Just a thought:
How would we do this for granular synthesis opcodes, that "cost more"
when using more overlaps (e.g. longer grains) ? The difference can be
significant, I guess almost linear growth in cost relative to the
number of overlaps.

Oeyvind

2008/6/12, jpff <jpff@codemist.co.uk>:
> I had a very interesting brain-storming session yesterday in
> preparation for creating a multi-core Csound.  Part of the conclusion
> was that we needed a table of approximate costs of each opcode.
> So.... I have started to create such a table.  In doing this I realise
> that users in general may not be aware of the relative costs.  I have
> not done it yet but I suspect that
>    a1 = k1*a2 + k2*a3
> might be slower than
>    a1   mac    k1,a2,k2,a3
> but we do need to know.
>
> I will measure more opcodes as I have time; currently rather a pain.
> I can accept requests if provided with .csd files
> ==John ffitch
>
> These are for ksmps = 10
>
> +aa     => 76
> +kk     => 9
> arand   => 185
> =       => 7
> balance => 298
> buzz    =>423
> cpspch  =>106
> delay   =>154
> /kk     =>9
> expseg  =>87
> foscil  =>362
> frac1   =>65
> gbuzz   =>765
> int1    =>67
> itblchk =>84
> kexpon  =>9
> kline   =>9
> klinen  =>20
> klnseg  =>30
> koscil  =>41
> kphsor  =>26
> krandh  =>34
> krandi  =>36
> ktable  =>45
> ktabli  =>61
> kxpseg  =>26
> *ak     =>75
> *ka     =>75
> *kk     =>9
> octpch  =>74
> oscka   =>216
> osckk   =>167
> osckki  =>259
> outs    =>117
> phsor   =>191
> rassign =>2
> reson   =>229
> reverb  =>928
> -kk     =>9
> tablefn =>274
> upsamp  =>52
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>