Guys, While this isn't proof, doubles have long been just as efficient as floats, so I doubt you'll notice a significant performance difference (even on 10+ year old hardware).
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/417568/float-vs-double-performance On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Tommy Raz <[email protected]> wrote: > Jonathan, > Problem with that line of thought is not everyone runs LMMS on today's system. > LMMS runs fairly well on my 1998 machine. I hope trade-offs between precision > and performance can be made optional, as has been done so far in many ways. > > LMMS does so much in real-time that it is very sensitive to performance. Even > with a new system, I can see myself taking it to the limit on how many tracks > and effects I can pile onto it. > > Allowing a CPU/cache hit for greater precision would not be such an issue if > LMMS was less real-time sensitive. For example, imagine if there was a > feature > to render selected tracks to a new audio track (muting the original ones) it > would allow a workflow to get around hitting the CPU wall. Tweeking gets a > bit > complicated, as one would delete rendered track, unmute source tracks, tweek, > and re-render to new audio track. But that would allow users to do huge > projects. I remember using this feature often when I used to write with > Mackie > Tracktion. > --Tommy > > From: Jonathan Aquilina <[email protected]> >>toby with the processing power we have now a days it shouldnt hit >>performance badly. especially since cache size and speeds are getting >>quicker > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Tobias Doerffel > <[email protected]>wrote: >>> ...Changing internal processing sample format to >>> double definitely would be nice if it does not introduce performance >>> regressions (whichI fear due to double data rate and thus less CPU cache >>> efficiency)... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval > Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs > proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. > See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
