I purchased a new laptop last year in hopes of addressing a frustrating issue. In rackspaces that use multiple instances of certain plugins like Arturia’s CS-80, Gig Performer’s CPU would climb to 60+ and the audio would crackle. After following the Optimization Guide and much research, including Arturia Support and this Community Forum, it was narrowed down to my CPU base clock speed as the issue. Given that my old laptop was a 2018 model, I purchased a new one, settling on this Intel processor, focusing on its 4.5 GHz turbo frequency. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/236848/intel-core-ultra-5-processor-125h-18m-cache-up-to-4-50-ghz/specifications.html
Although my crackle issues are not as bad, they’re still present on some rackspaces, especially the one with 3 instances of the CS-80. I was extremely frustrated after spending money on a new laptop, going through the Optimization guide again, and still having issues. Recent, I became aware of the CPU spec that matters most: the single core base frequency. Am I correct that this is more important than turbo frequency or number of cores? Looking at my CPU’s specs on Intel’s website, there is no spec called “single core base frequency”. There is, however, a spec for “Performance-core Base Frequency”. Not sure if this is the same thing, but that figure is 1.2 GHz.
If that’s the problem, then I’m back to square one and need to buy yet another laptop (or maybe mini PC). I don’t want to make the same mistake again. What should I focus on for CPU specs to ensure I can safely run rackspaces containing multiple instances of processor-heavier plugins?
By the way, my interface is the UA Volt 276 and drivers are always kept current. Nothing else running in the background that’s even close to intensive. Not even 3rd party antivirus software. Just Windows Defender. I keep my Gig Performer laptop very clean.
There are a number of discussions on this topic. In my view, if you machine is working right it should get somewhat close to the max “turbo” spec. My top end is around 5.0. I think it hovers around a 4.3 range on one of my laptops with “Ultimate Power” running.
I think the max power of a few cores is key. There is the single main thread on a single core where GP handles most of the audio. But other plugins (and maybe other GP tasks) can use other cores. (Also if you use multiple instances of GP, you can use another thread of another core for main GP tasks on another instance of GP, as I understand it. So, that is a way to use other cores.)
But, I am not using all the cores on my (pretty powerful) Thinkpad. So, the number of cores can help, but is less important. The power cores are more important, but the efficiency cores can help by handling low power tasks without raising the temperature up (as I understand it).
I tend to think your spec may be okay (close call) if everything is working right (typical disclaimer: I try to pick up information in this forum, but others know much more than me).
I had similar issues and a fellow GP member (Frank 1119) saved me, twice. Actually I have been able to help others by passing on his suggestions.
I’ve noticed that the base clock speed of Intel CPUs has been decreasing with each passing year and I am very reluctant to purchase a new laptop with an Intel CPU. Today I lean toward an AMD CPU but I would like other Gig Performer users to comment on if they have used AMD processors and can compare the two manufacturers.
Gig Performer is single core but I did read a post stating the development team is looking into the possibility of enhancing GP to use multiple cores. However, implementing this capability is difficult and is not the same methodology as DAWs and channel strips etc.
My current laptop performs well with the speed ramping up when needed. Experiment with turning off hyper threading. ThrottleStop may also help.
I haven’t used GP with an AMD CPU, however my first live rig PC I built for use with real-time audio used an AMD CPU and I wouldn’t hesitate to use one again in terms of performance. When I built my second PC for real-time audio, the biggest issue I had with AMD VS Intel was that the AMD CPUs ran significantly hotter and needed more cooling. I was using a 2U rack mounted PC case and didn’t have the space for all the cooling I would need to keep the CPU from cooking. That was a few years ago and I don’t know how cool AMD CPUs run now in comparison.