CPU load

Hi, Cristopher!  Unfortunately, your problem is the entire setup.  (I own an iMac, but I know a fair amount about what does/doesn't work with Windows, whether I like that or not.  ;^)  Changes "across the board" would need to be made to run Pianoteq effectively.

The system (XP SP2) is fine, but your RAM is in desperate need of an upgrade!!!  I would strongly advise _2GB_ for XP.  (6GB or more for Vista, the pig-with-lipstick OS.)

The processor is the _biggest_ problem.  The _speed_, which may sound good, simply doesn't translate to great performance with a Celeron, Intel's definite low-end offering.  The design of the Celeron is a joke when compared to even the ol' Pentium 4, not to mention the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo of more recent vintage.  You're working with a single-core slacker. 

How old is this computer?  A newer model would be your best option -- you could _build_ a pretty cheap PC with far better specs and not "break the bank."  The performance difference is out of this world.

(My iMac, a Core 2 Duo @ 3.06 GHz, barely breaks 40% at peak operation with many notes and continuous sustain.)

The guys said it - you really need a new computer!

Just to remind. Get a anti-viruz full check-up to your computer.

I'm not a computer guru, but this is interesting.  I was getting a few pops and clicks with Pianoteq 2.3 on my computer (a dual core), but don't have the same problem with Pianoteq 3.0.

I concluded that PT 3.0 was more efficient code than 2.3.

I'm using PT as stand alone running with ASIO (that is native to the soundcard).

The audio buffer size on my soundcard is set to 136 samples, the latency is 3.1 ms, and I have polyphony set to 96 in PT.

However last night I discovered that some pianos do cause clicks while others do not.

For example "C3 Solo Recording" is a nightmare of clicks when playing a busy part of Chopin's Op27 No1 - it sounds like static on a crappy radio.  On the same passage, with C2 Chamber there are no clicks at all.  C3 Player clicks a bit.

Glenn

Athlon CPUs are, unfortunately, still playing catch-up ever since Intel introduced the Core 2 Duo.  Only the latest (the Phenom II or whatever...) would give the cream of the Core 2 line a run for its money.  (Core i7, on the other hand, has them beat pretty soundly, I think.)

Athlon _had_ all the potential to surge ahead of Intel several years ago, but they blew it, big-time. 

(Advertising CPUs with silver dragons and such is just a bit laughable now, unless it's a graphics card.  %^)

The road-map for Intel is _extremely_ impressive.  Speculation is speculation, but I'm excited, especially for apps like Pianoteq!

Any thoughts on processor preferences/expectations from our good hosts (e.g., Julien)?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AMD's "plus" markings DO NOT compare to Intel's processors, but to older AMD single-cores. So, a 6000+ Phenom (for example) would be as fast as old AMD single-core clocked at 6 GHz, while Phenom is, for example, 2.4.

If you can find _any_ Intel or Athlon CPU clocked at 6 GHz, then we'd better check the space-time fabric for holes to the future!  %^)

Seriously, I always had to laugh at AMD's marketing.  If they thought that they were fooling _anyone_ with their "numbers" (as if 6000+ translated to _actual_ 6 GHz speed with two 3 GHz cores), well, hahahaha!

Sorry to drift so off-topic.  ;-)

Overclocked to 6?!?!   Goodness gracious!!!!!

I wonder what their lifespan happens to be...  ;^)

That could do wonders for Pianoteq!  (And cook a rub-roast, probably, if not for the liquid nitrogen. %^)

YES, Julien, you have said _exactly_ what I wanted to know regarding the Nehalem.  8^)

I did notice the "base difference" between the 2.3 and 3.0 versions, as well as the differences between the C3s and the electrics.  I tend to use the C3 "Worn Out" (with a few tweaks), and my base CPU cost hovers around 9-11%. 

The G4s are dinosaurs -- they're just not fossilized yet!

Hello again, Cristopher! 

With the Core i7, you would be in _excellent_ shape!  (They _are_ the Nehalems, after all!  That's _very_ good!)  By all means, gobble one up!  Try to get a fairly _fast_ i7 (2.5 or above!).  The 6GB would be fine, though 8GB never hurt (especially with Vista).  I do the _exact_ same thing as you with Sibelius, too!  (I'm _sooo_ happy that Sibelius accepts plug-ins now.)

_Only_ if he can wait that long (and assuming Microsoft actually pushes the "official" Windows 7 out into the world by then) -- IMHumO, get Vista now (or XP, but only if you don't pay any additional cost for that "luxury") and upgrade a little while _after_ 7 has been released.  (You just _know_ it shall still need a service pack or two to work out some pesky kinks... %^) 

He can at least _enjoy_ Pianoteq in the meantime.  ;-)

Oh, yeah, the Core i7s seem to _start_ at 2.66GHz -- go for the highest you can get!

I certainly hope so!  I would _love_ to have a more "modern" Windows system that's not a heaping pile of crap waitin' to happen!  (I.e., Vista, though I manage to keep it behaving on a few friends' laptops.  ;^)

I read that Windows 7 is _essentially_ what Vista _should_ have been.  So it's not really Windows "7," but "6.1" -- haha!!

Yes, I _like_ underscores.  Love 'em, in fact!  (They're just for emphasis, not shouting.  ;^)  This results from the time when I used emacs for my email.  Back in the freakin' dark-age '90s.  (Wow, we've come a long way...)

Well, they aren't that far off. Pianoteq can indeed take a hundred MB of RAM on its own. You have to account in the RAM that's used by other programs running and OS, so in reality you get to a normal figure of 1 GB.

You can run PTQ3 on a 2 GHz dualcore CPU with 1 GB of RAM with 192 poly no problem, I have that configuration and it works flawlessly.

Well, I have 512 MB. If you say that 256 MB is enough, I do not need to upgrade the RAM <dhalfen> said. I just need to switch processor. I'm going to change the processor of my computer and tell you, if I do better or worse with Pianoteq 3. With Pianoteq 2 I had no conflicts. Thanks for clarifying. Greetings.

Agreed, I wouldn't run any modern operating sytem with less than a gig of RAM.

Agreed.
I have just discovered something very interesting: When I use Pianoteq only (no other application running) the CPU does not become slow! But the CPU load remains the same: 70%, 80% (90% pedal length)
From now on, I will run Pianoteq without other applications running because if not, the CPU becomes slow.

Topic solved! Thank you all.

I'm using Always on power scheme, with nothing turning off after certain time. You just don't need any of those options on a desktop computer.

You should be fine with a Macbook pro. Get at least 2 GB of RAM on it and all is gonna work right.

You should be fine even with a PC laptop. Just get the fastest dualcore CPU with 4 GB of RAM and you'll be great.

I do not recommend at all you using a Macbook Pro "with Parallels".  That is about the worst possible solution you could ever do.  Trust me, I own a Macbook Pro and I own Parallels.

If you're going to use a Macbook Pro, get a copy of Windows XP and load it natively with Bootcamp.  It will work absolutely perfect and also give you complete full access to the full fledge drivers.  Not some junk ass cool virtual window.  I don't care if they (Parallels) claim it will work, it's not a good idea and you will not get as good of results as you would in a native bootcamp build of Windows XP.

I am using a 2.5 year old Macbook Pro with 2GB of RAM and Pianoteq works smooth as butter.  You should easily get Pianoteq and quite a few other instruments to play back in real time.  I do it now with Pianoteq and VSL instruments.

But, if you're going to stay running in a Windows platform, save your money and buy a Windows laptop, it will cost you 1 millionth of the cost of a Macbook Pro and get you the same results.  They are way over priced in todays economy.  Software updates to fast and the power requirements raise with it.  My 2.5 year old Macmook Pro is already way to underpowered to do all the things I need it to do thanks to all the software updates Vienna and Kontakt do (as well as MAC OS X).  So to me I spent almost 5,000.00 american dollars only to be over powered in 2 years.  I won't make that mistake again.

If I didn't use Logic, I would never buy another MAC again.  I can beat their performance of a MAC Pro for literally 1/5th of the cost.  There are also other ways to run OS X which I will not get into here.

Maestro2be

No problem.

The difference between Parallels and Bootcamp is this.  With Parallels, you are running OS X, and then start an application called Parallels.  It then opens up a virtual window and launches Windows XP or Vista depending on which you chose to install.  This means, you are a using a software application, running inside of OS X.  OS X is simply "loaning" you resources to borrow for the time being.

In Bootcamp, you literally have Windows XP installed to the hard drive and instead of booting into OS X, you literally boot into windows exactly the same way you would on a Dell or HP (or any other brand you want to name).  So it's literally a full fledged Windows operating system, installed on MAC's HARDWARE.  Funny how they let you install Windows on their machines, but puke at the idea of letting you install OS X on anything but a MAC.  Anyway.

Mac's are good for people who have zero knowledge of hardware and how to build a stable computer with name brand parts.  For people who have no idea how to snap a few pieces of hardware together and screw a few bolts down.  They may seem a little more stable, but that is because they run exactly the same hardware, over and over and over again all over the world.  A new mac pro is a new mac pro.  The only things that change are slight variables, that with the most minimal amount of knowledge a 4 year old kid could do on a PC (hard drive, memory etc).  That has it's advantages, but at a very high cost.

Another advantage is that the manufacturer's only have to write one driver for one OS.  Also let's face it, some people just don't want to fuss with all the building of a computer of their own and so then, a MAC is good for those people.

Most people also cannot get off the "cigar club" idea of owning a MAC.  Their is an asthetic addiction that people buy into as well.  Plus face it, most people will believe anything they hear without figuring it out for themselves to see how ridiculous the idea is.

Again, if you want a great computer, that looks awesome and will run good too but is significantly more expensive, and almost 100% non-upgradeable then a MAC is for you.  I love my MAC, but I won't say I love it more then my Windows machines because I would be telling a lie.  I expect my machine to do for me what I tell it to.  I can get ANY Windows machine to do that just as good as any MAC.  And actually, I can build a machine that will spank a ten thousand dollar MAC Pro for under $2500.00.

Sorry, I am not to up to par on the latest laptops so I can't help you decide on that one.  But trust me that when you say the word "budget", MAC is not in your range (unless you're a millionaire and to you "budget" is not an actual issue).

Maestro2be