Old 08-18-2011, 06:23 AM   #1
Argle
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,263
Default Reaper uses more CPU than Sonar

I'm a Sonar 8 user strongly considering moving to Reaper, but I've been playing around with it, and I noticed my standard project template in Reaper takes about 10-15 percent more cpu than in Sonar (when idle). I use lots of instruments and fx, so this is of some concern to me. Why would this be the case? I tried tweaking the audio performance settings but that didn't really help. CPU is pretty old, AMD Athlon 6400+ x2. Got plenty of RAM, 8 gigs.

Any ideas why the larger cpu hit?

btw, I'm judging cpu usage based on the Windows 7 performance tab.
Argle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 07:12 AM   #2
dgrm44
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 166
Default

What are the specs of your video card?
I am only guessing here, but it may be that Reaper UI takes more CPU since it looks much sharper than Sonar 8. If your Video Card doesn't render it then it will fall to your CPU. Again, just me guessing off the top of my head.

I have Sonar 8 and X1...I wonder how the newer X1 cpu usage compares to Reapers. I am like you, I have been a longtime Sonar user that is very tempted to come over to Reaper. I am still kicking the tires. I like the layout of Reaper and all the options. I like the default UI. I like that it allows you to render to stem tracks, although I might like the behavior to be expanded a bit. So far virtual instruments and midi editing is good. I love the regular updates and online bug tracking. Everything seems very transparent between the reaper developers and the customers.
dgrm44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 07:17 AM   #3
n0rd
Human being with feelings
 
n0rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Down Under
Posts: 396
Default

Hi Argle - welcome.

I too moved from the underwater host to Reaper and found the complete opposite. I found that Reaper used *so much less* CPU than Sonar. In fact, if you search Google there are a number of DAW performance tests people have done which have also shown Reaper to be very good with CPU and Sonar not.

Anyway, as you may or may not have noticed Reaper does have *a lot* of config options. For most people little to no changes are needed to get things going smoothly. However, for some people more focus is needed in config setup.

You might want to double check that your Reaper settings are equivalent to your Sonar settings. Especially the frequency rate and bit depth settings.

If you continue to have issues - post back with specifics like audio interface and drivers etc and people will help out. There are numerous ex Sonar users here that can help too...

Last edited by n0rd; 08-18-2011 at 07:18 AM. Reason: typos
n0rd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 07:28 AM   #4
steveo42
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 385
Default

Reaper is much lower in CPU use than Sonar X1 for me. Like the others said make sure you are comparing apples and apples right down to using the same drive for audio.

Post your system specs and maybe someone will notice where the bottle neck might be occurring.
steveo42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 08:01 AM   #5
Mich
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Argle View Post
I'm a Sonar 8 user strongly considering moving to Reaper, but I've been playing around with it, and I noticed my standard project template in Reaper takes about 10-15 percent more cpu than in Sonar (when idle).
Do you only compare the idle performance? If so is this your typical use case, having your DAW idle?
REAPER is known to use more CPU when idle or when not doing much with it. That is mostly management overhead. Consider REAPER to be a factory stocked with many workers, the workers need food even though they might not be producing anything at the time (being idle), but when the time comes to produce these many workers can produce more than say an equivalent factory with fewer workers (which will use less when in idle).
So please make a true comparison under a typical use case and not just comparing idle CPU times.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by vBulletin Message
Sorry pipelineaudio is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.
Mich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 08:13 AM   #6
Argle
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mich View Post
Do you only compare the idle performance? If so is this your typical use case, having your DAW idle?
REAPER is known to use more CPU when idle or when not doing much with it. That is mostly management overhead. Consider REAPER to be a factory stocked with many workers, the workers need food even though they might not be producing anything at the time (being idle), but when the time comes to produce these many workers can produce more than say an equivalent factory with fewer workers (which will use less when in idle).
So please make a true comparison under a typical use case and not just comparing idle CPU times.
I've only compared idle performance so far, cuz I'm brand new to Reaper and still learning it.
Argle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 08:25 AM   #7
SkyUK
Human being with feelings
 
SkyUK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dgrm44 View Post
.....I am like you, I have been a longtime Sonar user that is very tempted to come over to Reaper. I am still kicking the tires. I like the layout of Reaper and all the options. I like the default UI. I like that it allows you to render to stem tracks, although I might like the behavior to be expanded a bit. So far virtual instruments and midi editing is good. I love the regular updates and online bug tracking. Everything seems very transparent between the reaper developers and the customers.
Sonar potential refugee here too.
But as a big MIDI user I find that Reaper is weak in the MIDI department compared to Sonar. Its method of auditioning/selecting/changing banks and patches on an external hardware synth or workstation is very crude and cumbersome compared to Sonar. I find the lack of a global Instrument Definitions facility a real pain and it's probably a show-stopper for me. Shame, because there's lots to love about Reaper.

John
__________________
My Stuff
SkyUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 09:03 AM   #8
faze1
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 27
Default

I had unusually high cpu readings at first with reaper 4. It was strange at first.... I opened up both the reaper performance graph and my pc task manager. I had a project with 12 tracks and a total of about 18-20 fx plugins. Reaper showed cpu usage at 40% but my PC showed 10%. And on task manager i noticed only 1 core was being hit. I went to my reaper preferences and saw that the multicore rendering was unchecked. so i checked it....bingo. Smooth sailing since. that project dropped to like 12-15% and my task manager showed all cores putting in work. hope this helps
faze1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 09:12 AM   #9
tls11823
Human being with feelings
 
tls11823's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Harrisburg, PA USA
Posts: 1,406
Default

Another "me too" as to much better performance in Reaper. With Sonar, I always had to freeze VST tracks if I had more than a couple of them. With Reaper on the same computer I was able to use the VSTs "live" with no problems.
__________________
We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.
--Charles Kingsley... or maybe Albert Einstein... definitely somebody wiser than myself--
tls11823 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 10:03 AM   #10
dgrm44
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyUK View Post
Sonar potential refugee here too.
But as a big MIDI user I find that Reaper is weak in the MIDI department compared to Sonar. Its method of auditioning/selecting/changing banks and patches on an external hardware synth or workstation is very crude and cumbersome compared to Sonar. I find the lack of a global Instrument Definitions facility a real pain and it's probably a show-stopper for me. Shame, because there's lots to love about Reaper.

John
I havent used external midi devices with Sonar or Reaper.
What are the global instrument definitions?
dgrm44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 01:39 PM   #11
chrisharbin
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,031
Default

Just to add on the exact same system reaper runs far more efficiently cpu wise here.
chrisharbin 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 02:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.