Does X1 take more horsepower than 8.5.3?

Geno, I am experiencing more scratching and distortions with X1 on recent projects made in 8.5.3. Though the CPU doesn't seem to be hitting anywhere near where it would cause it.

This question has been asked and I think the answer from the Cake Bakers was it shouldn't affect the cpu at all, or minimal at best.

They said they did raise the min requirements to bring them more current.

JenksTer


No. No more horsepower required. What 8.5.3 could do. X1 can do.

That's not my experience.  Projects that ran fine under 8.5.3 (if close to the edge) are clicking and popping under X1.  Also, the CPU meters in X1 are reflecting low or moderate CPU usage while the CPU meters in the task manager are maxed out on these projects.
 
My system is a few years old, so it was a good excuse for me to upgrade my system. I ordered a new I7 mobo today.
 
Regards,
 
John

No. No more horsepower required. What 8.5.3 could do. X1 can do.

 
That's what I'm seeing. X1 doesn't show you a CPU percentage (at least, not by default), just histograms. But DAW Bench test project performs identically with X1 on my Q9550 at various latencies, and other CPU-heavy projects also run as well as ever.
 
 

Just to offer a dissenting view, X1 will basically not run at all on my Core 2 Duo E4500 2.2 ghz 4 gb WinXP box, where 8.5.3 runs without any trouble at all.  X1 will start, but as soon as you try to open any project the CPU usage (read with SysInternals' Process Explorer) goes up to 45%-50% and stays there, the project never finishes loading and all kinds of screen abnormalities occur, as if there is not enough memory to function.  (I'm using a 512 mb video card.)  I can't even close the program normally; I have to kill it from Process Explorer.

So far, my experience with X1 (after two installs) has been completely negative and it won't get any better if I supposedly have to buy a new computer to make it run, particularly as what I've seen of X1 looks like 8.5.3 with spiffy new duds on.  Granted, since I can't get the thing to run, I haven't been able to play with any substantive changes made, so maybe I'd feel differently under different circumstances.

musicman100


@MagBass ,X1 loads and runs existing projects on my box, Core 2 Duo 2,2  with 4 gig ram, XP Pro SP3 and an Nvidia card....

and the projects are full of soft synths, K4, the Garritan Arai engine, etc..

Then I'm a really unhappy camper.  Been using CW software since version 3, back before Pro Audio, and never had an upgrade simply not work before.  I'm not even sure what to do, really, as there are no error messages or anything.

I'm sure it'll get worked out; it's just a little frustrating and I don't have the time right now that I normally would to spend on this; I'd hoped I could just sneak some time in playing with the new toy, but right now I should be getting real work done.

I should say that I did get X1 to work some by setting msconfig not to process any Startup items (prompted by CW tech support), but I can't run my machine like that, so I'm not sure what difference that makes.

I may try to contact you later, maybe compare notes, since you seem like you have a very, very similar setup to mine, if you don't mind.

Could be a plug init soaking up the CPU. Or, more likely, a driver init. Maybe try the old "rename AUD.INI" trick and see if SONAR can reconfig from scratch.

Can you start SONAR itself OK without any project? If it only happens on old projects, which specific plugs would you be using in those projects?

It would be interesting to see which OS those who have noted worse performance are using.  I'm on Win 7 x64, and I notice that bitbridge is taking up quite a bit of CPU.  Maybe if I had all native 64 bit plugs or if I were using a 32 bit OS my CPU usage would drop significantly.

guitartrek


I have a DuoCore 2.2 GHz Win7 32bit 4Gb machine which I believe does not meet minimum requirements for X1.  Will I need to wait until I get some more horsepower?

That would probably be best. Then again,  you aren't trying to run it in 64bit? (This isn't me insulting you, just asking) X1 (Studio/Producer) can be run as a 32-bit program (ie: Essentials - Only 32bit) Many flks have said though that it is best - n terms of memory - to have 8 gigabtyes; you can get by with six, but eight id the general consensus.


Having said this, it isn't that the program won't work, it just won't do so efficiently - even if you don't stuff it with lots of plugins. Try cramming seven kids into a compact car. You can do that, but I doubt they will be anywhere close to comfortable - you probably won't either as the driver having to listen to all the complaining!! lol


In terms of upgrading you do not need a decked-out i7; an i5 (quad cores) will do that fine. To make sure though, I wouldn't compose a piece that consists of alot of stuffing; however, you can plug in that stuffed piece into the new machine to get a feel as to how it run when you start to create others like it


I did this when I got my new computer. It's a i5; 8G of Ram. The previous computer I had the projects on moved very slow - it being a single core of course! Yet, once I plugged it into this machine, it ran like water - I would imagine that Sonar X1 would do likewise, but with any new app, you'll need to use some kind of barometer

I have a Core Two Duo e6750...266 htz... with 2 gigs of memory and I'm having no problems at all with the 32 bit Essentials version of X1. My OS is Windows 7-32 bit,  I'm  also running Ivory and EWSO Gold, and I'm running good. I also have my sample programs on SSD drives so that may be why it's working so well for me.

My first tests of X1 on my T7200 laptop were good.

mountaincruz


Ouch!

This will bring the computer to its knees when running any program that will make maximum use of available RAM (such as SONAR X1).

Maybe. I just ran a 50 track audio project with a healthy dose of FX plugs and had no glitches.


FWIW this my laptop and I only mix on it. My studio DAW is well equipped (Q6600/4GB RAM) to handle X1.