I just loaded a nice fat benchmark patch (based on smeck, the guitar processor) in a few different versions of Pd. I got no difference between Pd-0.46-7 and pd-0.47-1 ... however, in each version the "64 bit" compile ran in about 85% of the CPU load that the non-64-bit version did. Perhaps you're comparing 0.46 634 bit with 0.47 32 bit?
cheers Miller On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 09:19:35AM -0700, Miller Puckette wrote: > Yes, the whole thing is baffling, but I gather something changed from 0.46 > to 0.47 ... I've gt a coupld of benchmark patches I can try to see if I can > see what's going on. > > cheers > Miller > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:14:56PM +0200, cyrille henry wrote: > > > > > > Le 27/06/2016 11:58, Dario Sanfilippo a écrit : > > >Hi, Christof. > > > > > >It is a rather large project and relatively new, so I'd prefer not to > > >share it at this point as it still kind of a work in progress. I will try > > >putting together some test patches isolating some of the most used objects > > >and see if there's any significant change in the different PD versions > > >when instantiating many of them. > > > > > >Cyrille: I'm just using PD's Load Meter patch. The test I performed had > > >had just the patch on, without me doing anything. In 0.46-7, the average > > >CPU load when turning DSP on is around 40-50%, with peaks at about 60-70% > > >when acting on the patch. No dropouts experienced. In 0.47, the initial > > >CPU load is around 60% or more and it gets to the point of producing audio > > >dropouts when acting on the patch. So, empirically, 0.47 does seem to have > > >a different CPU load. > > > > > > > different cpu load: yes, but since you don't know the cpu frequency, you > > can't know if it's a higher load, a lower load, and if it's a significative > > change. > > > > > > >I can see the same behaviour by looking at Activity Monitor on OSX. I > > >wouldn't know how else to measure the CPU load, though. > > i'm afraid it's the same problem with activity monitor. > > > > cheers > > c > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks for your help, guys. > > > > > >Dario > > > > > > > > > > > >On 27 June 2016 at 10:00, cyrille henry <[email protected] > > ><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > hello, > > > > > > how are you doing cpu load measurement? > > > > > > I find it very hard to do reliable measurement of cpu load nowadays, > > > since computer have a variable cpu speed depending on load. > > > > > > For exemple, pd CPU load can be at 75%, with CPU frequency at 800MHz. > > > When increasing the patch complexities, the CPU frequency increase, and > > > the apparent load reported by pd decrease. > > > > > > On linux, you can bloc the processor to a fixed frequency, and then > > > make reliable load measurement. > > > But i don't know how to do than on OSX. Did you find a way? > > > otherwise, your measurement are useless. > > > > > > cheers > > > c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 27/06/2016 10:44, [email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > > Do you want to share your patch? I could test it on my machine > > > with 0.46 and 0.47 > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 26 Juni 2016 um 13:27:23 Uhr > > > Von: "Dario Sanfilippo" <[email protected] > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > An: pd-list <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > Betreff: [PD] Experiencing a higher CPU load with 0.47-0 and > > > 0.47-1. > > > Hi, list. > > > > > > I'm loading the same patch with 0.46-7, 0.47-0 and 0.47-1 - all > > > 64bit. The > > > last two have a significantly higher CPU load. I'm on OSX 10.11.5. > > > > > > Has any of you experienced anything similar? > > > > > > I haven't changed my [vd~] objects into [delread4~], are they > > > calling the > > > same piece of code? > > > > > > The patch is almost exclusively using signal objects, have some of > > > these > > > been modified in 0.47-0 and 0.47-1? > > > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > > > > Dario > > > _______________________________________________ > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> mailing list > > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> mailing list > > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >[email protected] mailing list > > >UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > >https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected] mailing list > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
