nobody

I am building some midi only patchers to control midi gear with max. There is no audio involved. I also do not own MSP, just Max.

Is there any way to reduce the cpu load? Maybe to turn dsp processing off or something? A very small patcher is eating about 8-12 % on a recent MacBook 2.2 GHz. I think that's quite a lot for such a simple thing.

I already searched the forum, but everything I found was related to mute˝ which I think I cannot use because I don't have MSP.

midi-only-save-cpu

At 10:28 PM +0100 11/27/07, Jens Brueck wrote:

>Is there any way to reduce the cpu load? Maybe to turn dsp processing off or something? A very small patcher is eating about 8-12 % on a recent MacBook 2.2 GHz. I think that's quite a lot for such a simple thing.

Unless you turn it on (using MSP) DSP is off by default. What you're seeing is the general Max overhead, which you'll just have to learn to live with. The good news is that if you're only doing MIDI stuff, the number never gets too high.

Chris Muir | "There are many futures and only one status quo.

cbm@well.com | This is why conservatives mostly agree,

 | and radicals always argue." - Brian Eno

At 10:28 PM +0100 11/27/07, Jens Brueck wrote:
>Is there any way to reduce the cpu load? Maybe to turn dsp processing off or something? A very small patcher is eating about 8-12 % on a recent MacBook 2.2 GHz. I think that's quite a lot for such a simple thing.

-- 
Chris Muir           | "There are many futures and only one status quo.
cbm@well.com         |  This is why conservatives mostly agree,
http://www.xfade.com |  and radicals always argue." - Brian Eno


> The good news is that if you're only doing MIDI stuff, the number

I guess you will run out of memory before you can boost it over 15% on 

that machine, and it will take you 10 years to create such a beast 

(unless the only purpose is to drive it high... ;-)

By that time you can get a 500 times faster machine...

It's funny that this fear of not having enough processing power is 

bugging those who have the fastest machine more than those who started 

in an age where the speed of the processor was 1 MHz, and the memory 

available was 512 kB. I had not many problems with Max back then 

Chris Muir schrieb:
> The good news is that if you're only doing MIDI stuff, the number
> never gets too high.

I guess you will run out of memory before you can boost it over 15% on 
that machine, and it will take you 10 years to create such a beast 
(unless the only purpose is to drive it high... ;-)
By that time you can get a 500 times faster machine...

It's funny that this fear of not having enough processing power is 
bugging those who have the fastest machine more than those who started 
in an age where the speed of the processor was 1 MHz, and the memory 
available was 512 kB. I had not many problems with Max back then 
(performance wise... ;-)

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com

Thanks for your answers! I'll deal with it.

Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Thu, 29 November 2007 10:32

----------------------------------------------------

> It's funny that this fear of not having enough processing power is 

> bugging those who have the fastest machine more than those who started 

> in an age where the speed of the processor was 1 MHz, and the memory 

> available was 512 kB. I had not many problems with Max back then 

I was just wondering if could reduce cpu load because I am using 2 other applications simultaneously that are hosting soft-synths. That wasn't possible with that 1 MHz processors you are talking of.

Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Thu, 29 November 2007 10:32
----------------------------------------------------
> It's funny that this fear of not having enough processing power is 
> bugging those who have the fastest machine more than those who started 
> in an age where the speed of the processor was 1 MHz, and the memory 
> available was 512 kB. I had not many problems with Max back then 
> (performance wise... ;-)

I was just wondering if could reduce cpu load because I am using 2 other applications simultaneously that are hosting soft-synths. That wasn't possible with that 1 MHz processors you are talking of.
Every % counts.


Midi only / save cpu