CPU Performance issues in DAW

[Nutritious]

So since I've setup my home studio, I've been bouncing projects between my laptop and home desktop. Problem is, I'm not gettin nearly as good performance from my home desktop as my laptop. Before I go further, here are the specs:

Laptop:

Intel Dual Core T5600 @ 1.83 GHz

2 Gigs of Ram

Integrated Sound Card

Way loaded down with background processes (no control there)

Desktop:

AMD Dual Core 4600+

2.5 Gigs of Ram

Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS

Very few processes going, especially compared to laptop

From what I've read, the CPU's on both machines are pretty comparable in speed, however, the laptop is outperforming the desktop to the point where a song that I can stream fine (with high CPU utilization) on the laptop will cause terrible stuttering on the desktop. Anyone have any idea why the desktop is struggling so much? Anything I can do to help it out?

More (probably useless) information: Running FL Studio with ASIO drivers on both machines and latency set to highest in ASIO panel. Running quite a few different VST generators & effects in the project. For example, EWQLSO Silver with around 20 patches open via 4 instances, Sampletank 2L with 3 patches, Addictive Drums, a few VST synths and effects, and stock FL effects.

[zircon]

There are a few potential factors besides the processor that could be causing speed differences.

1. Operating system. Are they the exact same OS, same service pack version, same amount of updates?

2. Background software. Boot up both PCs and check the task manager before opening ANYTHING else. See how many processes (not tasks) are running as well as the total RAM usage. They should be the same, otherwise the comparison might be tainted.

3. Sound card. The ASIO drivers on one sound card can be a LOT better or worse than another. If you're comparing different soundcards, the comparison isn't accurate.

4. RAM speed. Maybe the desktop is using lower-quality RAM.

With regards to processor, somehow your laptop processor edges out the AMD according to CPUBenchmark.net, so that alone will result in something of a performance difference too.

[Ronyn]

I recently went from dual core to quad core, both AMD chips, many argue dual core is better but I had my reasons , here's what I learned:

Forget just speed, my programs actually started behaving differently for some tasks. In fact, I lost all ability to run GVI factory instruments anymore, now the app just crashes if I even try. Did some research and found that some AMD chips can be very audio unfriendly by design, due to architecture. You can try updating your chipset, may show some improvement, but from my research and your own post, seems like Intel chips are just better for audio.

And zirc is totally right about the OS. My dual chip ran 2-3 faster in windows vista than xp. Vista might have its issues but it can sure rock a dual core cpu.

[DZComposer]

AMD does not guarantee poor audio performance. I run a quad Phenom 9850 Black on an AMD chipset ASUS mobo, and I have yet to experience any performance or stability issues with any of the software I have. It blows the Athlon XP 64 3500+ that I used to use out of the water, though I didn't have any stability issues on that machine either (nVidia Chipset ASUS Mobo). I did max out that CPU with music, though, hence the reason I built the Phenom box. I don't use GVI stuff, so I can't tell you anything there, but you may want to contact GVI's manufacturer is see if they have a patch or something.

As far as the OP, I would seriously consider looking at the Audigy 2 as the culprit. I used to use one and had nothing but performance issues with it for ASIO stuff. Steer away from Creative if you can. When building future machines, buy an "Audio Interface" instead of a "Sound Card." The former will serve your music a lot better as they are tuned for audio production. Sound Cards are usually either tuned for general audio playback, watching movies, or playing games. Audio production is usually just an afterthought.

[suzumebachi]

I would seriously consider looking at the Audigy 2 as the culprit.

This. I've probably said it 500 times, but god damn, Audigys are probably the worst cards ever for music. Out of curiosity, are you using ASIO4All?

On the off chance that the Audigy isn't the culprit, other possibilities would be your RAM, like Andy mentioned, or, especially your hard drive since you're using so many disk streaming samples (EWQLSOSE).

[Nutritious]

Thanks for the replies, guys.

1. Operating system. Are they the exact same OS, same service pack version, same amount of updates?

2. Background software. Boot up both PCs and check the task manager before opening ANYTHING else. See how many processes (not tasks) are running as well as the total RAM usage. They should be the same, otherwise the comparison might be tainted.

3. Sound card. The ASIO drivers on one sound card can be a LOT better or worse than another. If you're comparing different soundcards, the comparison isn't accurate.

4. RAM speed. Maybe the desktop is using lower-quality RAM.

Answers:

1. No, my home desktop is xp SP3 with all updates, the laptop is only up to SP2.

2. It's true that there is a vast difference in the number of processes running. IIRC my desktop is running somewhwere in the 20's while my laptop is in the 60's. It is lopsided, but AGAINST the better performing computer.

4. Desktop is running PC3200 ram, but I have no idea on the laptop.

This. I've probably said it 500 times, but god damn, Audigys are probably the worst cards ever for music. Out of curiosity, are you using ASIO4All?

On the off chance that the Audigy isn't the culprit, other possibilities would be your RAM, like Andy mentioned, or, especially your hard drive since you're using so many disk streaming samples (EWQLSOSE).

Yes, I'm using ASIO4ALL. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the sound card, I got it years ago before I was even into mixing. Kinda sad that an integrated card in my laptop could be outperforming the Audigy (yeah, I know it's apples to oranges, but still).

Anyway, I guess my next steps are to look into a new soundcard and possibly a faster RPM hard drive, perhaps a SATA? (I have the mobo links and a new power supply that supports it). Getting faster RAM isn't an option, I believe, since I doubt the motherboard could support it. If that's the bottleneck, though, I'll be really disappointed.

[Ronyn]

AMD does not guarantee poor audio performance. I run a quad Phenom 9850 Black on an AMD chipset ASUS mobo, and I have yet to experience any performance or stability issues with any of the software I have. It blows the Athlon XP 64 3500+ that I used to use out of the water, though I didn't have any stability issues on that machine either (nVidia Chipset ASUS Mobo). I did max out that CPU with music, though, hence the reason I built the Phenom box. I don't use GVI stuff, so I can't tell you anything there, but you may want to contact GVI's manufacturer is see if they have a patch or something.

Oh I didn't quite mean that, I still prefer an AMD chip to Intel myself, don't mean to outright slam AMD. But in my case for instance, it's the original GVI; the last update to that software was years ago. Tascam would have to re-patch that old software to make it work for some new chips, in my case a Phenom 2.5 GHz, and you can bet they won't, ever. That's all I mean: using AMD opens you up to crap like that. Lucky for me, I didn't care about those intruments anyway, but had to figure it out to find out why old projects stopped loading after I updated my CPU. With Intel you don't hear so many complaints from audio enthusiasts, at least not on the boards I've seen.

[zircon]

I honestly don't know what to tell you, except that it's either the soundcard or just a crappy processor for audio. If you can get a 7200 RPM hard drive that might help, but huge performance differences stemming from that seem unlikely.