![]() ![]() ![]() This version adds the ability to hide/show specific process columns, support for silent installs, password protection of the configuration file, better multi-language installer support, and much more. * Highly optimal, extremely low RAM and CPU use * Process Lasso Features ProBalance dynamic priority and affinity optimization More advanced users can tweak the configuration, but you needn't touch anything to have it instantly improve your system responsiveness and prevent stalls in high load situations. Once you install Process Lasso, it'll just start working. If you so choose, you can later purchase the Pro version. The number of uses for Process Lasso is countless. You can also limit the number of instances a program can have, so that accidental launching of mulitiple instances is prevented. In addition, you can disallow certain programs, and log all programs run. You can even have overly active processes automatically moved to the CPUs of your choice until they calm down. You can choose what priority and what CPUs any process should be given. Process Lasso also offers an assortment of ways to take full control of how your CPUs are allocated to running programs. Process Lasso's ProBalance technology intelligently adjusts the priority of running programs so that badly behaved or overly active processes won't interfere with your ability to use the computer! Windows, by design, allows programs to monopolize your CPU without restraint - leading to freezes and hangs. It was running on 1024 samples buffersize in stable mode.Process Lasso is a unique new technology that will, amongst other things, improve your PC's responsiveness and stability. ![]() I did not test if chaning the latency of my steinberg UR22 would have changed anything. In addition I modulated the FM and Env of the percussive vibrations via a knob to see if the patch responded and gave me no drop outs over a period of a few minutes. I was able to use 38 percussive vibrations with 38 valley plateaus in addition to mixing modules and quantizers an so on. The Test was done using a 5600X with 32GB of 3600MHz dual rank/dual channel CL16 Ram and a RTX3080. Adding more cores (so SMT) is not giving any advantage or let me add more modules. I am able to use all 6 cores, where the sixth core is able to run a patch, which does not run on 5 cores. Since Martin was asking if I could use all 6 cores of my 5600x and if hyperthreading (SMT) would give any performance improvement I think sharing my results could eventually help someone in the decision-process: ![]() If this is not possible, the 8 core might actually be faster for VCV Rack, as all 8 cores could be used with low latency.Īny other thoughts or experiences on that? Would it be possible to specify that VCV is bound to the first 6 cores, while other processes, such as screen capture, system processes, or another DAW running, could be confined to the remaining cores? If such a separation is possible, 12 cores might be useful (as it might be hard to do good parallelization over more than 6 threads anyway). On the 5800x we would have 8 cores with small latencies, while on the 5900x there would only be 6 cores with fast latence (plus the other six cores, which would not be good for threading within the same instance of Rack). This really makes me think whether the 5900x is really an improvement over the 5800x when it comes to applications like VCV. This shows that on the 5950x (two 8-core CCDs) the latency between cores in the same CCD is great, but there is still a problem when going from one to the other CCD. I am still waiting for some more results or reports on that. If this is the case, one could expect that even in Zen3, such cache latency problem still exists if you go beyond the 8 core chip. AMD itself claims that a large part of the performance boost between the 3800 and the 5800 comes from exactly that point, that now they have a unified 元 cache across all 8 cores, where before they had to communicate the data between the two 4-core complexes. Unfortunately, I never found a discussion whether the cache latency problem they had in ZEN 2 (where they used only 4 cores per 元 cache) still exists in the 12 or 16 core versions of the chip. That’s why they sell them at a cheaper price point, with the two non-functional cores disabled. In some other article (i forgot the source) I read that also the 6 and 12 core chips are the same architecture, but those dyeswith chiplets in which only 6 or the cores passed the test. It is not written explicitely, but on the AMD slides ( AMD: Where Gaming Begins) you see that they only speak about the 8-core complex, and on slide 22 they show the architecture for a 2 x CCD chip. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |