List of the Effect blocks and their typical CPU drain?

Radley

Radley

Experienced
Has Cliff or anyone else ever put together a list of the effect blocks and their typical CPU drain? I wonder if this would be useful when planning the most efficient effects chain for a new preset?

~Rad~
 
Radley said:
Has Cliff or anyone else ever put together a list of the effect blocks and their typical CPU drain? I wonder if this would be useful when planning the most efficient effects chain for a new preset?

~Rad~
Click to expand...
I remember seeing one back on firmware 6.xx, haven't seen one for 7.xx. Should be fairly easy to do if you go block by block and go to your utilities page and see how much each block uses up.
 
mortega76 said:
Radley said:
Has Cliff or anyone else ever put together a list of the effect blocks and their typical CPU drain? I wonder if this would be useful when planning the most efficient effects chain for a new preset?

~Rad~
Click to expand...
I remember seeing one back on firmware 6.xx, haven't seen one for 7.xx. Should be fairly easy to do if you go block by block and go to your utilities page and see how much each block uses up.
Click to expand...
Note that for some of them, the usage changes quite a bit depending on what "mode" they're in. Cab block's mono-lores / mono-hires / stereo being a good example.
 
And before 6.xx ( or maybe 7.xx ) the "old" editor used to give you a rough calculation as well.

Maybe the 'new' editor will ( hint, hint ) :?:
 
I've figures this much out. Hope it's correct.
As stated before, a controller can increase CPU usage.
  • Block CPU
    Base 6,3
    Amp 22,0
    CAB mono hi res 7,2
    CAB mono lo res 4,0
    Cab stereo 7,5
    Chorus 4,5
    Compressor 3,7
    Crossover 1,4
    Delay 5,4
    Drive 6,7
    FX loop 0,7
    Enhancer 1,0
    Feedback return 0,6
    Feedback Send 0,2
    Filter 0,8
    Flanger 2,9
    Formant 1,3
    Gate/exp 3,4
    Graphic Eq 1,5
    Megatap Delay 2,2
    Mixer 0,5
    Multicomp 10,3
    Multidelay 5,2
    Pan/trem 1,3
    Param Eq 1,2
    Phaser 2,5
    Pitch 4,5
    Pitch intel harm 7,0
    Pitch whammy 3,3
    Quad chorus 9,1
    Resonator 3,1
    Reverb 9,0
    Ring mod 1,8
    Rotary 2,5
    Synth 7,3
    Vocoder 9,7
    Volume/pan 0,8
    Wah 0,9
 
Damn MisterE... that was freakin' awesome thanks for the hard work! Now was that for the Standard or the Ultra? If it was the Standard then we can say that it used 17.7% less per block since the Ultra has a 20% faster processor... right?
 
He has Gate/Exp and Synth, so I'm guessing those are Ultra numbers. This is the list I came up with and posted here (or rather, on the old forum) last summer (on a Standard, OS 5.xx):

  • Nothing 5.5
    Shunt 0.25
    Amp 23.5
    Cab 9.15
    Chorus 5.25
    Comp 4.05
    Delay 3.4
    Drive 6
    Effects Loop 2.35
    Enhancer 1.15
    Fback Send 0.3
    Fback Rtn 0.9
    Feedback 0.9
    Filter 0.9
    Flanger 3.4
    Formant 1.65
    Graph EQ 1.95
    Mixer 0.6
    Multi-Delay 6
    Pan/Trem 1.5
    Para EQ 1.5
    Phaser 3.3
    Pitch Shifter 4.9
    Reverb 9.25
    Rotary 2.85
    Volume 0.9
    Wah 1.25

Sorted by CPU cost:
  • Nothing 5.5
    Shunt 0.25
    Fback Send 0.3
    Mixer 0.6
    Fback Rtn 0.9
    Feedback 0.9
    Filter 0.9
    Volume 0.9
    Enhancer 1.15
    Wah 1.25
    Pan/Trem 1.5
    Para EQ 1.5
    Formant 1.65
    Graph EQ 1.95
    Effects Loop 2.35
    Rotary 2.85
    Phaser 3.3
    Delay 3.4
    Flanger 3.4
    Comp 4.05
    Pitch Shifter 4.9
    Chorus 5.25
    Drive 6
    Multi-Delay 6
    Cab 9.15
    Reverb 9.25
    Amp 23.5

In some cases I found the second instance of an effect cost a little less than the first - for instance, shunts after the first one were 0.15 instead.

MisterE's numbers should generally be somewhat lower than mine since he has an Ultra, but some of the effects are heavier now than they were a year ago, and there have probably been some optimizations as well. I should go back and re-do my numbers and see how much they've changed.

As I recall, I added each effect to an empty preset to get these numbers.
 
Just so you know. The effects usage has significantly change from 5.x. In the amp, cab and delay area especially. There have also been reductions in cpu in some blocks.
 
javajunkie said:
Just so you know. The effects usage has significantly change from 5.x. In the amp, cab and delay area especially. There have also been reductions in cpu in some blocks.
Click to expand...

JJ
meaning now it is more efficient or less??

Thanks
 
Groovey Records said:
javajunkie said:
Just so you know. The effects usage has significantly change from 5.x. In the amp, cab and delay area especially. There have also been reductions in cpu in some blocks.
Click to expand...

JJ
meaning now it is more efficient or less??

Thanks
Click to expand...

Well, I can't speak to efficiency in the amp, cab, and delay. But features and improvements were added the increased cpu usage.
 
Yeah, like I said a lot has changed since I did those tests. I know some of the changes have increased CPU load, and there have also been some optimizations, so I'd expect some numbers to be higher and some perhaps lower. It'll be interesting to compare the numbers now to the numbers then and quantify those changes.
 
chase said:
Yeah, like I said a lot has changed since I did those tests. I know some of the changes have increased CPU load, and there have also been some optimizations, so I'd expect some numbers to be higher and some perhaps lower. It'll be interesting to compare the numbers now to the numbers then and quantify those changes.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was referring to the OP when I said "You". I know, you know :lol:
It has been a while since it has been gone thru. We'll see after the next firmware release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom