DiyLightAnimation
Software => Light Show Pro => Topic started by: Titus on December 29, 2011,
-
My desktop computer went up in smoke a few days ago and I need to buy a new one. I usually buy the cheapest new computer I can find and it is good for what i do for many years (the one that just died was $350 7 years ago and was just starting to get on my nerves). This new computer will likely be used for LSP sequencing and control of 5000+ smart string channels. I know that LSP lists pretty minimal system requirements, but would my user experience be greatly improved by a better CPU, lost of RAM, etc? I don't want to make my typical cheap bastard PC purchase if I will regret it once I start sequencing.
-
I used 2 different systems:
- icore7, 2.93ghz with SSD drives in RAID, and 64-bit Win7, and 24gb ram
- icore7, 3.4ghz with SSD drives in RAID, and 64-bit Win7, and 32gb ram
I wished both were faster.
And I still had out of memory issues was I did lots of transitions, exports, etc.
I was working with about 12000 channels.
-
Memory and processor speed will be key. I'm using a core i7 with 6gb RAM and it is slow.
-
I think the program is just inefficient in places, so you can only buy so much performance.
That LSP 2.0 is so much faster than is used to be.
I'll say this, that LOR S3 with 4300+ channels is also a total dog (slow).
I probably spent 10-15 seconds just to do a save.
This is one of the main reasons I want a 'group mode' for the SSC ... so we can
reduce the channel counts ... cause frankly, the software already can barely keep up
with shows with well under 16k channels.
-
Steve and jnealand, you guys are scaring me! lol
I think the program is just inefficient in places, so you can only buy so much performance.
taybrynn, that makes a lot of sense. They say the software will run with a 1.5g CPU and 1gb of ram, but it is still slow on Steve's Ferrari. I would be interested to here from someone that has worked with it on something like an i3 with 2gb and then with an i7 and 16gb of ram and could talk to how big of a difference there is. Shopping around, I see I can pick up an i5 2.8 ghz system with 8gb of RAM for $449, but the prices nearly double that to get in to an i7 system. :-\
-
Here are a couple of points to consider:
1.) Most aspects of LSP are single threaded in nature. On my i7, the MAXIMUM CPU you'll see while building transitions is 13% (1/8 th of the CPU) as the i7 has 4 hyper-threaded cores (each core appears as 2 to the OS, thus 4x2 = 8). For this application, you'll be bound by clock speed, not by the number of cores as only 1 will be in use for most processes. Occasionally during optimization, additional cores would fire up, but it's not all that often.
2.) Most out of memory issues are NOT system limited. The application can only provision roughly 1.25 GB of RAM. Once this ceiling is hit, the application will crash or create glitches. I had 8 GB of RAM this year and one instance of the application running did not TOUCH my available memory.
IF you're going to render / build a LOT of transitions, you can run MULTIPLE INSTANCES of LSP simultaneously. At one point, I had 7 or 8 instances of LSP running and that would consume 100% of the CPU and use 70% of my memory. That really only comes into play if you're doing several very long, processor intensive operations. If you're just sequencing (adding ramps, chases, etc.) then you'll not benefit from running multiple instances of LSP. In my case, I was generating effects for 4166 channels and on average, that would take between 5 - 15 minutes per section. I could easily open multiple isntances of LSP and begin the render process.
If I were building a machine for LSP, I'd look for something with a fast processor, fewer cores (the i3 or i5 series are fine for this) and 8 GB of RAM. I don't know that you need any more, and as cheap as RAM is, I don't know that you save very much by going down to 4 GB. I also don't know that you gain much by jumping to 16 GB unless LSP is significantly revamped to take advantage of multiple GB of memory.
Just my thoughts...
-
Sounds like great advice!
-
I did some 4000 channel sequences using a Pentium core2quad with 4GB and a 3 year old radeon card using win7, I will post the setup later.
Wasn't really fast but it wasn't pentium2 slow. No ssd or raid, just a simple Seagate barracuda hd, I think its around 7500 rpm.
You don't have to go all out, stick to last generation processors, no need to chase technology unless you are filthy rich and look out for deals!
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
-
It's funny how we count channels now like we counted lights two year ago. Some day I'm going to have more channels than lights. ;D
-
My crystal ball on this one is pretty cloudy. LSP 2.x appears to be a 32 bit single-threaded application ( for the most part).
If they go multi-threaded and 64 bit, it will be a completely different ball game.
I've put in my feature requests and bug reports through the bug icon in the program. I suggest anyone else who is using LSP do the same.
RM
-
My setup for sequencing is a AMD quad core 640 3.0Ghz with 4 gigs of memory running Windows 7 64bit. If David at LSP can put together a multi threaded version of LSP some of these problems will go away. I would recommend at least a quad core processor and minimum of 4 gigs memory although 8 would be better if you run WIN7 64.
-
I'm using a pretty cheap gateway computer from 2-3 years ago ... a quad core Pentium Core2 quad with 4GB ... probably a $500 system back then ... got it for $370 ... and its worked fine on LSP. I'm not calling it fast, but I'm not calling LOR S3 fast either ... its hard to compare them cause LSP does a lot more and does it differently. I'd buy a price point you can afford which meets certain minimum specs recommended by others here. I would not buy state of the art.
-
Basically the more channels you have the beefier computer you need. My old computer had no problem running my halloween show with only a couple hundred channels, but couldn't output fast enough at all with my Christmas show with rgb node megatree and a few thousand channels. I have an uber laptop now and LSP doesn't come near to pegging my i7 newest core processor and 12g of ram like others have said.
-
One other note - the scheduler was a problem for me. When I first created my sequences, I had my songs lined up, all my pixels configured, and rendered everything. I was rocking and rolling! I then loaded the songs into the scheduler the night before Thanksgiving - man, I was on TOP of the world! I got my shows optimized, and I fired up the scheduler. The first couple of shows played... and... nothing... Looked at the scheduler - out of memory. Whisky. Tango. Foxtrot!
I was up till 4:30 AM Thanksgiving morning re-creating ALL of my sequences to get rid of pixel control due to the large sequence size. (I had luckily thought ahead and put my pixel strands into hybrid mode - lifesaver!) Exported those simplified sequences, moved theose sequences to my Core2Duo machine (that I built this year JUST FOR XMAS), loaded into the scheduler, and the show stammered and stuttered. Moved back to the i7 and ran (albeit the day after Thanksgiving as I simply didn't have time to redo EVERYTHING in one day.) The Core2Duo was NOT ENOUGH - one of the two cores was pegged - 50% usage when running LSP scheduler. Even on my i7, I had the occasional audio hiccup due to processor constraints.
Fast forward a couple of weeks and xlights released a new version with the xseq file format. I recreated my sequences in LSP back into pixel control and exported in 30 second segments to LOR. I then modified my network settings and converted the 200 MB 30 second LOR files to xseq. I then combined (with Frank's help) my xseq files into 1 file. I could play that back on ANYTHING. Processor usage was back down to 1% - 2% MAX. Moved the show to the xmas machine and it's been a dream.
So... the lesson I learned was that the Scheduler uses a LOT of resources. If you're planning on playing back in the LSP scheduler, you better have some horsepower. If you're going to playback in xlights, you'll be fine with much lessor hardware. I hear the scheduler is going to be revamped this year, so that may change, but as of right now, it's going to take some cpu to get the show to play back without glitches.
-
Wow I can output 16,384 channels flawlessly. And I am not even using a computer! >:D
RJ
-
<fp.
And where were you 6 months ago, RJ? You're sittin' on a goldmine, Trebek!
-
Save some money on the computer and get an etherdongle and the conductor.
Here is an I7 system for $650 that should be more than enough.
http://www.xpbargains.com/index.php/send_deal/191729 (http://www.xpbargains.com/index.php/send_deal/191729)
-
That's why i'm not upgrading my PC, the money from the PC will go to more lights and conductor!
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
-
Wow I can output 16,384 channels flawlessly. And I am not even using a computer! >:D
RJ
Bet you don't have the .net framework loaded on that Pic32 either. :)
-
Save some money on the computer and get an etherdongle and the conductor.
Here is an I7 system for $650 that should be more than enough.
http://www.xpbargains.com/index.php/send_deal/191729 (http://www.xpbargains.com/index.php/send_deal/191729)
I was ready to pull the trigger on this but one of the coupon codes expired, and it ends up at $781.83 OTD.
-
Yes maestro!
-
Wow I can output 16,384 channels flawlessly. And I am not even using a computer! >:D
RJ
You may be able to output it, but what about creating the show?
-
Problem solved. Managed to snag a Dell Vostro 460 with i7-2600/4GB/500GB from the Dell outlet for $560 shipped. Should be a good basic PC that I can upgrade as needed.
-
I'm waiting til summer when PC prices drop a little.
Btw, I ran my show this year on a 10 yr old centrino desktop w 2gb of ram and a 20gb hard drive. Building shows was P A I N F U L. However once everything was done, the show ran fine. I had to export to LOR for one of my files and then reimport into LSP which was a real pita, but otherwise it was OK. I was not using transitions, matrices, or any of my smartstring pixels. I ran 80 channels of incans. Nothing spectacular. It was my first year so I figured I would start small.