# K3.5 KSP still slower than K2.2.4



## Big Bob (Apr 21, 2009)

I just reran my compute-bound execution time benchmark on K3.5 and find *no improvement in speed over that of K3.02*. K3.5 still takes about 133% of the time taken by K2.2.4 to run the same benchmark.

Bummer!!!

Bob


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 21, 2009)

Will this have any effect on performance?
I am going to 64 bit w/ Bidule and 3.5. but I won't be loading anything but rather switching MIDI Channels and zones.
Hopefully this doesn't relate to accessability of content, as in streaming, or in the case of instruments that require being loaded into RAM for more realtime control.
I have to say one thing, the idea of NI having the public BETA before releasing it is the way I like to see developements.
I wish more companies would have this approach, especially with customers who have already made an investment.


----------



## Big Bob (Apr 21, 2009)

> Will this have any effect on performance?



Only if you are using instruments that are very 'script-intensive'. The KSP generally is very fast but if you have scripts that need to execute a lot of compute-bound processes, all this stuff adds up. Since K3 is typically only 75% as fast K2, things will 'pile up' that much sooner.

For example, one of my benchmark tests executes my Math Library cube-root routine 10 million times. With K2 this takes about 15 secsonds but with K3 it takes 20+ seconds.

I was hoping that K3.5 would be faster than K3.02, preferably as fast as K2.2 but unfortunately, there is no improvement in KSP execution time going from K3.02 to K3.5.

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## Stevie (Apr 21, 2009)

Did you test the 32bit or the 64bit version?
That would be interesting to know, if there's an improvement bit-wise.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 21, 2009)

That's just great I am ordering a 12GB DAW customized especially for Kontakt 3.5 with fast 1600-2000 RAM w/ CL8 timings just so I can make 3.5 as fast as K2.... :roll: 
I have been sneaking in to Kontakt by making a few good K2P purchases as I migrate away from Giga/GVI.
I decided to take the 64bit plunge so for live I am sure I will be O.K.
By the time I learn how to migrate from hardware sequencers, multutrack & Tape they might have a fix. 
I wish there were more live performance type of scripts available, until then my hardware MIDI tricks for keyswitches will have to do.
I do find all of this stuff fascinating, and this forum is quite informative.

And thanks again for all of your help too Brotha'Man Big Bob.


----------



## Stevie (Apr 22, 2009)

Hey Bob!

Well I don't have XP32 installed anymore. But I could test the 32bit and 64bit 
version of Kontakt 3.5 and Kontakt 3 on my machine.
Feel free to kontakt me (pun intended hehe!) if you like.

Cheers,

Stevie


----------



## Big Bob (Apr 22, 2009)

Hey Stevie,

Thanks for running these tests. On my computer, running Kontakt standalone, the benchmark runs in about 20 seconds with K3.02 and about 21 secs with K3.5 (32-bit). For comparison, under the same conditions, K2 runs the benchmark in about 15 secs.

Both your data and mine indicate that K3.5 (32-bit) runs a bit slower than K3.02. On my computer its about 5% slower (ie 21/20) whereas your data indicates about a 2.6% slowdown. To be honest my 20 sec data may not have been taken as precisely, but, I don't want to reload my 3.02 image right now to check it. So, it's even possible that my slowdown from 3.02 to 3.5 (32) might be about the same as yours. I'll verify that if I ever reload 3.02 on the same computer.

However, I think we can summarize our findings as follows: the KSP runs about the same speed with K3.5 as it did with K3.02. K3.5 32-bit is about 3% slower and K3.5 64-bit is about 3% faster than K3.02.

On the other hand, so far at least, the KSP in K3 seems to be running noticeably slower than for K2.2. K3 needs about 133% of the time used by K2 to run the benchmark.

On the NI Forum I reported that K3.02 and K3.5 run pretty much the same but noticeably slower than K2.2 (and that statement seems to be a reasonable approximation of reality :wink: ). 



> Although, after having closed Kontakt and re-opened, this phenomenon did not re-appear and I had the results as shown above.
> I'm not sure what caused this.



I have no idea either, I guess we'll just have to chalk it up to things that go bump in the night. :lol: 

Anyway, thanks again Stevie for running these benchmark tests.

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## Fernando Warez (Apr 22, 2009)

Is this why SIPS seem to be less responsive in K3?


----------



## Big Bob (Apr 22, 2009)

Fernando Warez @ Wed Apr 22 said:


> Is this why SIPS seem to be less responsive in K3?



I don't really know Fernando since I have not been using K3 (been waitng for them to get it right). While a 33% reduction in KSP speed could conceivably be noticeable in some way, it seems rather unlikely unless you are running with everything pushed to the limit.

Perhaps if any others are running SIPS on K3 they could chime in here. What version of SIPS are you running, 205 or 151?

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## Stevie (Apr 23, 2009)

Big Bob @ Thu Apr 23 said:


> Thanks for running these tests.



You're welcome! I was eager to see how fast it is, too 



Big Bob @ Thu Apr 23 said:


> Both your data and mine indicate that K3.5 (32-bit) runs a bit slower than K3.02. On my computer its about 5% slower (ie 21/20) whereas your data indicates about a 2.6% slowdown. To be honest my 20 sec data may not have been taken as precisely, but, I don't want to reload my 3.02 image right now to check it. So, it's even possible that my slowdown from 3.02 to 3.5 (32) might be about the same as yours. I'll verify that if I ever reload 3.02 on the same computer.



Yep, I would definitely say it is proportional to your results.



> I have no idea either, I guess we'll just have to chalk it up to things that go bump in the night. :lol:



:lol: yeah, something went definitely nuts here 



> Anyway, thanks again Stevie for running these benchmark tests.



No problem, get back to me, if you have anything to test.
I'm glad to help out.

Let's hope NI can improve the KSP a bit for the next Beta!
*crossing my fingers*


Cheers,

Stevie


----------



## tmhuud (Apr 29, 2009)

Like to add a nod of thnx to you guys for these tests as well.


----------



## Big Bob (Apr 30, 2009)

> Let's hope NI can improve the KSP a bit for the next Beta!
> *crossing my fingers*
> 
> 
> ...



For what it's worth, I received a PM from Frank at NI asking me for one of my benchmark scripts. I presume this means that they will at least look into the cause of the KSP slowdown. So, let's continue to hope that they can speed it up before the 'official' release. 8) 



> Like to add a nod of thnx to you guys for these tests as well.



Your welcome Terry, it's a rotten job, but someone's got to do it :lol: 

God Bless,

Bob


----------



## Thonex (Apr 30, 2009)

Big Bob @ Thu Apr 30 said:


> For what it's worth, I received a PM from Frank at NI asking me for one of my benchmark scripts. I presume this means that they will at least look into the cause of the KSP slowdown. So, let's continue to hope that they can speed it up before the 'official' release. 8)



Wow Bob... that's great news.

Now they'll be able to experience the good ol' fashioned mil spec testing that we call "Bob" :D :D


----------



## Stevie (Apr 30, 2009)

Bob, that's awesome news! Looking forward :D


----------

