Beta 4 can’t play the test at 10 ms latency on my machine. It was struggling in beta 3. Seems to have gotten a bit worse?
Performance wise nothing should have changed in b4. The Bus Compressor is a little bit faster now, but thats it…
Whats the CPU value for 30 ms on beta 4 then?
I tested again today, I got the same as beta 3 now.
Yesterday, this was not the case. Yet, 1.8 run yesterday was doing fine.
I blame voodoo. 
And what about quad core cpu’s, like the Q6600? Does it perform better than a dual core E6600 in renoise?
it should.
CPU_LOAD_BENCH.rns on beta5
DirectSound
Sample rate 44100
Latency 5 ms
Hit: Between 14 and 14.5/100
Config: Q6600, 2G ram, motherboard integrated sound.
Not bad!!! 
@kazaroval
i guess that’s @4x2.4Ghz?
could you please also post your 1 CPU performance, so that we get an idea of the speedup factor for quads?
Yes 4x2.4Ghz
With 1 cpu : between 31-32
2 cpu : 21
4 cpu : 14.5
Mine breaks down crying at the sight of these files.
CPU_LOAD_BENCH.rns on beta5
I tried with an higher latency
DirectSound
Sample rate 44100
Latency at 35 ms
1 cpu 31%
4 cpu 11%
Nearly X3
Config: Q6600, 2G ram, motherboard integrated sound.
Hi,
I wanted to see the spread between the different cores so i lauched the tasks manager and i was a little surprised, while renoise show 11% in cpu usage, the task manager show between 0 and 1% 
Maybe someone can explain this? 
CPU_LOAD_BENCH.rns
Renoise 1.9b6 (4 CPU) : Peaks at 8.5%
Rock and roll.
@tnt97
damned quads! nice result! 
that’s 3,2Ghz at default Vcore?
would love to know your system’s power consumption 
Yes, 3.2GHz with default Vcore.
Maybe I can hit >3.5GHz with more voltage, but havent bothered trying it yet.
Satisfied with this clock speed.
Edit: This is with G0 stepping.
how is the sound / fan noise emitting from these quadcore machines? Is it comparableto to a vacume-cleaner?
This system is most silent one Ive ever had.
I cant hear any difference between core2duo and core2quad.
I feel your pain… but at least this thread will be a good reference if/when I can finally afford to build a new machine. I would be nice if the tests were all done at a standard latency like say 11ms, as a previous post suggested… some people don’t even list their latency and that can obviously have a pretty significant impact on CPU usage. I also second the idea of a built-in benchmark function to simplify and standardize this kind of thing… doesn’t seem like it would be that difficult to add.
Ok, I bought some hardware and rebuilded my PC into some kind of monster:
My previous configuration was:
iP4 2.6 @ 2.9 GHz, 1 GB DDR 400 MHz… blah, blah… and M-Audio Audiophile 24/96
Today my PC is based on:
Intel Quad Core 6600 and 4 GB of DDR2 800… blah blah… and the same M-audio unit
This configuration is almost 100% pasive cooled system with two silent chassis fans.
I performed benchmark tests on both configurations, and overclocked Q6600 to 3.02 GHz without loss of CAS-Latency timings.
Ok, Renoise 1.9 latest beta (8) - 44 kHz, 256 samples, ASIO Latency 5 ms
The results (top peak usage) are…
CPU_BENCH with native dsp
Pentium 4 2.92 GHz - 76.7%
Q6600 2.40 GHz - 12.3%
Q6600 2.4 > 3.02 GHz - 8.51%
My own arrange with multiple instances od glitch, metallurgy and antress plugins
Pentium 4 2.92 GHz - 88.4%
Q6600 2.40 GHz - 15.2%
Q6600 2.4 > 3.02 GHz - 11.6%
Looks like, the main boost comes from the cores, not from the “old” clock 
System :
Acer Aspire 5633wlmi notebook
Intel core 2 duo t550
1.66ghz cpu(s) 667mhz fsb 2mb l2 cache 2 gig ram 120 gig hd
Using on board realtek HD sound with Asio4all : (untill i can afford an indigo soundcard)
Cpu_load_bench running with 2 cpu suport :
latency
At 1.5 ms cpu load 40.9
At 5.8 ms cpu load : 30.5
At 17 ms cpu load :25.3
Test :
At 1.5 cpu load is between 45 and 60 and sound is crackly
At 5.8 ms cpu load 45.3
Just tried it at 11.6 no noticeable change
then at 20.6 and cpu load dropped to about 41.2
Hope that helps