-psycledelics- (http://psycle.pastnotecut.org/index.php)
|- TIPS BOARD (http://psycle.pastnotecut.org/board.php?boardid=3)
|-- computer power (http://psycle.pastnotecut.org/threadid.php?boardid=3&threadid=35)


From mislead on 03.12.2001, 23:47:

computer power

is a P3 266 with 256 mb of ram enough to handle psycle and a bit of vst?

im currently running a mac and am looking for a 'cheap' change and the ideas of psycle/buzz appeal to me.


From FingerSoup on 04.12.2001, 05:42:

 

I run a PII 300 with 192MB ram, and it runs fine... Only had problems with 1 or 2 songs posted here. In worst cases, you can "record" to WAV file, and the WAV will render cleanly.

I have heard other people use a PII 233 overclocked to 266, running fairly well, but I haven't seen it. You should be fine.

I didn't think P3's ran at 233... I thought P3's started at 400... Oh well, no big deal... a P3 should run Psycle, no problem.


__________________
I thought you beat the inevitability of death to death, just a little bit...


From Pikari on 04.12.2001, 09:09:

 

I make my songs with my Celeron 400, 64mB ram. I guess Psycle eats more CPU power than ram.

Usually songs with huge samples or much reverb (according to Tao ) are problems for older CPUs.


__________________
Pik - the master of short and unclear messages.


From FingerSoup on 05.12.2001, 18:19:

 

Huge samples are a download/bandwidth or memory problem usually... I haven't had any problems loading huge 45 second guitar samples into Psycle. Reverb IS a CPU eater. The only songs I have trouble playing, are the ones with LOTS of reverb...


__________________
I thought you beat the inevitability of death to death, just a little bit...


From mislead on 05.12.2001, 23:47:

 

Cool, looks like i'll be picking up the computer then..

"I didn't think P3's ran at 233... I thought P3's started at 400... Oh well, no big deal... a P3 should run Psycle, no problem."

Im not to sure, but ill have to check it out before i get it anyway.

Thanks.


From Pikari on 06.12.2001, 16:14:

 

quote:
Original by FingerSoup
Huge samples are a download/bandwidth or memory problem usually...



80 mb song needs much CPU, for sure! I have tested it (used 2 min long guitar samples)


__________________
Pik - the master of short and unclear messages.


From Breakthru on 08.12.2001, 23:36:

 

the amount of RAM is very important and upgrading it will make a noticiable improvement in performance.

One thing is true, the more power your computer has and the more you'll be able to "play" with effects... For example I like to mix fx together to obtain some particular "texture" (sometimes nothing extraordinary but very different from the source sound). That's why I reach the full power of my Athlon 650 in most of my projects...
I guess the power you need depends more on what "kind" of composer you are...


__________________
Breakthru


From liquid boy on 20.07.2004, 02:31:

 

if you chuck windows 95 (rc 2 i think was the one to get) it'll fly
i tried win95 on my 260 mhz 64mb ram laptop, and it was as fast, if not faster than running windows 98se on a 1.3 gig 256mb ram computer (thats not a scientific experiment btw... )


__________________
www.chinfacerecords.tumblr.com


From SmG on 11.06.2005, 18:57:

 

quote:
Original by Pikari

(...)
Usually songs with huge samples or much reverb (according to Tao ) are problems for older CPUs.




...and delay!


From DMNXS on 21.06.2005, 12:09:

 

quote:
Original by SmG
[QUOTE]Original by Pikari

(...)
Usually songs with huge samples or much reverb (according to Tao ) are problems for older CPUs.




...and delay!
[/QUOTE]
...and pretty much every other CPU hungry effect !

Powered by: Burning Board 1.0 Beta 4.5eEnglish Translation by AnnaFan
Copyright 2001 by WoltLab