others as well as yourselves.
I sense there might be a lack of misunderstanding here. Nobody wants to be offensive here and nobody wants to hurt you in any way - do not be afraid. It is a very friendly KVR-subforum here with plenty of really great and helpful people!
I guess that Vojtech was saying that the system behind the benchmark check is technically the same in every plugin. I was refering to the results, which may vary depending on the system and the plugin you are benchmarking.
At this point I would like to know what exactly you wanted to hear from the members of this forum. Do you want to see our benchmark results with a certain plugin?
System: Win 10 64 bit / i9 9900K (8x 3.6 GHz) / 16 GB DDR4-3200 RAM / 1TB M.2 SSD + 2x 500 GB SSD / RME Babyface / Reaper
Tagirijus.de
Tagirijus.de
