hi there. I really like this app the interface is very nice and sound is good. but CPU is always on +20% usage when Fxsound is enabled. Am the only one who has this issue?
windows 10 , intel 2500k core i5
1 Like
Hello Aromato,
Welcome to the forum.
When FxSound is running in the background, interface invisible, it uses about 4% of my CPU.
When the interface is visible, it uses around 27% CPU.
So: no, you’re definitely not the only one.
Just make sure the program is set exactly right, and then just close the interface and let it run quietly in the background to minimize CPU usage.
Hope that helps?
Let me know.
doolhoofd
1 Like
Another thing you can always do is setting a processes priority in the details tab in the Windows task manager. However, lowering a processes priority too much could results in issues or something; especially when using a “live” application which is running and working fluently in the background like FxSound does. There are even tools out there to manage your systems load or customize it.
3 Likes
FxSound UI graphics is built on a OpenGL based framework. So, you can also check if your PC graphics hardware supports OpenGL and if OpenGL is enabled.
This is one application that I know to check OpenGL support in the system https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/directx-extensions-viewer/
2 Likes
There are some compiler optimizations done in the latest beta version 1.1.15.6. The beta build is available at https://download.fxsound.com/beta
I am seeing <10% CPU utilization when FxSound UI is open and visualization is running. Please try this build and let us know if you are getting similar results.
2 Likes
We should also mention that the Windows Task Manager shows usage relative to the power of the device in question, as far as i know. So, even under the conditions @bvijay mentioned above, is see 0% to 0.3% usage on the FxSound task on an AMD Ryzen 5 3600 CPU with 6 cores …
That said, it is likely that user with lower end machines, especially notebooks, see “bigger numbers” here and do lose more computing time to the real time audio processing. But when we want to compare the numbers and find cases where they are maybe higher than they should, we do need to at least get some specs about the hardware, too.
There always could be cases where a process takes much more computing time than even normal on a specific system due to various reason like outdated driver, bugs in drivers, FxSound, Windows itself, “exotic” use-cases and what not …
1 Like
Its just a higher tier mainstream CPU; Ryzen 7/9 are the “emperor class” at AMD, currently … 
Not to mention the “Death Star” named “Threadripper”, sticking with your Star Wars example … ^^
1 Like
Its good that you are seeing better performance on higher end CPUs.
My numbers are from Intel Core i3 and 5th gen i7 quad-core.
1 Like