Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-09-2014, 01:22 AM   #1
Tatanka
Human being with feelings
 
Tatanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 9
Default why my i7 is crapping out with 50% cpu usage?

Hi,
i've bought a pc with asus H97M-E and i7-4790 and I was very happy until I heard that my computer is crapping out, but the performance meter shows that cpu is at 50%.
is there anyone that can help me?

here some details:

windows 7 64 bit
reaper 64 bit
14 GB ram
buffer sound card 512
reaper project settings 24 bit/ 88,2 Khz
energy saving on bios off

more information on the screenshot
Attached Images
File Type: jpg screenshot_1.jpg (64.0 KB, 296 views)
File Type: jpg screenshot_2.jpg (64.4 KB, 310 views)
Tatanka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 01:38 AM   #2
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
Default

When you say crapping out, what are you hearing?

Questions:
Exactly what are the 20 odd plugins you are using in this project?
Is this happening only in the project?
What audio interface are you using?
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 02:34 AM   #3
gofer
-blänk-
 
gofer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 11,359
Default

Also, what is the RT CPU readout showing (CPU used for real-time processes)? It can get high with tracks which don't use anticipative processing - when they are set to monitor the input and record armed etc. Right click in Reaper's performance window to get the option to show it.
gofer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 02:42 AM   #4
Tatanka
Human being with feelings
 
Tatanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 9
Default

thanks ivansc!!
i mean crackle. (i think it's a tipical "sound" of cpu overload...)

happens in every project where i loaded some plugins.
the project you see in the scrrenshot is a demonstration project.

perhaps isn't so important what the plugins are... anyway is nebula3
i'm using an M-audio 410 (the firmware is alredy update)

when i worked with my old i3-2100 on another motherboard,I was able to load plugins up to 97% of cpu usage before hear crackles.
(the sound card is the same one that I used with the old computer I'm talking about)
why now with a cpu more powerful i can get only until 50%?
Tatanka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 02:52 AM   #5
Tatanka
Human being with feelings
 
Tatanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 9
Default

thanks gofer!!
bingo!
you have focused the problem! great!
see the screenshot.

how about anticipative processing?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg screenshot_3.jpg (64.2 KB, 343 views)
Tatanka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 07:36 AM   #6
beingmf
Human being with feelings
 
beingmf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Jazz City
Posts: 5,065
Default

Aha! Nebula and 512 samples buffer setting often dislikes each other, depending on the programs. What's the buffer setting in your Nebula instances?
__________________
Windows 10x64 | AMD Ryzen 3700X | ATI FirePro 2100 | Marian Seraph AD2, 4.3.8 | Yamaha Steinberg MR816x
"If I can hear well, then everything I do is right" (Allen Sides)
beingmf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 08:45 AM   #7
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12,561
Default

Short answer: You are maxing out a single core. 3rd party plugins (VST or AU) need special handling when you start to exceed 100 tracks and/or 100 plugins running HD sample rates.


* If you turn anticipative fx processing (preferences/audio/buffering) from off to on while a project is open, you need to close the project and reopen it.

* You need anticipative fx processing on in order to set audio threads higher than 1 for that performance boost.

* You need to make sure to disable anticipative fx processing on any track with a misbehaving 3rd party vst or au plugin (which may or may not include all 3rd party... but it's all of mine). (right-click or control-click on the track in question and select 'Track performance options' > 'Prevent anticipative fx')

* Turn hyperthreading off (if you have such a system). (OSX command line: "sudo nvram SMT=0" without the quotes. No clue for Windows - sorry!)

* Set audio threads to auto (preferences/audio/buffering)


Take a look in these threads for the play by play arriving at this:
http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=143722
http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=143101

Disc buffer size ("request block size" in preferences/audio/device) may be limited on the low end to 512 samples once you really start pushing the system to need the above optimization. (ie. Live sound performance with a 128 or less sample buffer may be out of the question.)

If you have your project audio on a SSD, you can get a further increase by setting the media buffer to 200ms (preferences/audio/buffering).

Last edited by serr; 10-09-2014 at 09:20 AM.
serr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 09:11 AM   #8
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 22,754
Default

Also, almost impossible to see what is going in with such a tiny screenshot.


Other reaperites: I know jack about video - is there a way to save and enlarge screenshots like this so they become legible?
I tried it and always seem to get bigger but blurrier.


P.S. Nebula is a notorious cpu & memory hog....
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 09:30 AM   #9
heda
Human being with feelings
 
heda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Spain
Posts: 7,239
Default

now reading the threads... I am going to try hyperthreading off...
heda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 09:48 AM   #10
Fex
Human being with feelings
 
Fex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Posts: 4,376
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivansc View Post
is there a way to save and enlarge screenshots like this so they become legible?
I tried it and always seem to get bigger but blurrier.
I thought Windows Photo Viewer improved it somewhat, but you probably don't need to save it. What's yer browser? Mine (Firefox) zooms with Ctrl & +.
Fex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 10:10 AM   #11
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fex View Post
I thought Windows Photo Viewer improved it somewhat, but you probably don't need to save it. What's yer browser? Mine (Firefox) zooms with Ctrl & +.
If it was captured and resized down like these, it isn't the viewer (or rather the viewer isn't the biggest problem), it's the fact it was resized down when saving. To make it bigger it has to make information up via interpolation or it just gets more pixelated. So if some viewers actually interpolate it may look a "little" better but still better to save at the original dimensions.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 11:30 AM   #12
DVDdoug
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 2,779
Default

Quote:
but the performance meter shows that cpu is at 50%.
CPU usage doesn't tell the whole story...

With a multitasking operating system your computer is always doing things in the background, even if you are not multitasking.

When you record, the digital audio stream flows-into the recording buffer (holding tank) at a constant rate. When the operating system gets around to it, it reads the buffer in a quick burst. If some other program/driver/plug-in, etc., is "hogging" the CPU and data buss for a few milliseconds too long, the recording buffer overflows and you get a glitch.

The playback/monitoring buffer works the opposite way. The playback buffer gets filled in a quick burst, and the audio stream comes out at a smooth-constant rate. If something is hogging the CPU for a few milliseconds too long, the playback buffer doesn't get re-filled in time, you get buffer underflow and a playback glitch.
DVDdoug is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 12:21 PM   #13
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
CPU usage doesn't tell the whole story...
True but it tells much here because RT CPU is 100% which is the total CPU of the core hosting the audio thread. A thread (worker) can only live on a single core hence the problem where the total CPU shows less than 100 (all cores combined) but the one doing the work is maxed out. Back in the days of single CPU/Cores this was never a problem and the CPU meter was wysiwyg. That is no longer the case once we have more than a single CPU.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2014, 08:56 PM   #14
unique
Human being with feelings
 
unique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by heda View Post
now reading the threads... I am going to try hyperthreading off...
What threads did you read? Can you please link them, i have read threads in the past on this subject, most of them that were recent said hyperthreading will actually improve performance, however there was some threads that were older that said hyperthreading was not good for Reaper but again they were old threads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
* Turn hyperthreading off (if you have such a system). (OSX command line: "sudo nvram SMT=0" without the quotes. No clue for Windows - sorry!)
serr why do you think that turning off hyperthreading will improve his performance?

I have tested with hyper threading on and off and I seem to get better improvements and performance with hyper threading on however I am always trying to take advantage of my CPU because I do heavy track counts sometimes so that's why I am asking just to learn something new.
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2014, 01:06 AM   #15
Tatanka
Human being with feelings
 
Tatanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beingmf View Post
Aha! Nebula and 512 samples buffer setting often dislikes each other, depending on the programs. What's the buffer setting in your Nebula instances?
my nebula libraries (AlexB) are at 128, and my sound card buffer at 512.
should I set both the buffers in the same way?
Tatanka is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.