CPU efficiency: Sonar 5 better or worse?

[jamie_drum]

I have noticed from other posts that some people find Sonar 5 to be more CPU efficient that Sonar 4. Other people find the opposite. I find Sonar 5 to be slower and use more CPU, although I like it in other respects! What do you think?

 

[Twitch]

I have never used Sonar 4 but I have no problems with Sonar 5

 

[Mindset Enterta]

My mixing computer is powered with a slow AMD Sempron 64 2800+ with 768mb of DDR memory, and a Audiophile 24/96 and it runs fine, the only thing that I needed to do was up the buffer's because of clipping that occured with the program when I was recording.

 

[drathbun]

Here is an announcement from Cakewalk regarding the CPU efficiency of Sonar 5.2 versus 5.0.1.

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=750994

 

[jaykeMURD]

Sonar 5 seemed to be better about loading the CPU. What about running in 64-bit!?

 

[cortexx]

As far as 64 bit processors go right now there arn't any, The processors you think are 64 bit are actually fast 32 bit processors witha 64 bit instruction layer incorporated into it so it can run 64 bit code.

The only full blown 64 bit processor was the Intel Itanium and its not used much if at all because a true 64 bit processor cannot run 32 bit code.

Making use of the 64 bit layer is only going to happen if the software is written to take advantage of these extra instuctions, if it does not use the 64 bit instruction set you are not going to get an advantage in any way, shape or form.

Another thing is the much hyped dual core processors. They are only at an advantage if you are using software that takes advantage of the dual core setup, if your software is written in a conventional manner for single core processors you will gain no benefit. The "dual core" hype runs deep and it is about as useful to the average joe as a chocolate teapot.

Hope that helps some of you understand CPU usage .

If sonar 5 is not written to take advantage of dual core or/and 64 bit instruction set it will make no difference.