• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

ver. 5 more CPU hungry?

NaturalScience

Inspired
You may also want to check what you have set as your "Y" block on some effects. I haven't looked into this in detail, but I *think* that I've noticed that some blocks will bump up the usage, even if you are switched to "X". Pretty much seems like the Axe is reserving those resources for the highest common denominator between the X/Y blocks. For example, make sure your X/Y instances of the cab block are BOTH set to lo-res.
 

tone pilgrim

Inspired
Can you gain more CPU space in a given preset by 'emptying' some of the unused presets from the bank? In other words, I could stand to not have 383 presets on tap at all times if it would free up some space for the patches I do use all of the time. If it works that way.
 

yek

Moderator
Moderator
Can you gain more CPU space in a given preset by 'emptying' some of the unused presets from the bank? In other words, I could stand to not have 383 presets on tap at all times if it would free up some space for the patches I do use all of the time. If it works that way.
Nope.
 

viabcroce

Experienced
To add to this:
- Adding a 2nd amp block: adds 2%
:eek:
I thought I remember that CPU usage only referred to the FX CPU, and that the amps one was not counted in...
If this is correct (and 2% sounds really low for an amp), shall I deduce 2% is the expense for just managing the new configuration?
 

javajunkie

Moderator
Moderator
:eek:
I thought I remember that CPU usage only referred to the FX CPU, and that the amps one was not counted in...
If this is correct (and 2% sounds really low for an amp), shall I deduce 2% is the expense for just managing the new configuration?
yes, It is not for the amp block really, but the communication between the amp block on the other dsp and the effects dsp.
 

FractalAudio

Administrator
Fractal Audio Systems
Moderator
There is actually a small amount of processing for the amp blocks done on the master DSP. That, along with inter-DSP communications, uses about 2% of the master DSP.
 

jon

Fractal Fanatic
To also add to yek's posts - here's a tip or two from a user who was ALWAYS maxing out the ultra that aren't in the wiki:

The reverb block is an especially demanding resource hog. Turn down the echo density (II users) or number of springs (ultra users) and it will still sound pretty great. Low values will not sound as good, but turning it down just a bit can save you about 6%. Use a different type of reverb if you can also, the type changes the CPU usage.

I have a load of other tricks that I can reduce CPU by about 8-10% again, but they're a lot, and each one only gives you approx 1% extra.

Reducing the cabs to lo res in the II is a great thing, you won't notice the difference and you can reduce the cpu by a bit. Nice! :)


Also, remember that FW5 incorporated dynamic amp/cab modeling. If you're not into engineering/maths, you will prob not understand the degree and complexity of programming involved here. Suffice it to say that I am surprised it didn't use even MORE cpu :lol (TOTALLY worth it tho - cliff you are my idol! *bows*)
 
  • Like
Reactions: yek
Top Bottom