Changing a GPU to improve performance?

Dorico
1

Hello,

I use Dorico a lot since I got it a few months ago. It’s one of my favourite audio software (and I own dozens). However, I don’t feel completely comfortable because it lags a bit on my computer. I wonder if changing my GPU will be a good improvement.

I have a PC with the following config:

  • Asus TUF Gaming B550+
  • AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
  • 32 GB RAM at 2666 MHz
  • NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

This GPU is not so powerful compared to the other elements. I knew it when I mounted the PC in 2021 (but it was the crisis, and I spent 500+ euros on it).

All other audio software runs smoothly, so I suspect Dorico requires more sophisticated specifications.

I’m looking at an RTX 5060 Ti, but I’d like to know what you think about it. It’s difficult to predict the result without testing before buying.

Thank you,

Cyril.

2

Hi Cyrdel!

Is the RAM 4 sticks or 2?

Cheers,
Benji

3

This thread from Daniel is a bit old, but probably still holds true:

In short: any lag caused by large projects, and score recalculation for things like expression map usage, condensing and other significant tasks are not likely to be improved by GPU.

1 Like
4

Hey Benji,

I have 2*16 GB. Do you think 2 other sticks would help?

Cheers,

Cyril.

5

Interesting, thank you.

6

Hey Cyril,

No, I was thinking more along the lines of 4 sticks being slower than 2, which is usually the case, but that’s not in play here… but your 2666 MHz DDR4 RAM is not exactly the bees’ knees anymore either.

Your processor is about 10% slower than mine (12600K) and should deliver at least acceptable performance! There is a “speed test” Stravinsky file floating around on the forum, you could run this to get a baseline for your performance compared to others.

I don’t think a more powerful GPU will help with the lag of larger projects, unfortunately…

7

Hello,

Thank you very much for your message. My motherboard doesn’t accept DDR5 unfortunately. But maybe I can improve performance with better DDR4 speed RAM?

I tested the Rite of Spring project. It’s quite smooth, actually. In the end, perhaps I’m just nitpicking or focusing on too small details.

8

I wouldn’t worry about changing RAM, the speed increase would be in the order of a few percent, likely.

The unofficial speed test consists of switching the first flow to and from condensed view, and then to and from concert pitch while condensed. Do only those operations for clarity. Then create a diagnostic report and check at the bottom of that report, the numbers are in milliseconds!

Apple M3 and M4 are the fastest because of their absurd memory bandwidth and general efficiency, and after that come the top end Ryzen and Intel Core Ultra machines, being around 20-30% slower than Apple. There should be test results in the two major threads concerning this issue. Happy testing! :smiling_face:

B.

1 Like
9

Where does the ‘lag’ occur? Is it MIDI latency? Or is sluggishness in things like moving between modes?

10

As far as I know Dorico itself won’t benifit other than your potentially increased connectivity (higher resolution screens more efficiently, and more of them at the same time).

Some plugins out there ‘might’ tap into the GPU for parallel processing, but I’m not currently aware of any that you’d likely be using in tandem with Dorico.

I.E. Steinberg’s own SpectraLayers Spectral Editing/Analysis software can use the GPU for parallel processing, and can run as an ARA 2 plugin (Don’t think Dorico supports ARA 2 at this time).

11

You might get a tiny percent, but probably not noticeable. Adding MORE ram ‘might help’ but I think that would mostly be of benefit on the playback end if you use large sample libraries along with rather large Orchestral templates.

12

Would changing your CPU help to improve performance? Your current one is about 5 years old and may not be sufficient for your current needs

1 Like
13

Cyril, that looks like a pretty nice laptop actually if I read it right.

Dorico responds to sustained CPU speed more than anything else (unless as mentioned you run it out of memory with sound libraries) and I’m assuming you are already using an internal SSD.

Good Specs or no, the sustained single thread CPU speed you ACTUALLY get in the real world is throttled by heat and power consumption. Dorico needs more than a few milliseconds of burst when it’s working hard. So in a laptop especially I’d suggest looking at your power plan - you don’t want to have any efficiency or power saving features enabled when you have it plugged in.

2 Likes
14

Changing modes (especially going to Engrave and Play modes) and opening plugin GUIs are not instant.

15

You’re right. I’m used to working with REAPER, which doesn’t require much performance at all. The plugins I use with Dorico are mainly BBCSO.

In addition, I forgot to mention that I’m using a 4K screen/resolution.

16

Okay, thank you for the info.

17

Maybe it would help, but I don’t really feel the need to change it since the computer runs quite well. I will probably change the CPU along with the motherboard in a few years, except if I make a contract for a big music project :slight_smile:

1 Like
18

Thanks for your message.

Yes, all SSDs here. It’s not a laptop but a desktop computer.

19

I believe Dorico is pretty snappy, even on modest computers for most of us. The composers finding a real need for higher end computers for Dorico work with LONG and rather complex scores, or actually engrave for a living and the brute force computing power can come in handy (and even then have to ‘learn’ how to take advantage of it).

When a flow gets really long and involves many staves and condensing things can start to slow down on a low end computer; because, Dorico is constantly recalculating everything from beginning to end to get the best layout and spacing. With each version improvements are made to Dorico to make it more efficient in these tasks, but that’s when we start noticing delays in input vs screen draws and such.

Personally, I’m mainly doing arrangements and etudes for secondary education level musicians that they perform a few times and it goes in the garbage. I work in concert key and don’t even leave Galley Mode until I’m DONE composing. So things like condensing and real time transposition don’t start factoring in until I get ready to engrave.

I rarely do anything that’s more than 10 minutes long (and that may well be full of repeats and such), so my aging Ryzen 9 3900XT with 64gb is good enough (Your 5900X should be a good 20-30% or so faster than mine?). I don’t really need condensed scores, or things to be of a quality to publish it in print, so it doesn’t even skip a beat for me. In my case, if I did get into a long project and start to notice major lag when attempting to poke in new notes, I’d probably just split it into smaller projects until I’m done composing, and worry about merging it into a single large project later (if necessary). Or, I might chose to work in Cubase Pro (on the same aging machine) while composing and pull it into Dorico for a more polished look later.

For what it’s worth, if I watch performance meters and logs, nothing I do seems to make the 3900XT even break a sweat! It rarely gets over 40% of it supposed potential! I don’t know why, but other than raw number crunching things like encoding video and the like, I can’t seem to get software to use a fraction of even an old 3900XT’s potential! What I do love about it, is I can launch a LOT of different apps and utilities and ‘sometimes’ the CPU actually gets used enough by windows and software to at least spin up the fans and ‘get warm’. It’s cool to be able to load lots of different apps/tasks at once and not miss a beat.

For people needing the massive instrument plugins featuring 6 mic positions for every sound/articulation gobs of memory can be helpful. If all you need is a quick and easy reference on playback, the stuff that ships with Dorico, or NotePerformer will work on pretty much any modern computer these days (anything meeting Steinberg’s minimum recommended requirements, and maybe even a bit below should have you covered in scoring for decent sized orchestras/bands).

If you’re going to be a Professional copyist/engraver and use this stuff 8+ hours a day, or need to work OFTEN with really long scores (Operas, 2 Hour Musicals, Long Movie Scores, etc) then it might be worth it to invest in brand new high end stuff.

Eventually I’ll probably need to upgrade and get a new system, but there’s so much going on right now with ‘options’ and prices I think I’ll hold off as long as I can. AI datacenters are driving DDR5 RAM prices sky high right now, and anything using DDR4 I could upgrade into isn’t worth the small boost I’d get (I.E. I could pop in a 5950 in 10 minutes, but not sure it’d be worth the expense/bother, as no software I have seems to even make the 3900XT break a sweat…rarely any maxed single cores, and cores left mostly untouched, why?). The AI run on computer parts is not doing CPU/GPU prices any favors either.

The Mac stuff shows a lot of promise (very fast and efficient, if you have all new stuff to go with it, that actually has drivers for the newer Macs), and they do have a good deal on the entry level Mac Mini, but I’d like to hold out a bit and see how stuff like Snapdragons and others work out on Windows, if Microsoft and Steinberg come up with better thread management on the big Intel/AMD processors (more for plugin heavy Cubase sessions), and how that might affect prices over the next couple of years. Seems like no matter when one buys, it’s already being beat by up to 30% in performance, and more economical to run (power draw) a short time later.

At the moment I’m kind of locked into Wintel world, as I have lots of nice equipment (some of it costing more than a nice new PC to replace with something new and equal in features and I/O ability) that doesn’t have Mac drivers, and never will. Even if I could find drivers, getting PCI/PCIe cards fitted in a Mac is a pain, and costs a fortune. I hate to replace perfectly working, high spec gear just because it’s ‘older’ and I can’t find Mac OS drivers for it (and anything with the ports required, or kits to add them on the Mac platform is uber expensive). With Wintel options, why spend money on a high end CPU, if the software I use cannot even make use of it? Seems like the only thing in the world that actually USES all those cores and pushes them to their max is BENCHMARKING SOFTWARE, and free command line software for stuff like encoding/decoding video (weird the free stuff ported over for Windows from unix/posix projects can max out all 12 cores of my 3900XT, but the expensive/fancy paid stuff only uses like 5% spread over 4 cores and takes 10 times as long, go figure). Load up Cubase….30% CPU over maybe 4 cores, no core anywhere close to being maxed out, and it still glitches for a lot of people. Hmmm

2 Likes
20

Gotcha - still a thing you could check though. I also have an enormous heat sink on my cpu, like a Harley Davidson cylinder. :face_with_diagonal_mouth: as cpus are variable speed and will adjust the speed of its threads based on heat.