Login

Should one always use CUDA?

Tips & tricks, working results, technical support

Should one always use CUDA?

Postby ericzang » Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:05 pm

I've just gotten cuda going and I see the cpu load advantages. I was wondering are there any situations where it is not helpful to use cuda, or no practical advantage?

Also, I saw in some years old forum posts one of the devs wrote that it was good for reverb and eq, but not for tapes or preamps. Is this still true? He wrote that he'd be looking into improving that.

Thanks
ericzang
User Level III
User Level III
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Should one always use CUDA?

Postby jorismak » Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:57 am

No improvements have been reported, by the devs or by users. Visa only works if the nebula program uses long kernels (> 100ms I believe) and uses the same kernels lengths.

This makes it very useful for long reverb tails which eat a lot of cpu otherwise.

If you have a good recent intel i5 or i7, it doesn't really pay to use cuda most of the time.

(except for that one long reverb bus you might have set up :)
jorismak
Member
Member
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:49 am

Re: Should one always use CUDA?

Postby ericzang » Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:24 pm

ok thanks for the clarification, yes I have an i7. I'll use it for the reverbs.
ericzang
User Level III
User Level III
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Should one always use CUDA?

Postby dagovitsj » Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:36 pm

Hi!
Just an important note about the settings if you're using CUDA:
RATE CNV: 9000.00 ms
DSPBUFFER: 8192

I did some tests with my GPU-card (se my signature) and found that there was a significant difference in how many CUDA reverbs I could run depending on the DSPBUFFER:
- with 1024, one instance used 28%,
- with 2048 it was down to 14%,
- with 4096 it was down to 7% etc!

I reallly recommend to use CUDA for those who can, cause running 2-3 instances of Nebula reverbs (EAR, EMT etc) can really be a CPU-hog :D
|Win 7-64bit | Reaper 4. x64, Cubase 6.5.3., 64 & 32 bit | RAM:16 GB | CPU: Intel Core i5 760@ 2,8 GHz | Samsung SSD 830 (256 GB) | WD: Black harddisks | Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT Graphics Accelerator | Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD4 |Nebula 3 Pro |
dagovitsj
Vip Member
Vip Member
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:25 pm

Re: Should one always use CUDA?

Postby pleplo » Wed Dec 10, 2014 5:39 am

dagovitsj wrote:Hi!
Just an important note about the settings if you're using CUDA:
RATE CNV: 9000.00 ms
DSPBUFFER: 8192

I did some tests with my GPU-card (se my signature) and found that there was a significant difference in how many CUDA reverbs I could run depending on the DSPBUFFER:
- with 1024, one instance used 28%,
- with 2048 it was down to 14%,
- with 4096 it was down to 7% etc!

I reallly recommend to use CUDA for those who can, cause running 2-3 instances of Nebula reverbs (EAR, EMT etc) can really be a CPU-hog :D


cool but I heard that higher the DSP buffer you get less quality. is that true?
Plajia new album Piggie Park out NOW. (Pronounced plah-gee-ah) We make music, fock a genre. On Spotify and Bandcamp www.plajia.com
User avatar
pleplo
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:08 pm
Location: Montréal, Canada

Re: Should one always use CUDA?

Postby dagovitsj » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:02 am

pleplo wrote:
dagovitsj wrote:Hi!
Just an important note about the settings if you're using CUDA:
RATE CNV: 9000.00 ms
DSPBUFFER: 8192

I did some tests with my GPU-card (se my signature) and found that there was a significant difference in how many CUDA reverbs I could run depending on the DSPBUFFER:
- with 1024, one instance used 28%,
- with 2048 it was down to 14%,
- with 4096 it was down to 7% etc!

I reallly recommend to use CUDA for those who can, cause running 2-3 instances of Nebula reverbs (EAR, EMT etc) can really be a CPU-hog :D


cool but I heard that higher the DSP buffer you get less quality. is that true?


Hi peplo! On the contrary. The DSP buffer is a kind of internal latency compensation according to Giancarlo, see this thread where I asked specifically about the difference between ASIO buffer and DSP buffer:
http://www.acustica-audio.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=28341&p=73994&hilit=dspbuffer#p73994

And the answer from Giancarlo here:
yes exacly, asio buffer is your buffer, while the dspbuffer is just about latency compensation. They are different things.
|Win 7-64bit | Reaper 4. x64, Cubase 6.5.3., 64 & 32 bit | RAM:16 GB | CPU: Intel Core i5 760@ 2,8 GHz | Samsung SSD 830 (256 GB) | WD: Black harddisks | Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT Graphics Accelerator | Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD4 |Nebula 3 Pro |
dagovitsj
Vip Member
Vip Member
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 7:25 pm

Re: Should one always use CUDA?

Postby pleplo » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:33 am

Cool so it should not lower the quality of nebula sound if I set nebula dsp buffer to 4096 or even 8192 (max) cause im working on a huge project that is already mixed using lots of nebula instance of eq, tape, comp, huge nebula reverbs, etc.. and my CPU is crying.

will it make a difference if I set to high buffer to finishing adjusting the mix and when I want to bounce I reduce de DSP buffer for render/bounce or it wont change the sound?

thank you :)
Patrick
Plajia new album Piggie Park out NOW. (Pronounced plah-gee-ah) We make music, fock a genre. On Spotify and Bandcamp www.plajia.com
User avatar
pleplo
User Level XI
User Level XI
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:08 pm
Location: Montréal, Canada


Return to Working with Nebula

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests