Re: Display and CPU
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:41 pm
So... As promised here are my findings.
What I was trying to do is cut down CPU on FFT display, original starting point is two stock FFT displays put together, one for each channel. CPU reading was 21% (not DAW or F.S. CPU reading but windows CPU reading, as explained above).
* going from multiple Tick_25 to single Tick_25 and 'wireless out' to all draw/redraw modules - 21% [no effect]
* Cutting Ticker (trigger divide) by 2 (still good speed) - 13%
* Cut out one of the 'stock FFT display' and combine both 'lines' into a stereo display - 10%
* Cut out all 'grid' and 'background' from redraw area (just paste it on top of static background) - 6%
* Cut down vector (array) size to 400 (from 16000, still fine resolutiuon for EQ background) brought it down to 4%
So, CPU is cut down from 21% to 4%, resolution is lower but acceptable to my mind. Still higher than 'market VST' EQ's which run FFT displays in background...
The last version is attached, for anyone to use.
Thanks for the help !
What I was trying to do is cut down CPU on FFT display, original starting point is two stock FFT displays put together, one for each channel. CPU reading was 21% (not DAW or F.S. CPU reading but windows CPU reading, as explained above).
* going from multiple Tick_25 to single Tick_25 and 'wireless out' to all draw/redraw modules - 21% [no effect]
* Cutting Ticker (trigger divide) by 2 (still good speed) - 13%
* Cut out one of the 'stock FFT display' and combine both 'lines' into a stereo display - 10%
* Cut out all 'grid' and 'background' from redraw area (just paste it on top of static background) - 6%
* Cut down vector (array) size to 400 (from 16000, still fine resolutiuon for EQ background) brought it down to 4%
So, CPU is cut down from 21% to 4%, resolution is lower but acceptable to my mind. Still higher than 'market VST' EQ's which run FFT displays in background...
The last version is attached, for anyone to use.
Thanks for the help !