 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Computer music & technology
Subject: faster cpu but less performance?
Original Message Date: 28-Jul-02 @ 03:16 AM Edit: 28-Jul-02 | 03:18 AM - faster cpu but less performance?
loaded Reason onto my laptop. It's a 1.2ghz celeron with 256mb ram. The same songs that plays fine on my pIII800 with 256mb ram will not play on my laptop. I get the anoying computer not fast enough error message. I noticed that only 240mb of ram are available due to 16 allocated to video. I am on xp with this machine. The other was windows 98. I am thinking the problem may be a ram issue because xp may have more processes going than 98. Also what is the best way to set up virtual memory? I turned off the video exceleration and all other xp video enhancers, and increased teh virtual memory to the max with min=max.
Are the celerons just not able to process as many operations per cycle, or do you think I may just need more ram for these large song files with tons of synths going due to it being xp?
Are the celerons just not able to process as many operations per cycle, or do you think I may just need more ram for these large song files with tons of synths going due to it being xp?
Message 11/25 01-Aug-02 @ 04:55 PM - RE: faster cpu but less performance?
Craig, I see what you mean. The ability for a system to run more plug-ins is affected by additional ram whether it is a cpu issue or not. A plug-in is a program and resides in ram when active. Facts are facts, I added ram on a song that would not play because the CPU was overloaded by plug-ins and sofsynths. This new 128mb of ram enbaled me to open 5 new synths, and a few more waves RCL's before the sytem began to exhibit any glitches.
"It's definately an improvement, just not THE improvement for running more plug-ins. "
I would have to say five softsynths and 3 more waves RCL's is an improvment for running more plug-ins.
"It's definately an improvement, just not THE improvement for running more plug-ins. "
I would have to say five softsynths and 3 more waves RCL's is an improvment for running more plug-ins.
Message 12/25 01-Aug-02 @ 06:17 PM - RE: faster cpu but less performance?
Yep, but not nearly the improvement you'd get by replacing a 1.2ghz Celeron in a desktop with a 2ghz Pentium 4. I am honestly quite surprised you're seeing that much of an increase in plug-in and softsynth counts.
-Craig
-Craig
Message 13/25 01-Aug-02 @ 10:36 PM - RE: faster cpu but less performance?
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
A few opinons..
Avoid shared video ram.. it just trashes the
performance, clogs up the bus
Also, the more ram the better, simply because it
reduces the amount of paging to disk that the system
needs to do.
And. celerons suck.. thy are cheap versions of the
pentiums with lost of corners cut.. also trashing
performance..
Avoid shared video ram.. it just trashes the
performance, clogs up the bus
Also, the more ram the better, simply because it
reduces the amount of paging to disk that the system
needs to do.
And. celerons suck.. thy are cheap versions of the
pentiums with lost of corners cut.. also trashing
performance..
Message 14/25 01-Aug-02 @ 11:09 PM - RE: faster cpu but less performance?
Craig, you don't have to be rocket scientist to know you will see an imporvment from a P4 in your tower. I think it should be noted that ram makes a BIG diferance when using softsynths and plug-ins, not the small amount you stated. If you don't believe me pull a stick of ram out and get your system down to 256mb. Now tax the machine until it gives, save the song, and add the ram back. After you restart, see if it plays and sart adding stuff unitl it gives again. see what kind of diferance it makes for you. all I know is it made a big differnace in my machine running Reason and Cusbase with a bunch of NI synths and waves plugs. Now I am curios to see if my PIII with that same song I am talking about would benefit from even more ram added. Anyone got a stick of pc100 or 133/256mb laying around they want to loan me?
Message 15/25 02-Aug-02 @ 02:24 PM - RE: faster cpu but less performance?
Brett, the reason you're seeing such big performance jumps is most likely because your machine uses shared video memory, and laptops tend to have slower hard disks than desktops. Adding memory to your lappy probably made such a big difference because it addresses specific shortcomings of the machine. I'm not going to sit here and argue it all day, all I know that plug-ins and softsynths are like big calculators. They pipe large amounts of data through an equation and pipe large amounts of data out. Adding memory isn't going to help you run more calculations - it IS, however, going to help you move large amounts of data in and out faster. This is because, as mentioned before, the machine doesn't have to read as much data off the disk. Memory is much faster than the disk.
If the bottleneck in your machine isn't drive/memory performance - and in most decently equipeed desktops, it's not - then you won't see as much of a change.
Also, probably a lot of what you're seeing is Windows running more effectively with the additional RAM. 128 isn't a whole lot. If Windows can run more effectively (ie it has what it needs in memory and doesn't have to wait for it to be fetched from disk), then it uses less CPU time for housekeeping and more is available for your plugins.
While it has made a difference in your case I still stand by my assertion that if you need more plugins, adding memory isn't going to help you much in most cases.
I'd guarantee you'd not see such a big jump in maximum plug-in performance if you took a 512MB desktop machine and added another 256. When I took my desktop from 256 to 512, I certainly didn't get much of an improvement in plug-in performance. Maybe an extra RCL or two.
-Craig
If the bottleneck in your machine isn't drive/memory performance - and in most decently equipeed desktops, it's not - then you won't see as much of a change.
Also, probably a lot of what you're seeing is Windows running more effectively with the additional RAM. 128 isn't a whole lot. If Windows can run more effectively (ie it has what it needs in memory and doesn't have to wait for it to be fetched from disk), then it uses less CPU time for housekeeping and more is available for your plugins.
While it has made a difference in your case I still stand by my assertion that if you need more plugins, adding memory isn't going to help you much in most cases.
I'd guarantee you'd not see such a big jump in maximum plug-in performance if you took a 512MB desktop machine and added another 256. When I took my desktop from 256 to 512, I certainly didn't get much of an improvement in plug-in performance. Maybe an extra RCL or two.
-Craig
Message 16/25 02-Aug-02 @ 04:34 PM - RE: faster cpu but less performance?
I have to second Craig's point. The additional ram would have freed up the CPU from dealing with other things (like paging). This makes it more available to the plug-ins. However, as noted, if the CPU is no longer a bottleneck for this reason, but rather being maxed out by the plug-ins themselves, ram may NOT boost the number of plug-ins you can run significantly. Though I hope that it would.
Message 17/25 02-Aug-02 @ 07:15 PM - RE: faster cpu but less performance?
Thanks Roller8. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Performance was probably improved so significantly because memory WAS the bottleneck in your system.
-Craig
-Craig
Message 18/25 02-Aug-02 @ 10:02 PM - RE: faster cpu but less performance?
yep, bingo. also, if you look at the benchmark comparisons betwixt different chips, you'll see it isn't all about how many m's or g's are in front of the hz.
Message 19/25 04-Aug-02 @ 12:01 AM - RE: faster cpu but less performance?
or you can switcht the cpu, no? I see laptop cpus on pricewatch and ebay.
Message 20/25 05-Aug-02 @ 09:30 PM - RE: faster cpu but less performance?
I am not talking about the improvemnt on my laptop. I haven't made any changes. I was talking about the pIII that I added a 128 mb to. I went from 256 to 384 and was able to add five more synths and 3 rcl's berfore the audio droped out. The cpu may not have changed that much but the audio drop out didn't start until a higher cpu load was reached. So ram allowed the machine to run at a higher level of cpu usage before having complications. So you are probably right in that the cpu was not moving any slower, or a lot slower, but the system was able to function without error at higher rates of cpu load. I think I was boggin at 70%, but with more ram was ok up near 85% before refresh rates became a problem and the audio and midi went all out of wack
Pages: 1 2 3
There are 25 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
