Is it true that Creamware cards (e.g. Pulsar of Scope) slow down the computer by stressing the PCI bus?
I read that other DSP cards (e.g. TC Powercore and UAD-1) also have this behaviour, but not in such a big way. Is the reason that Creamware cards do not have memory of their own and must use the main memory from the PC and have to access that memory through the PCU bus?
What level of 'slow-down' can I expect when, say, running 4 reverbs + 12 EQ's + 12 compressors on the Creamware? Is the usage of the PCI bus more extreme in specific situations?
Thanks for any info on this,
Eddie
Pulsar is slowing down PC by stressing PCI bus?!
Hi, thanks for your reply.
In at least three reviews (in printed magazines and web articles) I read that the Pulsar is slowing down the PC. How is this possible?
Do these reviewers mean
(a) a lot of PCI bandwidth is taken, and that is slowing down the PC?
(b) the host (main) CPU is used intensively, and that is the reasons for a relatively slower reacting PC?
(c) the graphical user interface is slow?
But even more important is the fact (my assumption) that if the PCI bus is really used a lot more, then you have less bandwidth for recording and playing back audio tracks to harddisk!
So, to what extent and under which conditions does the user suffer from this high PCI bandwidth usage from Pulsar?
(I know, a lot of questions... Maybe this issue has already been discussed on this forum. Please show me some links to those topics.)
Thanks,
Eddie
In at least three reviews (in printed magazines and web articles) I read that the Pulsar is slowing down the PC. How is this possible?
Do these reviewers mean
(a) a lot of PCI bandwidth is taken, and that is slowing down the PC?
(b) the host (main) CPU is used intensively, and that is the reasons for a relatively slower reacting PC?
(c) the graphical user interface is slow?
But even more important is the fact (my assumption) that if the PCI bus is really used a lot more, then you have less bandwidth for recording and playing back audio tracks to harddisk!
So, to what extent and under which conditions does the user suffer from this high PCI bandwidth usage from Pulsar?
(I know, a lot of questions... Maybe this issue has already been discussed on this forum. Please show me some links to those topics.)
Thanks,
Eddie
If you were using an old computer that still has the hard drive controllers (or video card!) on the PCI bus then hard drive (or video) performance could be slowed down while pulsar is running reverbs or a lot of tracks.
apart from that it is fine.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: defex on 2002-04-21 02:08 ]</font>
apart from that it is fine.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: defex on 2002-04-21 02:08 ]</font>
No.On 2002-04-21 01:48, ehsl wrote:
(a) a lot of PCI bandwidth is taken, and that is slowing down the PC?
Some devices use "a little" CPU power, but that's not a problem. The interesseting part is how much memory-bandwidth they use. If you use a lot of reverbs, sampler voices and wavetable synths on a PC/Mac with a slow memory-subsystem, then you can get into trouble. But you'll never see that on PC133/DDR/RD-Ram systems.(b) the host (main) CPU is used intensively, and that is the reasons for a relatively slower reacting PC?
Bingo ! Everything in Creamware's OS's is layers of truecolor bitmaps, and the graphics engine uses no hardware acceleration, so that's all up to the cpu. And the Creamware routine isn't exactly the fastest around. For some reason it seems slower in version 3.x than in 2.x, but the good news is that it seems much better in SFP 3.1(c) the graphical user interface is slow?
On a newer motherboard the harddisk controller is not even on the PCI-bus, so that's only a concern if you run your harddisks off some kind of PCI controller card, like SCSI, Firewire or USB 2. In case of SCSI, you can simply slow down the SCSI controller. (That's how all Protools Mix systems run).But even more important is the fact (my assumption) that if the PCI bus is really used a lot more, then you have less bandwidth for recording and playing back audio tracks to harddisk!
You can also set a limit for how many PCI channels Pulsar/Scope is allowed to use...
As I've explained above, it's not so much a problem for the other things running on your system, as it is a problem for Pulsar/Scope itself:So, to what extent and under which conditions does the user suffer from this high PCI bandwidth usage from Pulsar?
If you use alot of Asio channels, sampler voices/Wavetable voices and delays at the same time, you won't be able to add as many reverbs as you like. A "good" reverb algorithm typically uses between 64 and 256 seperate audiostreams on the PCI bus. (To and from the memory subsystem)
Kim.
Hmm, interesting info. Thanks for that!
Since a few weeks I am the proud owner of the following system: P4/1.6GHz, ASUS P4T-E mainboard, 512MB RAMBUS, 80GB IBM harddisk and Matrox G550 32MB.
So you people think that my system is capable of running a lot of reverbs, synths and other plugins on the Pulsar II card? I ask because I am really thinking of buying one.
Thanks,
Eddie
Since a few weeks I am the proud owner of the following system: P4/1.6GHz, ASUS P4T-E mainboard, 512MB RAMBUS, 80GB IBM harddisk and Matrox G550 32MB.
So you people think that my system is capable of running a lot of reverbs, synths and other plugins on the Pulsar II card? I ask because I am really thinking of buying one.
Thanks,
Eddie
You've got a great system for it. For other systems users are having success with, check here:
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... orum=19&11
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... orum=19&11
Hi Kim,
Where did you get this info like "A "good" reverb algorithm typically uses between 64 and 256 seperate audiostreams on the PCI bus. (To and from the memory subsystem)"
In this context: what is an audio stream? Is it one stream of 32bits data ( = 4 bytes) at the 44.1KHz through the PCI bus? Or is it just a 16bits stream?
I ask because when you know what the bandwidth of one single stream is, and exactly how many streams a specific effect (e.g. Masterverb) uses, you can precisely calculate how many of thoses effects can be used together without overloading the PCU bus. Am I correct? Or is the problem that Creamware does NOT publish this info to the public?
Thanks,
Eddie
Where did you get this info like "A "good" reverb algorithm typically uses between 64 and 256 seperate audiostreams on the PCI bus. (To and from the memory subsystem)"
In this context: what is an audio stream? Is it one stream of 32bits data ( = 4 bytes) at the 44.1KHz through the PCI bus? Or is it just a 16bits stream?
I ask because when you know what the bandwidth of one single stream is, and exactly how many streams a specific effect (e.g. Masterverb) uses, you can precisely calculate how many of thoses effects can be used together without overloading the PCU bus. Am I correct? Or is the problem that Creamware does NOT publish this info to the public?
Thanks,
Eddie
Well, I've seen the "inside" of some the "good" algorithms, and you can test it on any Creamware system, by limiting the number of PCI channels in the cset.ini file.On 2002-04-22 01:14, ehsl wrote:
Hi Kim,
Where did you get this info like "A "good" reverb algorithm typically uses between 64 and 256 seperate audiostreams on the PCI bus. (To and from the memory subsystem)"
It's 32bits.In this context: what is an audio stream? Is it one stream of 32bits data ( = 4 bytes) at the 44.1KHz through the PCI bus? Or is it just a 16bits stream?
It's a lot easier to just load reverbs into your project. The software will tell you "PCI capacity limit reached"... No need to make it more difficult than it isI ask because when you know what the bandwidth of one single stream is, and exactly how many streams a specific effect (e.g. Masterverb) uses, you can precisely calculate how many of thoses effects can be used together without overloading the PCU bus. Am I correct? Or is the problem that Creamware does NOT publish this info to the public?
Kim.