The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
most CPU efficient plugins
Old 3rd July 2016
  #1
Gear Maniac
 
GrabtharsHammer's Avatar
most CPU efficient plugins

Since my system ist not equipped with large RAM und many CPU cores it would be nice to hear, which good sounding plugins are known to be very CPU efficient, or which developers are generally known to provide such products.

I have a system with only 2 CPU cores and 8 GB RAM and I actually found some third party plugins to be more efficient than Logic Pro X' stock ones.

- PSP Neon HR: Especially the "MIX" version is very efficient and I can run even more instances than with Logic's built-in Channel EQ without getting system overload messages.
- Waves Renaissance Compressor: Ugly GUI (a matter of taste, of course), but its stripped down approach makes it very user-friendly. And I also found it to be very efficient - just like all Waves Renaissance plugins I have tried so far. I just bought the Renaissance Maxx bundle and am very pleasantly surprised how good these "matured" plugins actually are. And my system can handle them very well.
- Valhalla VintageVerb: Seems to be a very good example for high CPU efficiency without compromising the sound.

What are your experiences? Which plugins or developers come to mind regarding high efficiency?
Old 3rd July 2016
  #2
Lives for gear
 

Sometimes its hard to generally judge CPU even otherwise similar kind of tools..
Like EQ and EQ, because one of them actually use some additional processing inside (like some analog emulation).. compressor and compressor, where one of them uses oversampled detector or signal path.
So then it is also matter of particular usage, because someone might say.. This plugin sounds the same to me and has 1/3 of CPU consumption.. however devil is in the detail and for example when time constants of the compressor will be set to short values, which can be better for some sonic goal, then oversampling drain can be much more appreciated with regards to results..

Anyway.. my couple examples of another vendors, who optimize their plugins very well.. Toneboosters (all of their plugs are very very efficient), Sonimus (for example tape emus are great) and Lexicon (PCM reverb).

Michal
Old 3rd July 2016
  #3
Gear Addict
 
leckel1996's Avatar
All of the waves plugins before the dbx160 are very CPU efficient. The newer ones are terrible though.

Plugin alliance's plugins are also very good on the CPU.
Old 3rd July 2016
  #4
Slate
Old 4th July 2016
  #5
Gear Addict
 
SV7107's Avatar
Yes, Plugin Alliance's plugins are extremely CPU friendly.
Old 4th July 2016
  #6
Lives for gear
 
skiltrip's Avatar
FabFilter stuff is incredibly efficient with cpu usage. I use Pro-Q And Pro-C on every song.
Old 4th July 2016
  #7
Gear Maniac
 
GrabtharsHammer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiltrip View Post
FabFilter stuff is incredibly efficient with cpu usage. I use Pro-Q And Pro-C on every song.
Well, that's something I read quite often but unfortunately can't confirm with my system. I downloaded the demos and everytime I opened the plugins' GUIs while Logic's playback is running I got system overload errors instantly. I suspect the Fabfilter plugins' nice graphic animations to be the problem - perhaps the Intel Iris GPU can't cope with them.
Old 4th July 2016
  #8
Lives for gear
 
zvukofor's Avatar
Toneboosters plugins are very CPU-efficient. Even their ultra-clean BusCompressor eats a lot less than Kotelnikov.
Everything ValhallaDSP is very CPU-friendly too indeed.
Old 4th July 2016
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrabtharsHammer View Post
Well, that's something I read quite often but unfortunately can't confirm with my system. I downloaded the demos and everytime I opened the plugins' GUIs while Logic's playback is running I got system overload errors instantly. I suspect the Fabfilter plugins' nice graphic animations to be the problem - perhaps the Intel Iris GPU can't cope with them.
I also think Fabfilter plugins are really efficient for audio processes, I haven't tried everything, but definitely their EQ, limiter or compressor..

But as you've touched, there are two generally independent things with regards to plugin consumption.. First one is audio processing thread itself and second is UI thread, which works only when the plugin editor is open.
First one is usually included in DAW performance metering, but second is possible to measure just by analyzing operating system and DAW threads. Some plugins with high UI refresh rate can easily put another several percent of CPU drain, when opened. Of course some tweaking of UI (eg. disable of analysers) can be helpful in cases, where one is approaching limits of the system. Similarly compared to its fixed state there's typically increase of the consumption, when adjusting parameters of effect, because there is smoothing and recalculation of processing parameters.

Michal
Old 4th July 2016
  #10
Gear Maniac
 
Stuart T's Avatar
I have had around 50 instances of pro q2 without problems. Pro c2 is used a lot too but it seems quite a bit more hungry than pro q2 for me. I use a 5 year old iMac with logic x. Pro q2 is the most efficent plugin I have used so I would recommend it too. Some plugins are so inefficient that I cannot use one instance without problems so for me also it's good to hear what others recommend.
Old 4th July 2016
  #11
Duende.
Old 4th July 2016
  #12
Gear Maniac
 
GrabtharsHammer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Duende.
Never heard of them before. Just took a look at their website, and those plugins look really nice, especially the Vocalstrip. But looking at their prices - their pruducts aren't really money-efficient... ;-) Their SSL-style Bus Compressor costs 279 Euro + VAT!!! Considering the prices of other developers' products (thinking about PSPs BussPressor or Cytomic's The Glue) that seems a little high.
Old 4th July 2016
  #13
Lives for gear
 
BM Grabber's Avatar
 

All McDSP (extremely cpu friendly), Metric Halo and SSL Duende plugins are all VERY cpu friendly

PS. And all of them are GREAT sounding plugins as well
Old 4th July 2016
  #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrabtharsHammer View Post
Never heard of them before. Just took a look at their website, and those plugins look really nice, especially the Vocalstrip. But looking at their prices - their pruducts aren't really money-efficient... ;-) Their SSL-style Bus Compressor costs 279 Euro + VAT!!! Considering the prices of other developers' products (thinking about PSPs BussPressor or Cytomic's The Glue) that seems a little high.
You asked for CPU efficient plugins. They are.
Old 7th July 2016
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Spede's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by leckel1996 View Post
All of the waves plugins before the dbx160 are very CPU efficient. The newer ones are terrible though.
Offtopic but I'd like to point out Waves dbx160 oversamples at 44.1/48k. That's why it seems it's using fairly lot of CPU. When you go 88.2/96k it's CPU usage stays the same.
Old 7th July 2016
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrabtharsHammer View Post
Well, that's something I read quite often but unfortunately can't confirm with my system. I downloaded the demos and everytime I opened the plugins' GUIs while Logic's playback is running I got system overload errors instantly. I suspect the Fabfilter plugins' nice graphic animations to be the problem - perhaps the Intel Iris GPU can't cope with them.
I've also noticed when opening ProQ GUI in Cubase 7.5 on Windows that there's a little jolt in the ASIO performance meter, maybe up top 7% at the most, but this only happens upon bringing up its GUI, once its up (or if the plugins hidden) the CPU/ASIO usage is minimal and very stable. I'm using a GTX750Ti OC graphics card though rather than onboard Intel graphics.
Old 16th July 2016
  #17
Gear Maniac
 
GrabtharsHammer's Avatar
I finally found out why FabFilter plugins did not work with my system. The integrated Intel Iris GPU of the MacBook Pro is too weak for FabFilter's graphics acceleration. Turned it off and now their plugins work smoothly. Bought the Mastering bundle right away ;-) And damn, do those plugins rule! I'm just selling the majority of my other plugins (PSP, Waves) on ebay, because these four FabFilter plugins (Pro-C, Pro-Q, Pro-L and Pro-MB) cover everything I need and even more. Right now I'm a happy camper.
Old 17th July 2016
  #18
Lives for gear
 
MusiKLover's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrabtharsHammer View Post
Since my system ist not equipped with large RAM und many CPU cores it would be nice to hear, which good sounding plugins are known to be very CPU efficient, or which developers are generally known to provide such products.

I have a system with only 2 CPU cores and 8 GB RAM and I actually found some third party plugins to be more efficient than Logic Pro X' stock ones.

- PSP Neon HR: Especially the "MIX" version is very efficient and I can run even more instances than with Logic's built-in Channel EQ without getting system overload messages.
- Waves Renaissance Compressor: Ugly GUI (a matter of taste, of course), but its stripped down approach makes it very user-friendly. And I also found it to be very efficient - just like all Waves Renaissance plugins I have tried so far. I just bought the Renaissance Maxx bundle and am very pleasantly surprised how good these "matured" plugins actually are. And my system can handle them very well.
- Valhalla VintageVerb: Seems to be a very good example for high CPU efficiency without compromising the sound.

What are your experiences? Which plugins or developers come to mind regarding high efficiency?
Have you upgraded to the latest Logic Release, 10.2.4? 10.2.3 included the following:

"The Channel EQ Analyzer no longer uses CPU when the plug-in window is closed."
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203718
Old 17th July 2016
  #19
M2E
Lives for gear
 
M2E's Avatar
 

For what McDSP plugins do, bar none, smoke everyone else.

Next would be SSL plugins. For what they do, are extremely low.

Waves is good but, all their latest have been cpu hungry to the fullest.
I guess they think by doing that, we will buy their card system...NOT!!!
Their older plugins are extremely great sounding and very low on cpu.

Those are the only 3 that come too mind at the moment.

Hope this helps,

Marc
Old 18th July 2016
  #20
Gear Nut
 
gLeDaris's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by M2E View Post
Waves is good but, all their latest have been cpu hungry to the fullest.
I did notice the increased CPU when I was demoing the AbbeyRoad Plate. What I think that is the Waveshell tho. Cause when I kept adding multiples of it the CPU didn't double. So it was almost like jus loading the plugin created a "CPU load lock." I saw that because after that plugin running the rest of my usual plugs only added an additional 15% of CPU usage according to the Pro Tools CPU meter.

That was slightly off topic. To stay to the original post.

Waves IR1 is one of my favorite reverb plugs and is very CPU efficient.
Slate's early VMR tools are very CPU effecient. The Preamps can begin to tax the CPU the more of them you use.
Slate's VBC is another one that is good on the CPU, when you use the individual modules, Grey, Mu and Red.
Softube's Saturation plug is good and simple.
Waves SSL is probably the most effiecent channel strip.
Old 19th July 2016
  #21
Sonimus
Massey
Fabfilter

Best thing is, I can get just about all my mixing done with these tools. Sure, there are a few others I love, but these are staples in my production:

Massey CT5 for 99 percent of track compression and buss compression duties. Massey L2007 for all my limiting duties. (Plus all of his other plugins sprinkled over mixes when needed).

All 3 Sonimus EQs get used a TON here - Sweetone, SonEQ Pro, and most of all, Burnley 73.

Fabfilter - Pro Q2 for the extremely surgical EQ needs. Removing resonances and extreme filtering.
Old 9th June 2017
  #22
Gear Maniac
 
jditmer0's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiltrip View Post
FabFilter stuff is incredibly efficient with cpu usage. I use Pro-Q And Pro-C on every song.
You're joking right? I have VTS3 version of fabfilter pro mb running 64 bit and if I have more than 5 of those in my project I start having issues... I can run around 80 plugins if I don't have fabfilter pro mb plugins running in my projects. I highly recommend waves Q10 for EQ, although I do hate very much how their low pass and high pass filters do not have adjustable steepness curves
Old 10th June 2017
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jditmer0 View Post
You're joking right? I have VTS3 version of fabfilter pro mb running 64 bit and if I have more than 5 of those in my project I start having issues... I can run around 80 plugins if I don't have fabfilter pro mb plugins running in my projects. I highly recommend waves Q10 for EQ, although I do hate very much how their low pass and high pass filters do not have adjustable steepness curves
Pro-mb is more cpu hungry than Q or C. You can have loads of Pro-Qs running with very minimal cpu impact. Also unless Waves have made significant updates to it, their Q10 always used to warp the shape of bells in the high frequencies towards nyquist.
Old 10th June 2017
  #24
Lives for gear
 

Exactly as Arksun said, it's not really possible to compare multiband compressors, which is much more complex algorithm, to some static EQs.

Waves Q10 has the same DSP algorithm as always, so yes its magnitude response of filters is cramped. Generally these widely used plugins from good vendors are very rarely updated in DSP code, because perfect recall of old sessions is very important point of its usage.

However "de-cramping" itself doesn't eat much of processing power, it's essentially modified algorithm for calculation of filter coefficients, which takes place only when you move EQ controls, filter itself is almost the same with minimal difference depending on used filter type and technique. So this feature alone doesn't really determine, whether the plugin will be efficient or not.

Michal
Old 10th June 2017
  #25
Lives for gear
 

Just for the curiosity.. When I'm testing some clean IIR EQ, either the one I have or some demo, I make simple processing test using VST plugin analyzer.
I always create 7 bands (LPF, HPF, LS, HS and three peaks) if that's possible there and make internal benchmark with 1s of 44.1 audio. Typically I also restart analyzer couple of times and do at least 3 measurements in-row to exclude some false figures.
Note, this is just my very old development computer and benchmark in analyzer doesn't work with all plugins (like Fabfilters) for some reason. But relative performance should be pretty apparent also from those figures.
Of course, there can be some other factors like UI threads (re my previous post here about Fabfilter).

Sonnox EQ G4
Test with 44100 random samples:
Time: 15 ms, Cycles: 31809k
Test with 44100 impulse samples:
Time: 15 ms, Cycles: 31771k

Sonnox EQ G5
Test with 44100 random samples:
Time: 17 ms, Cycles: 36348k
Test with 44100 impulse samples:
Time: 17 ms, Cycles: 36005k

DMG EQuick
Test with 44100 random samples:
Time: 6 ms, Cycles: 12333k
Test with 44100 impulse samples:
Time: 6 ms, Cycles: 12250k

ToneBoosters (1 band less)
Test with 44100 random samples:
Time: 10 ms, Cycles: 20888k
Test with 44100 impulse samples:
Time: 10 ms, Cycles: 20879k

Ozone 7
Test with 44100 random samples:
Time: 21 ms, Cycles: 44355k
Test with 44100 impulse samples:
Time: 21 ms, Cycles: 43657k

Acon Digital Equalize
Test with 44100 random samples:
Time: 17 ms, Cycles: 35935k
Test with 44100 impulse samples:
Time: 17 ms, Cycles: 36334k

RS-MET Easy Q
Test with 44100 random samples:
Time: 4 ms, Cycles: 8733k
Test with 44100 impulse samples:
Time: 4 ms, Cycles: 8736k

SSL Duende Channel
Test with 44100 random samples:
Time: 12 ms, Cycles: 26527k
Test with 44100 impulse samples:
Time: 12 ms, Cycles: 26572k

ReaEQ Standalone
Test with 44100 random samples:
Time: 6 ms, Cycles: 13099k
Test with 44100 impulse samples:
Time: 6 ms, Cycles: 13137k

Thing is (and reason, why I recall that), some plugins has all filters decramped (EQuick, Equalize, Ozone), some are partially decramped (Sonnox, TB, Easy-Q).. some are cramped (ReaEQ, SSL). Still this doesn't really directly translate to the result.

Michal
Old 10th June 2017
  #26
Gear Nut
 
Modern Monster's Avatar
Overtone DSP plugins are almost zero cpu usage
Old 10th June 2017
  #27
Gear Maniac
 
jditmer0's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jditmer0 View Post
You're joking right? I have VTS3 version of fabfilter pro mb running 64 bit and if I have more than 5 of those in my project I start having issues... I can run around 80 plugins if I don't have fabfilter pro mb plugins running in my projects. I highly recommend waves Q10 for EQ, although I do hate very much how their low pass and high pass filters do not have adjustable steepness curves
Pro-mb is more cpu hungry than Q or C. You can have loads of Pro-Qs running with very minimal cpu impact. Also unless Waves have made significant updates to it, their Q10 always used to warp the shape of bells in the high frequencies towards nyquist.

Makes sense that Pro-Q would use much less CPU... That's an interesting thought you said about Q10 warping the shape of the bells. Could you explain further? What do you mean by the word Nyquist?
Old 11th June 2017
  #28
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jditmer0 View Post
Makes sense that Pro-Q would use much less CPU... That's an interesting thought you said about Q10 warping the shape of the bells. Could you explain further? What do you mean by the word Nyquist?
This page explains it for you:

https://vladgsound.wordpress.com/tag/cramping/

As you can see the bell shapes curve gets distorted as it approaches the highest frequencies, this does not sound particularly pleasant and something that the Waves Q10 suffered from. Thankfully most up to date eq plugins these days do not suffer from this cramping effect.
Old 3rd February 2019
  #29
Gear Head
 

Hi, i have the same problem, how did you fix? i didn't understand
thanx
Old 3rd February 2019
  #30
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrabtharsHammer View Post
I finally found out why FabFilter plugins did not work with my system. The integrated Intel Iris GPU of the MacBook Pro is too weak for FabFilter's graphics acceleration. Turned it off and now their plugins work smoothly. Bought the Mastering bundle right away ;-) And damn, do those plugins rule! I'm just selling the majority of my other plugins (PSP, Waves) on ebay, because these four FabFilter plugins (Pro-C, Pro-Q, Pro-L and Pro-MB) cover everything I need and even more. Right now I'm a happy camper.
Hi, i have the same problem, how did you fix? i didn't understand
thanx
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump