Is the Leveler (CA-2A) a cpu hog? pro channel in general?

I'm up to 69 tracks on "Arctic Emergency", my highest track count to date.  Saturday I purchased "Juggernaught" from ISW and in an all-nighter, added 25 tracks of brief but potent cinematic "whoosh bangs" as Daniel James fondly calls them... as it was morning and I had Sunday plans, I quickly added 25 instances of CA-2A leveler to levelize the whooshy's and dumped a mix to wave/mp3's while I still had a shred of lucidity within me...
 
Tonight I returned to the project and noticed high cpu levels (50 percentish) on all 12 threads and spiking on no. 1.   Actually, I noticed it after multiple dropouts stalled plays! Playing back at 10ms buffers, longest allowed by Forte.
 
CPU spiking hasn't happened since the upgrade from i7 960 to the 4930.  Copied the song, and started deleting things added since the last mix.  As soon as I deleted all 25 new CA-2A's, CPU levels returned to normal...about 30% on the first thread, 10-20 percent on the rest.
 
So I guess the pro channel is to be used only when needed. Even with my beefy system, can't just lay it on everything, even if it's just the leveler... btw, just sitting idle the levelers really ramped up my thread loads...
 
Is there any data on cpu hit of the various moduals?
 
Is something like FF Peq more efficient then the prochannel flyout eq?
 
Am I doing something wrong or just foolishly unaware of reasonable pro-channel constraints now that I'm getting into high track counts? I guess I can still apply it to the sub mix busses... after roughing out levels on the whoosh bangs... but can't indiscriminately use modules
 
did go back and manually tweak levels, as a good little surgeon...and don't need them 25 levelers now.  One thing I just realized in cinematic sound work is that consolidating the itty bitty sound clips (waves) for fewer tracks save lots of cpu overhead.
 
Of course you can tell me I've got it all wrong...just stumbling around in a sea of ecstasy...
 
 

Just trying to understand the limits.... Obviously, can't apply lever's to every track! Unless someone comes on to say, sure you can and your system is all fked up!  (no, don't say that! I wub my new system!
 
But being wiped out, sleepy... and just applying 25 levelers taught me not to be lazy!  
 
Would luv a relative cpu hit ranking of the different modules but, why I don't know...

I think it's fairly easy on the cpu. It's not just a leveler, it's an emulation of a vintage compressor, even if they called it a "leveling amplifier" at the time. I would be surprised if you would get better performance inserting 25 instances of another recently launched compressor.
A fast CPU doesn't mean you shouldn't consider proper routing and FX use.

Sorry guys...I've been away.  I only posted to get insights into cpu load with pro channel.  I would never end up with that configuration, was just headed off to bed after a grueling 24 hours and just slapped um on, half delerious/lack of sleep, having a blast with the new Juggernaught whoosh bang wave files...which I went crazy with, as one tends to do with a new girlfriend! I posted out of noticing the impact on cpu...of using pro channel's CA-2A on lots of tracks.  
  
So, I realize is was not something I would want to do in a real world situation but was surprised at spiking, as I understood that pro channel was low impact.  I do understand/am working hard at honing good mixing skills rather than using crutches to mask doing it right.  Especially as I'm getting more into orchestral/impact wave files to round out a song.
 
So, what I'm left with is:
1. High track counts strain cpu... even if little is on them (a cello bit for the bridge, for example). If so, this kinda sucks as orchestral sound design seems to require lots of unique intruments which come in and out sparsly...
 
2. In doing "whoosh bangs" I should consolidate those waves on as few tracks as possible to reduce cpu load, and automate volumes as needed of each chunk/wave
 
3. Use many submixes for the above and process those if needed
 
4. Route any verbs/delays/whatever to their own subs, using individual sends of course...but my choice is either send from each track or from submix bus (if just an overal verb ambience is needed)
 
Just trying to sort out some best practices for large track counts; am a bit concerned that CJay can make use of large pro channel/effects on large tracks " Why, because i ahve my sound card driver setting correctly for that Sonar project" 
 
I do believe I am also doing so...adjust buffer size according to what I wish to do and always switch to highest buffer (10ms) when playback/mixing... forte uses different nomenclature than others, for some reason so that may be the confusion.  At 10ms buffer on forte (960 samples, it's highest setting), my latency is 51.2 msec, running 96/24.  I generally record at 1ms buffer at a much lower latency of 6.2 msec. when latency bugs me...
 
I will check for driver updates as the forte is relatively new to focusrite... My other intention was to see if I had a glitch in my system, because high use of prochannel shouldn't cause spikes... I still don't know if that may be the case.
 
 
 
 

10ms=96 samples can't be right. You mean 1ms=96 samples, then it makes sense (96KHz).
Also, it doesn't really matter if very little is on the track because as far as I understand, Sonar is always processing the VSTs even if no audio is running through them. If it's a set and forget deal for you then you can freeze the tracks. Surely, freezing 25 PC tracks with 25 CA2As will lighten the load on your system.
 
I think another thing putting strain on your system is that you're doing all this at 96KHz. I know some people really feel some need for this but 44.1/24 or even 48/24 would be easier for any system. The advantages for using a higher samplerate are mainly in tracking quality. This sounds like a mostly in the box production. Meaning most of your tracks are already artificially upsampled. Just seems like a waste of CPU to me.
 

Typo, changed... 1 ms=96 samples which is the forte's lowest setting
10ms=960 samples, the forte's highest setting
 
thanksxpander & Mike...
 
these are waves, not vsts, but the pc is so you're right!
 
and yes, the 96 vs 48 issue... I read everything on the forum awhile back, including referenced material.  Apparantly, the sweet spot, scientifically is somewhere's up around 60 to 70 (can't recall the #) so just moved to 96 as the i7 4930 was sleepy (ha ha) and latency was better. 
 
Will move back to 44.1 or 48 now that I'm punching my cpu in the face a bit more, exploring this new realm!  Thanks... didn't think of it but you're so right and I can live with the additional latency as voice/harmonies are early in the process, as is bass and guitar, whenever I get up the nerve!
 
I am adjusting latency... tracking vs mixing... use lower/highest respectively, according to my tracking needs...
 
I'm using a samsung evopro ssd for current songs so I guess track count isn't the issue... 96 sample rate is... 
 
Thanks, all... I really don't want you thinking I was doing dumb things as routine... but the observed spikes made me want to understand prochannel constraints.  In the end, I must reliberate my cpu by going back to my old 48 sample rate...