CPU Optimization for vital

Maybe this is not a feature, but then this might be the most requested thing that i am gonna state here
First, let me make this clear, i can say proudly that vital has replaced every synth of mine and i realised that i can do lot more crazy sounds with the options vital has. Vital is just a whole new dimension for music producers and it being free?. Matt tytel, if you are reading this, you are a god, cause if anyone would have told me a few years ago that a free synth would beat the all the paid synths out there in 2020, i would have called them crazy lol

now the biggest thing users would ask is, CPU fixes. A lot of users (like me) run vital on a laptop/pc which is not that powerful in terms of cpu, so all we ask for is, cpu optimization, so that we can run vital perfectly in our non-powerful computers
I think its better to bring on the cpu optimization fixes before introducing the exciting major updates that are planned for this synth so that the plugin is more cpu friendly

I hope the devs get my point

very excited for the future of Vital

A Fan of Vital


Yeah right, I’m also using an old macbook not so powerful, so yes, it would be great !

Is there still any work on the CPU bug?

I’m a bit disappointed, since i bought vital in November I can’t use it, because I have that severe CPU bug on 2 computers running different operating systems (Win/Linux) on different hardware. Current version 1.05 is still buggy.

And then there is the announcement for vital skins. Same bug, different colors?

The problem is wavetable synthesizers require some more processing power than your standard synths, as they are doing much more operations therefore they will always be more CPU intensive. The fact that you experience problems does not mean that the synth is not optimized. I believe Matt did as much as he could (and is still doing it with new updates) to write efficient, optimal code for every part of the synth (e.g. comparing it to Serum, I can tell that both are pretty similar with CPU usage) @HORU5 & @odo.

You can (and should) optimize it yourself by using synth properly (depending on your hardware limitations), for example your best bet is to stick to as minimal number of voices per oscillator as possible. You should also set the oversampling to 1x in ADVANCED tab, and if you know your project is going to have few instances, bounce tracks to wav & disable the synth, that way you will already save a lot of power.

Depending on your DAW you can also probably make it automatically disable plugins that are not processing and/or producing any audio, which will be handy. You should also set ASIO buffer size (if you’re using ASIO drivers and/or interface) to bigger (the cost here is bigger delay but if you’re not using midi devices you shouldn’t feel much). Messing with settings in your DAW can surprise you sometimes, so it’s definitely worth a shot. :smiley:

If none of the above are doing much, maybe it’s time to update your hardware (ik it’s the last option but in case where your hardware is old it’s unavoidable).

Best of luck! :slightly_smiling_face:

P.S. I forgot to mention that having web browser opened and discord opened and DAW opened at the same time is probably not the best idea because web browser and discord can take a lot of power away from you. Also always turn off programs running in background.

1 Like

Thanks for your long answer. Ifor your information. I am an IT guy and I do programming as well, I’m using different DAWs and different VSTs and some Wavetablesynths, so I know what im talking of :wink: . And I appreciate your engagement, but if there is a piece of software, that was just started and is not being used, then the CPU usage shouldn’t be 100%. And it does use 100% CPU without I am even touching it. Or that any other program is running.
BTW there are people with lower hardware specs don’t have that problem.

To compare it with the real world: If you have a car for your all day things that needs 100 liter per 100 kilometer regardless, you drive full speed or you try to safe gas, would you still say, this is a good design?

Matt did say, that he found the source, but that is over a month ago and since then there is no communication or any significant bugfix for that problem.
I can’t post in the original thread, because a troll took over there and Matt did correctamente close that thread. :+1:

So it would be nice to know if Matt is still working on it, if and eventually when there will be a fix, or if I should give back my license, because of the bug i can’t use it on all of my systems.

1 Like

Low CPU consumption is important for me as well and the main reason for dismissing popular synths such as Serum in the past. From my tests so far, Vital’s CPU usage seems not too bad overall. That said, there are other products like Synapse Audio DUNE3 which clearly demonstrate that better optimization is possible so I hope that @Tytel will look into this eventually. I certainly would appreciate improvements in this area before adding major features.

Are you on Linux?

i completly agree with this, but then i feel that serum takes less cpu than vital. maybe its just that vital has been released only 3 months ago and therfore i can definetly see more optimizations coming in the future, but until then, we just gotta sit tight

It’s, indeed, a problem. I have MacBook Pro 2020 model with i5 (10th gen) and 16Gb Ram. It is a very powerful computer.
But I have an overload of CPU only with one pad (or about 60% in another DAW, bit it’s still too much). Although, usually don’t’ have problems. It seems, that some specific settings of a patch are “too hungry”.
I am on a subscription and continue with it, because it’s an amazing synth and, I think, it, definitely, will be improved in many ways.
I just was hoping to replace Serum entirely. But it looks like, it’s more addition than a replacement.

1 Like

I confirm the enormous possibilities of vitality and the request for less cpu consumption is very intelligent. If they then find an algorithm that reproduces the samples with the same fidelity as the original sample they will become unsurpassed !!

to the point that I could even buy it at a good price

I also request CPU optimations !

Especialy the effects using much more CPU than for example Serum which I also have.
In the effect rack, chorus, flanger, phaser, distortion, compressor and reverb are using much more CPU than in Serum or Hive or even Zebra.
I compared some presets with the same effects.

1 Like

Please do not get me wrong, but a notebook i5 (any) is not a powerful computer by any means.

Just that it is an i5 tells you nothing and people seem to forget about the power consumption and heat dissipation. In that crammed space the power consumption is max 15w. It is great computing power for 15w but to be honest it cannot compete to 105w. Not anywere close to a 2016 CPU for a desktop.

So i5 in a notebook is pretty much weak. Great for office requirements, but not anywhere good for compute hungry application.

I have no issues with compute on an i7 5930k which is a 6core CPU that can and has attached 4 channels of RAM etc. I never have any issues on compute on this, where U-HE Diva brings a single core to the knees … That is CPU hungry app.

Also I understand the request to improve CPU consumption, but some of the stuff that is happening is simply heavy compute even to modern standards. That does mean those features would not be there without the compute and there is no real choice.

Maybe there is the possibility to improve the compute requirements a bit, but I would not exepect any miracles from it.

1 Like

Thanks for your response. I agree with your statement that desktop CPUs are much more powerful.
But call MacBook Pro i5 2020 an office laptop it too much. It’s a powerhouse which capable do very heavy operations.
To move the discussion to a more fact-oriented field - the processor it has is i5-1038NG7 (https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i5-1038ng7). Plus memory - 3733MHz LPDDR4X.
If you look at the chart - https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks/ - this CPU is comparable to i5 8600 (which is desktop one). It’s one core benchmarks. Of course, there are other components involved in overall performance but the “league” would be the same.

On top of it, I did run Diva on this machine with very heavy patches - never had the same issue as with Vital. Same for Serum, which I wouldn’t name weaker VST.
So, there are things I can compare in my workflow to say that it’s not normal to “click” the sound only with one track playing one chord progression only with Vital.

Also, as I said, I totally understand the complexity of it. I work in IT and know how much work it requires to do optimisation on that low level for such complex algorithms. Also, I know that freshly released versions always have some issues and bugs, which is normal. And people look at features mostly, so from a marketing point of view - it’s better to spend time on making some visible features because most of the time it works fine.

So, it’s always good to not reject that there is a problem but also I would like, that people don’t see it as a demand or something like this. I would consider it as a piece of information for Matt and people, that there can be an issue in some situations and some setups.


I almost gave up on Vital because I couldn’t get to play chords with it. And super happy that I didn’t. I want to learn it inside-out and I’m decided to find ways to tame the CPU issue again. I have a fairly old Macbook and I’ll have to renew it sometime soon. I work with many audio tools and Vital is sadly the only one that my computer can’t handle.

Do newer ARM MacBooks handle Vital well? I’m talking say 4 Vital instances with full polyphony, the amazing detune features, long decays, fast ratcheting arpeggios, plenty of automation etc. That’s how I use my other synths.
I still want to learn Vital, I think it’s a good time investment for when I’ll have the proper machine for it. I might use it for monophonic stuff in the meantime and resample/freeze a lot…

About cpu optimization, yes technology moves forward but the more machines a synth is usable on, the greater will be it’s uptake. For me Vital is attractive because the visualization make it very easy to use, but I do think the computer requirement is high in comparison to other synths. Still, early days.

People who ask for things like visualizations then must accept that those features require CPU demand.

We ask developers to push the boundaries of sound quality and then we must do our part and keep up with technology.

Asking a modern complex synth to run without issue on a 10 year old system is unrealistic.


Does Vital run smooth on today’s current MacBook?

I have a laptop, I7-6500U and AMD Radeon M360. Win 10. When I just open the Vital it takes 23-25% of CPU. The Standalone version too takes the same amount. When I close the GUI it goes to 12-15%. And all this without even playing the synth.

I think It is not about CPU optimization, it is about fixing a bug. There must be a bug that shows itself on some systems.

Ya, Vital takes way more CPU power than Serum. I can run like 6 or 7 instances of Serum with chord stacking and octaves on some of it too. I can’t run one instance of Vital without maxing my buffer size to 2048 samples. I did get two Vital’s running simultaneously now thanks to MissViolinMelody’s tips (cut voices down to 1 on all oscillators and oversampling set to 1) but I’d love to see some improvements, which I’m sure we will.

1 Like