• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Topic: So... Memory - Whats the deal?

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    So... Memory - Whats the deal?

    I was wondering if any of you had tried make a template in GS3 which was similar or identical to GS2.5, and how the two are compared?

    Would be really cool if we got more juice out of our ram.

    So, experiences?

  2. #2

    Re: So... Memory - Whats the deal?

    *bump*

  3. #3

    Re: So... Memory - Whats the deal?

    Just to stop the 'Bump"
    I did set up the same template as what I had in GS160,and now in GS3 Orchestra. Some of the samples had to be the same, because GS3 did not come with all instruments I used in GS2.5.
    As you know, GS160 did not show memory useage,only the CPU, so I do not know what the memory useage was in GS160, the CPU used to be 50%.
    GS3 is new enough and I am not so good at "computering", so I do not know if this is weird or not, but my memory useage now is 10%, my CPU is 60% with no Gigapulse at all. I have a Pentium 4, and 2 megs of memory, Pentium mobo.

  4. #4

    Re: So... Memory - Whats the deal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Vanya
    ...As you know, GS160 did not show memory useage,only the CPU,...
    Huh?

    Gigastudio 2.54 (and before) clearly displays both memory load as well as CPU load. CPU is around or below 5% when you do not play back anything. Are you confusing some readings here?

    I agree that this might be a very informative comparison for potential upgraders! If I need to pay for the update, as well as for changes to the PC (Ram, OS) I'd like to see some basic performance gains as well, besided all the "new" features".

    Cheers,

  5. #5

    Re: So... Memory - Whats the deal?

    Very clearly getting more instruments loaded in gs3 versus gs2.5. I had several templates which filled my 2.5 to 98-99% (1 gigabyte ram). These now load to about 50-55%. Thus, in a way, the cost of the upgrade was around the same as buying new ram. (Though I still am tempted by new ram anyway).

    As an example, one gsp I use loads 82 vocal instruments from VOTA. It filled my gs2.5 memory; now it takes 47% of gs3. (I have NOT resaved any of these gig files in gs3 editor, however, see below).

    One odd effect: if you load gig files 'untouched' by the gs3 editor, they take up less space than if you load the same files after they have been altered and saved new by the gs3 editor. Not a large difference, but a few percent.

  6. #6

    Re: So... Memory - Whats the deal?

    If that is after upgrading from GST 2.5 under XP to GST 3 under XP, that's good news, at least for the XP users...

    I am still running GST 2.5 on Windows 98SE with 1 Gb Ram. It's apples and oranges but I am very interested if GST 3 under XP can now load the same amount of instruments as the old GST 2.5 / 98 situation...

  7. #7

    Re: So... Memory - Whats the deal?

    I'm finding just the opposite. Although this could be due to the fact that I'm not using the latest GS3 drivers because they're not out yet. I have a Sony Vaio laptop, 1.7 Ghz. with 1 GB RAM and the Echo Mona audio interface.
    With GS3 open and nothing loaded my CPU is at 15-16%. Before, with GS2
    it was at 5-7%.

    When I load a program the CPU is at 20-25%. Before (with GS2) it was at about 10%. I'm hoping this is just because of the drivers. Echo says that the new drivers for GS3 (Mona and Layla) will be out within a few days.

    Tom

  8. #8

    Re: So... Memory - Whats the deal?

    Interesting topic, though I'd like to remind all also to post the OS they're using/used for their GS setup. It does make difference between 98SE/2k/XP.

    Also there are rumours that GS3 can handle more than 2GB "only". Anybody have figures how much of it can be used when going above that (a previous limit for GS2.5)? I think the reason could be a slightly different memory managament that also results in the smaller amount of RAM taken by templates like described above.

    PolarBear

  9. #9

    Re: So... Memory - Whats the deal?

    wolfetho, my measurements are for Memory use, not CPU use - I never look at the cpu since it is always small enough to ignore -- just checked, my cpu is at 8% with memory at 73 %. Gigapulse adds dramatically to cpu, however -- I just haven't begun using it regularly.

    All (almost all) gigastudio 3's are on xp, I think.

    My setup: Win XP Pro, ASUS P4C800 Deluxe, PIV 2.8GHz, 1 Gb Ram (800 MHz?), M-AUdio 24/96, gigabit lan, midi-utilities-for-windows (homemade) midi over lan carrying 8 ports of midi from my sequencer computer, M-audio 2x4 USB for extra midi (little used now that the LAN works solidly).

    Sonar 3PE as sequencer on 2nd pc, midi yoke + midi utitlities for 8 LAN midi ports, samplitude 7.22 as audio recording program sharing pc with gigastudio.

    For current project, orchestral overture, using 68 midi tracks in sonar and 3 different gs3 gsp files (can't hold them all at the same time). 27 audio tracks in samplitude so far, still adding more trying to master eq and reverb there.

  10. #10

    Re: So... Memory - Whats the deal?

    Quote Originally Posted by PolarBear
    Also there are rumours that GS3 can handle more than 2GB "only". Anybody have figures how much of it can be used when going above that (a previous limit for GS2.5)? I think the reason could be a slightly different memory managament that also results in the smaller amount of RAM taken by templates like described above.
    first of all i would say its more in the 33% range. all my testings had the result that i was able to load about 30% more into ram compared to GS2.5.

    GS3 can not handle more than 2gb! its actually the opposite. as a few member here mentioned in other threads it seems that GS3 has even problems with more then 1GB of ram
    here is what hapends:

    a) even you leave you system untouched and you are only able to load something like 4565% into ram or

    b) you modify the 4 different pagepool parameters and go beyond this percentage BUT if you go beyond a given number its just crashing gigastudio with a bsod which is not a nice thing in both ways.

    i have not checked if the amount you can load in in scenario a) is actually the same as you could load into 2gb under vs. 2.5

    anyone tested this?
    is anyone getting 99% using 2 gb of ram??? i guess not.

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •