OST999 wrote:

OrganTeq 1.0.0 puts 38 seconds to start on AMD-A6-3610 1.80Ghz and 6Gb RAM

Yep that's a slow CPU.

No, apparently, it's a bug and they will probably be able to fix it !
Again same bug in 1.0.1...

I'm asking because I installed it also on my recent MacBook Air 2019 (that I bought for simpler use, not for power) and I was surprised that on that hyperthreaded dual core i5, all 4 logical threads were fully and equally used, and Organteq works very well on it, while on my older MacPro 2013 only the 4 main cores are used (no hyperthreading).

Maybe there are some new instructions that were added in newer cpus or a difference in OS. My MacPro is still on OSX 10.9.5 while the new MacBook Air is under Mojave. Anyway, I just realized how much progress was done in the last 5-6 years to have a lowly laptop i5 be about only half as powerful as a 2013 Xeon...

This is also to say that while it is possible to push cpu usage to very high level with Organteq, by no mean is it limited to very powerful system for normal use.

Not as expensive as Intel, at least.

If I had to make a better compromise on the price of the processor, I would certainly be interested in the Rizen 5 3600:
see https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp...mp;id=3481
* Performances already very high ON 1 ONLY thread (essential for Organteq / Pianoteq because there is always a logical core which works much more than the others and is in fact the limiting factor)
* Number of logical core sufficient (here 12) including 6 physical, I found that Organteq (idem Pianoteq) does not use all the cores with 16 logical core for example.
* TDP not too important (here 65W): can find a motherboard at a more moderate price, and especially to run the fans slower (.. it is still interesting to hear a little more the instrument rather that the machine, especially with open headphones ...)

// In addition, I just used my 2nd Organteq slot on a smaller Dell laptop recently purchased, which has an Intel Core i5 9300H processor (8 logical core, 4 physical)
link: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cp...mp;id=3448 .The default max polyphony: 160, works perfectly (use on the same external dac and my keyboard casio GP500) mode "tutti" (all stops) I can put elbows on the keyboard without problems without saturating the processor. The maximum level of polyphony that can be used (except bends on the keyboard) is 256, a polyphony that can actually be achieved with about 90% of CPU resources used with Organteq. In practice the consumption of resources is between 25 and 40% according to the indicator of Organteq playing "normally", in "tutti" mode. (My Dell laptop which originally had 8GB of RAM had been upgraded to 16GB for a few dozen euros of RAM bar - probably useless for Organteq)

Bruno

Here's a good place you can go to compare the CPU you have vs. what's available, and at what price:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

For example, the Intel Core i9-7940X @ 3.10GHz (rated at 25,426) is a powerful Intel solution, costing US$909.99.

Or, for best value, choose an AMD Ryzen 9 3900X is rated at 31,916 and costs US$549.99

These are 4-5 times more powerful than your average i5 or i7 CPU.

For best performance, use a top rated CPU in a Linux system!

With my laptop with a 9900k i9 core processor, and without limiting the polyphony, I typically use between 20 and 22% of CPU resources. at the extreme an effective polyphony displayed around 350 I stayed below 40% of the resources. (but 70% with all games enabled)
Bruno

In fact, with all stops enabled, the maximum polyphony of 512 is quickly reached without audio problem (playing quickly + putting the 2 elbows on the keyboard - not very comfortable nor harmonious - ...) Organteq indicates a consumption of resources between 60 to 67%, the task manager 32%, with a CPU frequency (average?) Of 4,67Ghz [my laptop is configured in performance mode, but in fact constrained by its power supply and the automatic mode of management of the fan, that I do not wish to see too noisy, voluntarily not forced to the maximum, and deliberately no configuration of CPU overclocking mode, the maximum theoretical frequency of 5Ghz processor 2 cores is not reached here] On 16 cores (8 cores / 16 simultaneous threads) 14 have a significant activity, of which 1 to 80%, 6 to 50% approximately) By playing "normally" (even with all stops enabled) the fans remain silent, 8% of the CPU power is requested according to task manager, rarely more than 17% of resources indicated by Organteq)
Bruno

OST999 wrote:

OrganTeq 1.0.0 puts 38 seconds to start on AMD-A6-3610 1.80Ghz and 6Gb RAM

Yep that's a slow CPU.

I forgot to specify, he has 4 cores, but it's same with my AMD-A10 at 3.50 Ghz and 4 cores, 32Gb RAM, and the 2 with Windows 7 SP1
Nevertheless, it started much faster the first time....

EvilDragon wrote:

If I go to 256 it should be fine. Which buffer size are you on?

EDIT: At 256 samples buffer it chokes at ~400 voices. But I appreciate lower latency, so...

Running at Buffer 256, nominal latency 5.3 ms which feels about right for Pipe Organ.  The extra Cores (8 in my system) probably help a lot.

For sure, you have twice as many cores that I do! That would definitely help with Organteq.

Yep that's a slow CPU.

If I go to 256 it should be fine. Which buffer size are you on?

EDIT: At 256 samples buffer it chokes at ~400 voices. But I appreciate lower latency, so...

Running at Buffer 256, nominal latency 5.3 ms which feels about right for Pipe Organ.  The extra Cores (8 in my system) probably help a lot.

RME UFX+ over here too. 48 kHz at 128 samples buffer size. Maybe it's because of the buffer size. If I go to 256 it should be fine. Which buffer size are you on?

EDIT: At 256 samples buffer it chokes at ~400 voices. But I appreciate lower latency, so...

I tried that and my Duo-Capture EX instead of the built-in. Same result for me...
I suppose you know that pipe organs (especially mechanical ones) have huge latency so a larger buffer is actually more realistic here.

EDIT: At 256 samples buffer it chokes at ~400 voices. But I appreciate lower latency, so...

If you want to use full polyphony of 512 voices, indeed you want to have a beefy CPU. My i7-6700 is running at 4.5 GHz, and with multicore enabled it starts choking at around 300-320 voices... So yeah 9900K sounds like the ticket here.

My system does fine with 512 polyphony.  Intel Core i7-6900K @ 3.2 GHz, 8 cores.  Good ASIO Sound-Card by RME.