As you know, the difference is *really* small, however:

As far as I can see, the second version will be a tiny bit faster as
it uses two multiplications instead of four.

A possible optimization could also be to change

outs (ga1 + ga2) * k1, (ga1 + ga2) * k1

into

aout = (ga1 + ga2) * k1
outs aout, aout

needing only one multiplication.

Also, why not put both lfo instances in the same instr ? Maybe one
less instr instantiation will use a tiny bit less CPU.

Oeyvind

2008/2/7, Art Hunkins <abhunkin@uncg.edu>:
> Which of the following *realtime* examples executes more efficiently? My
> current project uses *many* of the same type of instrument simultaneously
> (i1/i2), so efficiency will be crucial. And does the answer change if there
> are 8+ of instrument type i1/i2?
>
> 1)
> instr 1
> a1 lfo 1000, 440
> gk1 ctrl7 1, 10, 0, 1
> outs a1 * gk1, a1 * gk1
> endin
>
> instr 2
> a1 lfo 1000, 660
> outs a1 * gk1, a1 * gk1
> endin
>
> i1 0 60
> i2 0 60
>
> 2)
> instr 1
> ga1 lfo 1000, 440
> endin
>
> instr 2
> ga2 lfo 1000, 660
> endin
>
> instr 3
> k1 ctrl7 1, 10, 0, 1
> outs (ga1 + ga2) * k1, (ga1 + ga2) * k1
> endin
>
> i1 0 60
> i2 0 60
> i3 0 60
>
> TIA,
>
> Art Hunkins
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>