Small Buffer Settings--Faster CPU, More RAM or Faster HD? - Gearslutz.com

Gearslutz.com

All Advertisers
Go Back   Gearslutz.com > The Forums > Music computers


Small Buffer Settings--Faster CPU, More RAM or Faster HD?

New Reply New Reply Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21st May 2007   #1
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 695

Thread Starter
Small Buffer Settings--Faster CPU, More RAM or Faster HD?

What hardware component makes the most difference in performance when working with very small buffer settings--faster CPU, more RAM or faster hard drive?

I know all of them contribute but is there one that makes more of a difference than the others?
sasha222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2007   #2
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 15,095

Quote:
Originally Posted by sasha222 View Post
What hardware component makes the most difference in performance when working with very small buffer settings--faster CPU, more RAM or faster hard drive?

I know all of them contribute but is there one that makes more of a difference than the others?




Each element cited has an effect.

That said, its really hard to evaluate the load balance on your system without knowing what you're doing with it.

Someone with only a handful of recorded audio tracks (vox, guitars, etc) but a whole SLUG of CPU guzzling virtual instruments will have an ENTIRELY different load profile than someone using no VIs but who has, like, 70 tracks of 24/96 audio.



And -- before evaluating your needs -- one would also want to know why you're running those small buffer settings.

As you undoubtedly know, small buffers require much more CPU monitoring/intervention. If you don't need super low latencies for virtual instruments but simply want to monitor incoming audio with low latency, you'd possibly be better off using an analog mixer for true zero latency monitoring, instead.
theblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2007   #3
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 695

Thread Starter
For me, the main purpose of running low buffers is low VI latency.
sasha222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2007   #4
Gear maniac
 
ptbarnum's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 292

i think the type, and caliber of soundcard also needs consideration.
ptbarnum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st May 2007   #5
Gear Guru
 
theblue1's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 15,095

Quote:
Originally Posted by sasha222 View Post
For me, the main purpose of running low buffers is low VI latency.
Ah...

If they're modeling synths they may or may not use much RAM but probably won't put a drag on the HD but will tend to put a relatively big hit on the CPU.

RAM-based samplers/virtual ROMplers will tend to use RAM but typically less CPU.

Streaming sample players (like the high end piano packages or streaming drum packages like BFD and DKFH) will tend to put a big hit on both RAM and hard disk drive but will tend to have less impact on CPU than some modeling synths.
theblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
New Reply New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread starter Forum Replies Last Post
How much faster are the new Macs? sasha222 Music computers 6 10th May 2007 08:50 AM
mixing FASTER! Gregg So much gear, so little time! 42 6th May 2006 06:28 PM
Does a faster computer sound better?? joaquin Music computers 13 27th February 2006 01:51 PM
Go Powercore or faster natvie CPU blackcom So much gear, so little time! 15 22nd October 2004 11:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:50 PM.

Home - Search Forum - Contact Us - Terms Of Use - Advertise on Gearslutz - All Advertisers - Archive - Top
 
 
Powered by vBulletin®
Gearslutz.com LTD - UK Company Number 7597610.
Registered Office - 35 Ballards Lane, London, N3 1XW.
Hosted by Nimbus Hosting.

SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.