Access Virus & Virus TI community since 2002 Virus TI Infekted

Go Back   The Unofficial Access Virus & Virus TI Forum - since 2002 > Discussion concerning Access products > General discussion about Access Virus

General discussion about Access Virus Discussion about Virus A, B, C and TI.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07.10.2005, 01:15 PM
F5D's Avatar
F5D F5D is offline
Pro
Pro
 
Join Date: 14.12.2004
Posts: 492
Default Virus TI cpu usage

I want to know how much the TI really needs computer's own cpu to run when using the usb transfer and virus control plugin. If possible, post your results here in percentage (for example 20%), host sequencer, processor speed, soundcard model and asio/core audio latency. Also tell how many virus ti tracks you used. If possible, use as many as you can. Don't use any other vsti effects or synths.

I guess everybody wants to know how it really is...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07.10.2005, 06:37 PM
ten's Avatar
ten ten is offline
Veteran
Veteran
 
Join Date: 08.04.2004
Location: Reading, England, UK
Posts: 528
Default

Its minimal on a decent spec machine.

On mine with 2x stereo streams via USB and 3x stereo via analog at 64 samples (2ms) it uses 7% host cpu while playing.

Cubase sx 3.1
Dual dualcore opteron 275s (quad cpu)
RME fireface

Oh this was using all 16 parts spread across the 5 stereo outputs. I also tried just using the USB outputs only with 8 sounds each, still it showed 7% host cpu.....very cool

ten
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08.10.2005, 01:56 PM
F5D's Avatar
F5D F5D is offline
Pro
Pro
 
Join Date: 14.12.2004
Posts: 492
Default

Thanks for the results Ten.

Still seems to need alot more cpu than the virus powercore. Other results?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08.10.2005, 02:44 PM
ten's Avatar
ten ten is offline
Veteran
Veteran
 
Join Date: 08.04.2004
Location: Reading, England, UK
Posts: 528
Default

Believe me, the TI SLAYS the virus poco in every asepct.....then comes back again and kicks in while its down. There is no comparison.

The tiny cpu overhead is worth the sound seriously (just hope they fix the buggy vcontrol

ten
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08.10.2005, 09:53 PM
Midi_Glider Midi_Glider is offline
Almost Amateur
Almost Amateur
 
Join Date: 28.04.2005
Location: Infront of my TI !
Posts: 119
Default

Quote:
The tiny cpu overhead is worth the sound seriously
Still, the actual sound quality & complexity (i.e: oscillator types, effects etc) is irelative to CPU usage on the host machine, as you must know...

I am also surprised in regard to the USB overhead witch seems rather high (especially in regard to a monster machine yours that can makes my own Dual Xeon 3.4 rig look rather slow). though, I must also suspect that like most plug ins, the VC is probably utilizing only a single thread in a multicore mechine.

could it also be the very low latency? how is the CPU measure with a 512KB buffer?


Best,
midi.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08.10.2005, 11:09 PM
ten's Avatar
ten ten is offline
Veteran
Veteran
 
Join Date: 08.04.2004
Location: Reading, England, UK
Posts: 528
Default

Yes, as the latency drops the cpu % increases.

At 512 its like 2% and doesnt move.

ten
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:51 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Skin Designed by: Talk vBulletin
Copyright ©2002-2022, Infekted.org