Hi guys,

I have a question for you that are using this vst:
how much CPU cycles does this vst consume on your system?

A test that we could do, just to be all in the same place:

- Use Reaper or Ableton as DAW (if possible).
- Run 1 instance of Montage Esp Vst and load the patch named "Ascension".
- Play an 8 note, 4 bars length chord in loop, with record armed track and report your CPU consumption
(RT CPU in Reaper, be sure to have the track record armed).
- Write your system specs

My RT CPU value in Reaper and Average CPU meter value in Ableton 12 both show values oscillating from 38% stable to 54%(a somewhat brief peak when loop restarts).

My system specs:

Win 11, i5 9600k, 32 GB RAM, RME Fireface 800.

System is optimized in Bios (C-states etc...)

DPC Latency under 100 microseconds so it's all good.

CPU is not overclocked and runs at factory speeds with turboboost enabled.

I read users that can load 20 instances of this patch with 40 tp 60% RT CPU use (AMD 7950x3d CPU) and another one which claims around 10% CPU usage with 10 instances (AMD 3950 CPU) but I guess he's reading value from Task Manager.

In Task manager with just 1 instance I read 11/12% with Ableton and 10/11% with Reaper.

I can't understand such a difference of results from a CPU that in single thread shouldn't be so different than mine (I'm talking about the 3950 one).

I have a fully optimized PC and I'm fairly sure this is not a problem on my end so I'm curious to know what are your CPU readings guys just to understand if it's a matter of Intel vs AMD or I'm missing something on my end or whatever!

Thanks for your attention

 

1. Clearly stated that this plugin has high system resource usage on d'load page.
2. You need to think more about load balancing (total resource use), not single thread.
3. 8 cores & 64GB of RAM would probably be more ideal for this hog (a CPU from the last 4 years ??).

 

Thanks for your answer but I already knew this is a CPU hog.

This thread is about one instance, so single thread is important in this contest.

I made this thread because of discrepancies in CPU usage in single thread use between CPUs that should measure the same consumption, less or more.

On my PC 1 instance consumes less than 500 MB of RAM so even with 32 instances that I doubt I'd ever use in a single project 32 GB of RAM is more than sufficient but this is not relevant to the thread.
Please stick to the topic or simply ignore this thread, thanks.

 

Last edited: Nov 15, 2024 at 7:17 AM

With that loop and REC-armed, my RT CPU use is 48% - 63%
Mt DPC hit 300 microseconds (DirectX graphics kernal)
i7-7700 (non-K), 32 Gig Ram, Mobo: MSI H270 PCMate
Asio4ALL, as my hardware is not hooked up.

 

R2R version ready!

i guess it will use less cpu

 

My guess Yamaha just didn't bother porting their shit to native and instead came up with some sort of like OsTIrus DSP emulator which eats CPU like a muther. Just compare CPU usage to Halion which has the same FM-X, sample playback and better than AN-X synth. It basically uses no CPU at all compared to similar complexity Yamaha patches. Some lazy ass programming on Yamaha's part.

 

Your initial post is one big question for the most part and, my reply was a quick response to just that so, "On Topic". Just ideas, not gospel.

Looking at windows Task Manager (Logical Processors view), one can see how the load is spread across all cores & threads. This can also be seen in a program such as HWiNFO64 or HWMonitor. You will also be able to see how memory & disk usage is affecting performance.

Reaper has what is probably the best load balancing for a DAW but, VST settings in preferences could throw this off if not configured correctly.

One final note...You could have followed your own advice & ignored my reply instead of being sharp. This makes it seem like your are just seeking bias confirmation. "Seems".

 

I'm sorry if I came out as sharp but I didn't want to be rude so I apologize for that.

The reason for this is that threads often get derailed from original questions and that's because people (with pretty much always positive intentions) try to explain things assuming that other people don't know techncal aspects etc... and doing this don't answer original questions.
I will be more polite next time, thanks for your educated (in the sense of well-mannered) response, I appreciate it.

Even if a single instance is spread across some cores, two of them (at least in my case) take the most load and one of the two take almost the double of the second. The others take so little load that is not significant, so in this case single thread is still very important.
RAM usage between 32 GB or 64 is still not significant, at least in my case.

I'm not looking for any biased answer, I perfectly know the limitations of my current system. I will upgrade my system in a few months as I do every x years when I feel it's due time to do it. I'm evaluating if remain with intel as I did for the last 20 years or switch to AMD but I wanted to wait for the architectural changes that newer systems will/have bring/brought (more powerful cpus ,many PCIe 5 lanes, Cudimm DDR5 RAM, many nvme slots etc...) and make the right choice for me.

Back to my original post, what I don't understand is how a 3950x can take 10x less CPU load than a 9600k with a single instance and I wanted to investigate how others CPUs are doing just to have an idea and I proposed a simple test to do a comparison. That's what this thread was about it. Nothing crucial, nor seeking any bias.

 

When not armed for recording I can run 6 or even 8, depending on the patch, but it's all down to voices i guess.
I don't need 8 bass lines

OH, ands there IS a package from R2R now out..
Same version..

 

My apologies as well if I came off as condescending. Not my intent at all.

From my personal experience, more RAM does help with large projects and.or virtual instruments. Think of it as headroom with audio amplifiers or power supplies. A few hundred watts over the maximum system usage often leads to efficiency & less potential damage down range.

There is also the ability to use physical memory vs disks for caching/swapping tasks.

As for single core use. I have found that while there are usual two to four cores being used more heavily, the load is always spread across all cores/threads as an average, with the occasional boost on the dominant cores. I also monitor disk & memory access to determine if software has been optimized CPU & RAM access.

All of this falls apart if the BIOS & Windows settings are not configured properly for the installed hardware.

 

Are the "reported track/instance counts" of this in a project being reported by legit owners of the plugin? Because they are also owners of the hardware synth then. If this plugin is capable of offloading DSP processing to the hardware, users will be able to get "more tracks". So those numbers are irrelevant, if that is the case. The easy answer to this is waiting until other users of the plugin only, with a similar CPU as you; report back track counts. Then compare with your own.

An i5 performance is going to be getting dicey with many new plugins and applications. In many cases, that is the bare minimum system requirements for most audio plugins; not only synths. If this plugin is bloated, it will be obvious. Also, keep in mind; this is the V2 of the plugin. Early still in development. Maybe it will be more optimized in any new updates. If not many users have issue with how it is now, the programmers will not continue to dump human resources into it to run better on slower computers. The synth hardware version is 5 grand to buy. They will probably have very little qualms about telling their users to get a new CPU.

"Optimizing your system" so you can get some individual plugin to work is usually a total waste of time. A rabbit hole. (Unless your system disk is not an SSD!) Your system runs most things and not a few things (for now). The question to ask yourself is do you want to buy a new computer, upgrade the one you have, or find a different plugin to use. It's time to fish, or it's time to cut bait.

 

Last edited: Nov 15, 2024 at 5:48 PM

HI Guys I am not seeing this at all. Asus z490-F 10700k and 32 gig of ram.
CPU is not overclocked and using intel CPU recommendations in bios.
This is with 3 tracks running.

 

On my 9 years old core i7, it takes around 15% of the CPU but it can jump close to 100% when I use some AWM2 patches.

Overall I'm very happy with this one even if it obviously need some optimizations and improvements.

For ex, I still didn't manage to assign the super know to one of my controller pots.

After playing with this vst it becomes obvious why Yamaha is asking for $4,000. What an amazing synth.

 

sounds amazing. but it's "too big" for my pc. will never use it in productions. i like fast workflow without sluggish and slow vsti's.

 

The macOS VR release crashes Logic 11.1 and 11.0.1 native and Rosetta (didn't test other versions) like some other Juce coded plugins, AudioGridder for example. But workarounds like initiating other plugins first or using BC Patchwork won't work this time.

In my opinion it's not worth it, just the same bread and butter workstation sounds, there are better options in specialized plugins. I'd even call it "anti marketing" because after testing the plugin, I wouldn't buy a 4000 € Keyboard for these sounds in 2024.