Since multi CPU is supported I just wanted to test it on a Mac Pro with Quad Xeon CPU’s and it evenly spreads the load 
Just wanted to let you know. Oh I’m not bragging here, the machine is not mine 
do you remember that old general topics thread about renoise cpu consumption on different systems, it had 2 benchmark test rns linked in it, maybe interesting for people with multiple core systems to run again and check the differences.
yeah that would be interesting to see.
heres the link to that thread:
http://www.renoise.com/board/index.php?sho…=benchmark+test
perhaps someone could bump the thread with results.
I’ll do some more tests but on a stock Mac Pro with the built in audiocard these are the results.
Renoise 1.9b2:
1 ms latency at 44.1 the total cpu was 25% No pops or crackles
I’m running a 2GHz Quad core Mac Pro w/ 2GB ram and 10.4.10, and I agree, the multi-core support is awesome. Checking with various demo songs from 1.9, using them in both 1.8 and 1.9, the CPU load is at depreciated by around a third to one half. Rotu, for example goes from pegging about 28% at its most complex in 1.8, to 13-14% in 1.9. I have been focusing on making transitions (while under workload) from different window snapshots and messing around with things. It works superb. I would be more than happy to help and test issues more thoroughly if anyone has an .xrns that has been problematic, I’d love to give it a whirl.
Is the performance of a quad core 2x that of a dual core?
I’ve read that this is difficult to achieve with the current Intel quads, since they are not ‘true’ quad core or something…
It is close to two times, but not quite. I was hoping to have 4x performance, considering that I would be using 3 extra processors, but it still is not there. I wonder how it is exactly dispersing the load. Is it spreading the channels and their plugins to different processors, or is it dividing the total load as sort of a master workload? Maybe need more ram to address the issue, with 2GBs it might not be enough to help, but I am populating four memory channels.
you’re not going to see a very linear performance increase by adding procs to an intel system. the FSB frequency cap and shared memory controller pipelines mean that more cpus leads to more congestion and queueing for access to hardware interrupts and memory.
i’d be interested in seeing a comparison of renoise performance test tracks in 1.9 on Intel and AMD SMP systems. My gut feeling is that a quad AMD Opteron rig would trounce an Intel System with similar specs.
not meaning to start an AMD/Intel flame war 
most performance comparisons I’ve seen on recent Intel vs. AMD boxen don’t look very good, but that doesn’t change the underlying design f****-ups of Intel’s Northbridge dependent architecture. Opteron/Athlons scale better. That’s why all the x86 computers in the Supercomputing Top 5 run AMD procs.
I agree on that. I am more of an AMD fan myself, but with Apple I don’t have much of a choice. It is some what of a conundrum, I really miss my PPC’s, especially with their new models coming out. I would just switch to Linux and build my own AMD boxes, but I already have a lot invested in Mac gear and software, not to mention I wouldn’t be able to run Renoise natively. The Intel rep I used to deal with always talked about how awesome it was that they had at least twice the cache, but in real world performance, AMD’s desktops are super competitive and seem snappier, and cheaper. I wish they would hurry up and put out the new processors. I am very curious to see what they have going.