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...

Yeah I meant VST FX not instruments. Instruments actually DON'T use CPU when they're not in use (I think). I hear ya on the samplerate deal but the way I always understood is it only makes sense if you're recording stuff at that rate. Upsampling existing WAVs from 44.1 or 48 to 96 does nothing for your sound quality and if you're producing mostly ITB, very nearly all of your samples/instruments will be upsampled.
Someone please kick me if I'm wrong about this assumption.

Even when I don't stay in the box I've always stuck with 44.1 though.