Go64 mac6/30/2023 ![]() ![]() Interestingly there are a number of uninstallers on the list, most are from older installers but there are some current apps including a good number of the iZotope Uninstall apps like Uninstall Neutron Advanced V3.0, which have a couple of 32-bit components in them that are still have some 32-bit code in them. Our experiments with the beta version of macOS Catalina, show that the major audio related applications that don’t work yet with Catalina are Pro Tools and iLok. Other notable applications on the list is the WrapAdapterInterLok, which is a component of the iLok software, although on closer investigation it seems these components relate to some of the virtual instruments like Strike, Vacuum Pro, Velvet and Transfuser. This isn’t that surprising as Apple are changing the way that macOS Catalina will handle video files with the final stage of removing the last elements of the QuickTime code. (with Live's instruments & effects only, I see zero difference in performance between Live 32 & 64bit when doing a maxing out test.This gives us a real insight into what work Avid still needs to do to get Pro Tools into shape for macOS Catalina and although it is quite a long list, it appears the in the Avid Video Engine that is the only part of the Avid code that needs work. IIRC forumite Machinesworking saw a huge performance gain with Live 64bit version vs 32bit using NI stuff like Massive. Maybe it's time to check the Native Instruments forums.ĭo you see any performance difference between Live 32bit & Live 64bit versions? ![]() I don't know if it's the architecture of having an SSD drive, but changing from DFD mode to Sampler mode on Kontakt did not make a difference. Reaktor requires 6% CPU, but Absynth adds nothing now. In fact Kontakt added very little to the load before. As I turned off all the Kontakt instances I turned 30% background CPU on the meter to 10%. (I though I checked this.) I don't know why it behaves differently on a new computer with the same OS, but on the new computer, every instance of Kontakt adds 2% to the CPU load. JJ Deviation wrote:I am finding Kontakt to be much of the problem. Right now I’m still hold onto an old 90’s E-mu sampler for some percussion sounds partly because it still responds faster. I’m an electronic percussionist almost exclusively working live shows with a lot of expressive MIDI input capabilities and I need both very ow latency and the power of some processing. (I also do circuit board layout and could use the bigger 15.4” screen for that when I’m on the road.) I have another few days before the 14-day period ends. If I try and return this very new machine for something else, I want to know what’s going to help me. Maybe it’s not bad enough to go back to the old machine, but I think I just wasted my money. (For instance turning OFF software synths would make my background CPU meter change by 5% each time.) Mutli-core support is on. ![]() I have 20 tracks of Kontakt and other Native Instruments synths BUT turning all of those “OFF”, which usually did the trick before, doesn’t improve things this time. Since then I upgraded to Live version 9 thinking that may help. Using internal DACs on either machine makes it worse as expected.)ĥ) Background process eating up the CPU that I can't see. simple new Intel iris graphics is using CPU clocks? (Would getting the Nvidia option have helped?)ģ) old 2.66Ghz (dual-core i7) vs 2.5Ghz (quad-core i7) Is it a clock speed problem?Ĥ) old Firewire vs Firewire adaptor from Thunderbolt (Using MOTU828. 128 sample buffer (and still at 10% with 256 sample buffer)ġ) old hard drive vs SSD? (background drive access not designed efficiently for SSD?)Ģ) old Nvidia graphics chips vs. The new machine glitches sooner than the old one with the same load (when I start playing). 2014?ĬPU meter starting by hovering at 18% on 2014 i7 when on the old machine it starts at 6%.īoth machines running Mavericks and Ableton 8. For some reason I was led to believe the new architectures even in 2011 were an improvement. Overall performance about the same or worse a big chunk of money later. But that’s not happening even though it’s a true quad core. ![]() I bought a new machine thinking I might be able to get improvements in latency. What is making my background CPU meter read higher on newest MacBook. Why does a new mid-2014 2.5Mhz i7 quad core machine perform worse than (or equal to) 2.66Ghz i7 (dual core) from 2010? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |