New, Updated SonarTest

Athlon 64 3000+
ASUS k8V motherboard
1024 Corsair 333 2.5 3373 memory (not approved for motherboard)
Windows XP SP1
Firewire drive
Layla 24
Way to much **** running background that I don't feel like turning off.

ASIO:
42.7 - 31%
21.7 - 32%
10.7 - 39%
5.3 - 47%
2.7 - 65% (as low as it can go)

WDM:
42.7 - 36%
21.7 - 39%
10.7 - 46%
5.3 - 46%
2.7 - 44%
1.3 - 48%

ASIO 46.4 30
ASIO 23.2 33-34
ASIO 11.6 38-39
ASIO 5.8 51-52
ASIO 2.9 72-75
ASIO 1.5 DROPOUT


Athlon 3200XP
Gigabyte GA-7N400Pro2 (nforce2)
2x512MB PC2700 CL2.5 (dual ddr333)
Seagate BarracudaIV & WD1200JB


I'm running 2 sticks of DDR333 because it's what I had when I upgraded the board a chip(so my memory is asynchronous). I never bothered trying to get PC3200CL2 - does anyone know if this will yield much difference?

pete

As it stands now I'm matching you with my XP2700+.

I never bothered trying to get PC3200CL2 - does anyone know if this will yield much difference?

That should make a several percent difference. Syncronising the FSB and RAM clock makes a large latency improvement in nForce2 systems and Sonar is responding really well to reduced latencies. You will need to throw some good money into DDR400 you can run at low latencies.

You don't actually move the slider. Click the "ASIO Panel" button in Audio Options and set the buffer size in the Mia Control Panel.

-S

Oh OK, I understand now. I will edit my post with the ASIO results when I get a chance.

thanks for your effort in compiliing this, it's really helpful.
Brian

AMD Athlon XP 1900+
1.59 GHz
1 GB RAM
MOTU 2408 mk I
WIN XP Pro
Maxtor G450 Dualhead

WDM
5.8 = 81%
11.6 = 62%
17.4 = 56%
23.2 = 52%
46.4 = 48%

ASIO
Buffer Size 64 = Nope
128 = Nope
256 = 74%
512 = 57%
1024 = 48%
2048 = 44%

For some reason I cant run this test. I'm new to Sonar and I may be missing something obvious. Sonar 3 Pro 3.1b. I open it up - its just a cwp right? I dont see any graphics in the track pane. I unmute the bus (just in case) and I hit the play transport and it goes for about a second, no sound though, and then just stops and resets.

I've checked that I'm outputting to the right card output.

Shouldnt there be audio somewhere with this project?

I'm sorry I'm so clueless, but I'd love some tips on what I may be doing wrong.

Thanks,
Eric

you dont need to hit play, just enable the audio engine(button next to exclamation mark). the input monitoring with effects stresses the CPU

AthlonXP 2200+ @ 1.8GHz (not OC)
ASUS A7V333
1GB RAM (PC2700 DDR)
Echo MIA w/ 6.08 drivers
2 x 80GB Barracuda ATA IV drives (system and audio)
WindowsXP Pro SP1

46.4ms ... 37-38%
23.2ms ... 40-41%
11.6ms ... 47-49%
5.8ms ..... 62-64%
2.9ms ..... 90-92%
1.5ms ..... Not available in ASIO panel

ORIGINAL: Scott Reams

This one is more applicable to Sonar 3.x. It uses the track EQ and full Lexicon Reverb, and so requires Producer Edition to run. In an effort to isolate the CPU, front side bus, and memory, the file consists of purely input-monitored tracks with various plugins/softsynths. The layout represents one possible mixing/tracking scenario.

Here it is:

Sonar3Test

Testing is simple...

Open Sonar... Set default sample rate to 44.1KHz (important to do this). Set latency to, say, 46.4ms (For consistency's sake, try to use ASIO drivers if you have them available... otherwise, WDM is okay)... and then open the test file. Make sure the audio engine is active, and note the CPU meter reading. Do the same at 23.2ms, 11.6ms, 5.8ms, 2.9ms, and 1.5ms. Keep in mind that on many systems, the audio engine may refuse to engage at the lower latencies. Make a note of that as well.

AMD Athlon XP 3200+
ASUS A7N8X Deluxe Motherboard
1GB PC3200 CAS2.5 DDR (2x512MB)
MatroxG450 AGP Video
Mobo IDE
--ST 80GB 7200rpm ATA133 System Drive
--ST 80GB 7200rpm ATA133 Audio Drive
--BENQ 48x16x48 CDRW
SI PCI Raid (Mirror Backup)
--ST 80GB 7200rpm ATA133
--ST 80GB 7200rpm ATA133
USB2 Drive (Audio Library)
--ST 80GB 7200rpm ATA133
Enermax 350W PS
Windows 2000 Professional SP4
Delta 1010 .36 Drivers (ASIO)

46.4ms........28%
23.2ms........33%
11.6ms........39%
5.8ms..........49-52%
2.9ms..........68-73%
1.5ms..........N/A

This was pretty cool! I can see where my DAW stacks up against the others.

P4 3.0C 800FSB
2GB Corsair PC3200 DDR 400 RAM
1 Maxtor 80GB 7200 for OS
2 WD Raptors in RAID 0 Array for Audio
Delta 1010 using .36 drivers ASIO

MP Enabled MP Disabled

27% 46ms 27-28%
29-31% 23ms 31-33%
33-35% 11ms 36-37%
42-45% 5ms 47-49%
63-67% 2ms 70-73% Pretty erratic
81-87% 1ms 88-95% Overload warning

Results of tests were repeatable 3 times.

Regards,

Here's my results. But first the weird stuff.

I am running a q10 with ASIO drivers - the latest release is loaded.

When I change the latency slider in the ASIO panel I have to shut down and then restart Sonar to get the settings to show up on the Sonar Options/Audio pop up. Is that normal?

Also, the latency readings on the q10 panel do not match up to those shown on the Sonar panel. I show those q10 readings in brackets below.

After changing settings 3 or 4 times (and hence shutting down and restarting Sonar and the Aardvark program), the Aardvark gives up and takes out XP with it. I have to reboot. Is this normal or is it symptomatic of some other problem?

An off topic question: What hardware buffer setting should I be using under the heading Direct Sound Settings in the Aardvark ASIO and DirectX tab?

Anyway back to my results.

System is P4 2.6 running XPSP1
D865GBFL Intel mobo
1 gig DDR ram (2 x 512 MB PC2700 DDR333
Main drive for apps is WD 40GB 7200RPM U/ATA100 8 MB
removable drive for projects is Samsung 120GB 7200RPM 2Mb
Matrox g550 Dual Head video card

46.4 (55) 2048 varies from 33 to 37 %
23.2 (31) 1024 varies from 38 to 46 %
11.6 (20) 512 varies from 43 to 44 %
5.8 (14) 256 varies from 59 to 89 %
2.9 (11) 128 varies from 83 % to CPU warning
1.5 I can't get my ASIO buffer size slider in q10 below 128 - is that normal?

I hope this all makes sense - I am very new to DAW.

Keep up the great work guys.

When I change the latency slider in the ASIO panel I have to shut down and then restart Sonar to get the settings to show up on the Sonar Options/Audio pop up. Is that normal?

ASIO latency changes will not show up in Audio Options until you close and reopen the dialog. You shouldn't have to shut down Sonar.

Also, the latency readings on the q10 panel do not match up to those shown on the Sonar panel. I show those q10 readings in brackets below.

Looks like they're adding about 8ms to every latency. Perhaps the interface has some overhead the driver knows about...

-S

ORIGINAL: mrh

Here's my results. But first the weird stuff.

I am running a q10 with ASIO drivers - the latest release is loaded.

When I change the latency slider in the ASIO panel I have to shut down and then restart Sonar to get the settings to show up on the Sonar Options/Audio pop up. Is that normal?

Also, the latency readings on the q10 panel do not match up to those shown on the Sonar panel. I show those q10 readings in brackets below.

After changing settings 3 or 4 times (and hence shutting down and restarting Sonar and the Aardvark program), the Aardvark gives up and takes out XP with it. I have to reboot. Is this normal or is it symptomatic of some other problem?

I noticed the same thing last night. Check this thread:

http://www.cakewalk.com/forum/tm.asp?m=35598

Moving the latency slider to safe after changing the ASIO buffer setting, or after experiencing a dropout or shutdown apparently resets the drivers--at least that's my theory. I experienced no crashes as a result. Add your comments to the thread I've started.

Guitslinger

Great thread! This, and the processor price dropping from 450 to 280 euro overnight, just pushed me overboard to order Athlon64 3200+.

For some strange reason a local shop is selling it now cheaper than AthlonXP 3200+. Well, I don't complain.


Cheers,
raymond.

Scott,

Pentium 4 1.8 Ghz 512 megs ram on a Dell Precision Workstation 330 Sonar 3.1b

46.4ms 49%
23.2ms 53%
11.3ms 64%
5.8ms 85%
2.8ms will not run

-- Martin

What sound card Martin?

Here's a real vintage result..

Athlon Thunderbird 1.33GHz
Asus A7V (if i remember correctly)
MotU 2408mk3, PCI-424
WinXP
640 Mb memory

ASIO:
42.7 ms = 68 %
21.3 ms = 72-74 %
10.7 ms = 86-88 % (whole machine slows down considerably)

Can't handle the lower rates at all..

Cheers,
raymond.

Scott- How does one determine if the SATA Controller shares PCI bandwidth with the audio interface? I have an Asus P4C800-E Mobo and 2-SATA drives (an 80GB w/16 bit clusters for streaming audio and a 160GB for backup). I use an M-Audio Delta44 w/.36 drivers. WinXP-SP1.

Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Jay Stephen

Scott- How does one determine if the SATA Controller shares PCI bandwidth with the audio interface? I have an Asus P4C800-E Mobo and 2-SATA drives (an 80GB w/16 bit clusters for streaming audio and a 160GB for backup). I use an M-Audio Delta44 w/.36 drivers. WinXP-SP1.

Thanks.

Once you know what chipset you are using you can usually look up the chipset's feature set in order to get an idea. Alternatively... look for a SATA controller chip on the motherboard. If there isn't one... it is most likely integrated into the chipset. In your case, I believe it is integrated.

-S

Thanks, Scott, for the excellent test, and to everyone for posting their results.

Here are mine:

Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz
2GB DDR RAM
2 x 80GB IDE HD
Echo Mia
Windows XP Home
SONAR 3.1 PE

ASIO Results:

No MP

128 66-72
256 46-52
512 36-37
1024 30-36
2048 28-31
4096 26-29
8192 26-27
16384 26-27

MP

128 62-67
256 45-49
512 35-37
1024 30-32
2048 28-30
4096 27-28
8192 27-28
16384 26-28

In each case the "resting" reading is towards the low end of the range, with occasional jumps towards the high end. Every few seconds I get SIGNIFICANT jumps - maybe 10-20% above the "resting" level. Does anyone else see this? Any ideas what might be causing it?

ORIGINAL: Scott Reams

ORIGINAL: Jay Stephen

Scott- How does one determine if the SATA Controller shares PCI bandwidth with the audio interface? I have an Asus P4C800-E Mobo and 2-SATA drives (an 80GB w/16 bit clusters for streaming audio and a 160GB for backup). I use an M-Audio Delta44 w/.36 drivers. WinXP-SP1.

Thanks.

Once you know what chipset you are using you can usually look up the chipset's feature set in order to get an idea. Alternatively... look for a SATA controller chip on the motherboard. If there isn't one... it is most likely integrated into the chipset. In your case, I believe it is integrated.

-S

The P4C uses the ICH5R Southbridge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICH5R with Integrated SATA and RAID 0 Intel is the world's first chipset maker to integrate Serial ATA (SATA) and RAID 0, 1 functions into the South Bridge. The latest ICH5R chipset now delivers 150MB/s fast data transfer (SATA) and striping performance to enhance computing efficiency.

Am I missing something here?

When I download the file from your link, I get a 25.6kb file.

When unzipped, there's no audio files.

Thoughts?

The project uses input monitoring to load the CPU, No audio files necessary.

Just open it up and read the CPU meter (as long as the audio engine is running).

Thanks, I'm blushing now.

Here are mine - Dual MP2800+ A7m266-d 1gig crucial rme hammerfall 9652

46.4 - 11%
23.2 - 23%
11.6 - 32%
5.8 - 40-43%
2.9 - 58-77%
1.5 - N/A

Without Dual

46.4 - 37%
23.2 - 41%
11.6 - 48-52%
5.8 - 65%
2.9 N/A
1.5 - N/A

Pity cant get it to play for very long without a crash!

Oh well

ORIGINAL: skeewiff

Here are mine - Dual MP2800+ A7m266-d 1gig crucial rme hammerfall 9652

46.4 - 11%
23.2 - 23%
11.6 - 32%
5.8 - 40-43%
2.9 - 58-77%
1.5 - N/A

Are you sure that 11% at 46ms isn't a typo? If you could double-check I'd appreciate it. The CPU usage doesn't usually change anywhere near that much from 46ms to 23ms. That 11% also suggests that MP is giving you a 300+% improvement at that latency... Perhaps you mean 21%?

-S

Scott,
I would like to give you some info back but my latency slider
on one of are puters here only goes in increments of 10 ms.
Any idea why. And the lowerest it'll go is 10 (i've never had
a chance to go this before so... )

thnx jeffrey

ORIGINAL: roughly

Scott,
I would like to give you some info back but my latency slider
on one of are puters here only goes in increments of 10 ms.
Any idea why. And the lowerest it'll go is 10 (i've never had
a chance to go this before so... )

thnx jeffrey

It depends on your soundcard drivers. If the soundcard in that system is a consumer-level card, it may simply not provide latencies below 10ms.

-S

nice job on the line graphs!

I am in Dallas this week for some Nortel training, so I can't post results right now. I do have some thoughts. It would be great if sbavin or someone with the ECS K7S5A motherboard could do the test with DDR and SDRAM to see the difference of memory on the same system. I suspect that this test is mostly memory bandwidth, considering how much lower the one system with SDRAM (without SSE though, too) scores. Those of you with slower CPU's, I wouldn't throw your DAW out just yet, because there is more going on than just CPU speed and memory subsystem bandwidth. It is not completely accurate to how the total DAW will perform under load streaming tracks from the hardrive and drawing VU meters in realtime. I know most of you know this, but I don't want some people to get the wrong idea that slower computers aren't usable .

I am biased, but I suspect Dual processor systems to run exponentially better than this test shows under a real-world disk/VU Meter load than an equivalent single-processor system.

Thanks Scott for the great work.

Wow, you guys have some serious iron. My results using Sonar 3.0 Producer on a P3 600 mHZ are similar to Mr. Blutarsky's at school: 0.00. Audio engine craps out immediately at any latency.

System runs IE pretty good, though, so I pointed it at NewEgg and ordered an Athlon XP 2500+

wren

ORIGINAL: Scott Reams

ORIGINAL: skeewiff

Here are mine - Dual MP2800+ A7m266-d 1gig crucial rme hammerfall 9652

46.4 - 11%
23.2 - 23%
11.6 - 32%
5.8 - 40-43%
2.9 - 58-77%
1.5 - N/A

Are you sure that 11% at 46ms isn't a typo? If you could double-check I'd appreciate it. The CPU usage doesn't usually change anywhere near that much from 46ms to 23ms. That 11% also suggests that MP is giving you a 300+% improvement at that latency... Perhaps you mean 21%?

-S

Correct. Sorry Everyone. The correct readings should be:

46.4 - 21%
23.2 - 23%
11.6 - 32%
5.8 - 40-43%
2.9 - 58-77%
1.5 - N/A

Without Dual

46.4 - 37%
23.2 - 41%
11.6 - 48-52%
5.8 - 65%
2.9 N/A
1.5 - N/A

ORIGINAL: colo

I am in Dallas this week for some Nortel training, so I can't post results right now. I do have some thoughts. It would be great if sbavin or someone with the ECS K7S5A motherboard could do the test with DDR and SDRAM to see the difference of memory on the same system. I suspect that this test is mostly memory bandwidth, considering how much lower the one system with SDRAM (without SSE though, too) scores.

I'm pretty sure the lack of SSE is mostly to blame here. The Sonitus plugs, I believe, have numerous SSE optimizations.

Also... if memory bandwidth were very important... the dual-channel AthlonFX should easily outperform the single-channel Athlon64. It does not.

Those of you with slower CPU's, I wouldn't throw your DAW out just yet, because there is more going on than just CPU speed and memory subsystem bandwidth. It is not completely accurate to how the total DAW will perform under load streaming tracks from the hardrive

With most of today's hard drives/controllers, drive throughput is not a bottleneck.

and drawing VU meters in realtime.

Which Sonar3Test is doing for all audio tracks and busses.

Edit: Scratch that... S3Test is not drawing meters for tracks. However... record-enabling all of them, thus engaging all the record meters, has zero effect on the results here.

I know most of you know this, but I don't want some people to get the wrong idea that slower computers aren't usable .

Agreed. They certainly are useable. The question becomes... can your system handle what you want it to do right now? If so... there is no reason to upgrade.

I am biased, but I suspect Dual processor systems to run exponentially better than this test shows under a real-world disk/VU Meter load than an equivalent single-processor system.

I believe the chart accurately shows where DP systems stand. The 2000+ MP system is getting 60% better scores by simply enabling the MP engine. You have to remember that the AthlonMP is an old platform with a slow FSB and a slow single-channel memory controller by comparison to more modern CPUs. Dual Opteron's, I suspect, will take the lead by a convincing margin in this test.

-S

Yep, bring on the dual Opterons!

Scott - I was waiting for an Athlon64 3000+ to appear on the graphs - I noticed that Sid Viscous posted some results for this CPU, but with the "wrong" latencies. If the X axis is logarithmically to scale, could you not post those points too? If not, has anybody else got an Athlon64 3000+ which they could test?

ORIGINAL: Scott Reams

ORIGINAL: skeewiff

Here are mine - Dual MP2800+ A7m266-d 1gig crucial rme hammerfall 9652

46.4 - 11%
23.2 - 23%
11.6 - 32%
5.8 - 40-43%
2.9 - 58-77%
1.5 - N/A

Are you sure that 11% at 46ms isn't a typo? If you could double-check I'd appreciate it. The CPU usage doesn't usually change anywhere near that much from 46ms to 23ms. That 11% also suggests that MP is giving you a 300+% improvement at that latency... Perhaps you mean 21%?

-S

I've just done the test again and got these results. My system seems quite erratic.

Although These are probably more reliable as I waited longer.

46.4 - 21-25%
23.2 - 25-28%
11.6 - 32-34%
5.8 - 40-44%
2.9 - 56-79%
1.5 - N/A

Without Dual

46.4 - 37%
23.2 - 41%
11.6 - 48-52%
5.8 - 65%
2.9 N/A
1.5 - N/A

ORIGINAL: sbavin

Yep, bring on the dual Opterons!

Scott - I was waiting for an Athlon64 3000+ to appear on the graphs - I noticed that Sid Viscous posted some results for this CPU, but with the "wrong" latencies. If the X axis is logarithmically to scale, could you not post those points too? If not, has anybody else got an Athlon64 3000+ which they could test?

They actually are the right latencies... it's just that his default sample rate is set to 48KHz. The project forces 44.1KHz, so the latencies do end up the same.

I'll probably add his scores soon... although they don't look at all like I'd expect them to. I was hoping to get one more set of results to confirm first... but I may never get them.

Something else to consider... the A64 3200+ has dipped to $270, and is looking to be just as good a value as the 3000+.

-S

Intel D845PEBT2, P4 2.4, 2x512mb Crucial PC2700 CL2, Delta44 (.29)

23.2 - 38%/40%
20.3 - 39%/41%
17.4 - 40%/43%
14.5 - 42%/45%
11.6 - 45%/48%
8.7 - 49%/54%
5.8 - 58%/65%
2.9 - 85%/89%

When I loaded my project the values fluctuated, so I gave the high and low readings, although I suppose the high reading is the most important one.

Thanks Scott, and everyone else, this has been quite an instructive exercise. My DAW runs stably at all settings. I have a new appreciation for the machine I built (although that won't stop me from replacing it when I get the itch).

Scott I tried this test and my machine wouldn't run at all. Maybe I just don't understand what it is that it should be doing. I am downloading the test and there is nothing in the track pane. I understand that it is implied that the audio is there. Anyway, here's my setup

K7S mobo
1.6 GHz Athlon
768 ram
60 GB 7200 App drive
80 GB 7200 Music Drive
Win XP SP1
Echo layla24

At 50ms I can't get the audio engine to engage. Maybe I should do some tweaks to assist the performance in win xp and then try this again. Any suggestions on this? I do plan to upgrade to the Asus deluxe mobo and a much faster processor soon but until then, can you help me out.

Thanks

The P4C uses the ICH5R Southbridge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICH5R with Integrated SATA and RAID 0 Intel is the world's first chipset maker to integrate Serial ATA (SATA) and RAID 0, 1 functions into the South Bridge. The latest ICH5R chipset now delivers 150MB/s fast data transfer (SATA) and striping performance to enhance computing efficiency.

Scott and/or Glennbo;
Thanks. Does that mean that my SATA controller will not interfere with the audio controller?

ORIGINAL: Jay Stephen

The P4C uses the ICH5R Southbridge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICH5R with Integrated SATA and RAID 0 Intel is the world's first chipset maker to integrate Serial ATA (SATA) and RAID 0, 1 functions into the South Bridge. The latest ICH5R chipset now delivers 150MB/s fast data transfer (SATA) and striping performance to enhance computing efficiency.

Scott and/or Glennbo;
Thanks. Does that mean that my SATA controller will not interfere with the audio controller?

I dunno the answer to that one. I haven't *yet* bought any SATA drives for my P4P800, which uses the same South Bridge. I figger at some point (probably soon) I will add one and find out. ;)

HI, Scott. Here are my numbers to add to the data collection:

1.5: no dice
2.7: 77 - 80%
5.8: 54 - 56%
11.7: 42 - 43%
23.2: 36 - 38%
46.4: 33%

Hardware config is as follows:

Dell 4550
P4, 2.53 GHz
1 GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce MX 420
HItachi System Drive (7200 RPM, integrated ATA 100, 60 GB)
WD Audio Drive alone on Promise ATA 100 controller (7200 RPM, 250 GB)
M-Audio FW-410 attached to WD Firewire PCI card
Generic CD-ROM
Integrated Intel Pro/100 NIC


I'll add data for my othe system (a Dell 8250) later...

Hmm. I note that while my P4M @ 1.8GHz didn't make the
plot, Martin Shiff's Dell with a P4 @ 1.8GHz, which gets significantly
worse performance, does make it. I understand that you can't
display every damned datapoint and that you have to pick
representive numbers, but I can't help but wonder if
your anti-Intel sentiments aren't biasing your choices. ;o)
The Thinkpad numbers are about right, I think, coming
in just a little worse than the Athlon XP 1900+, which
is consistent with where I've seen it on other benchmarks,
where the 1.8GHz P4 and "1800+" Athlon really do line up.

I think there's something in Martin's configuration that is
costing him several percent of measured CPU load.

Slow down there, Kevin. :)

I didn't post your numbers because it's a notebook, which almost always gaurantees less performance. I hadn't noticed that your numbers were actually better. I'll be updating the chart in a minute. I have always taken the best result when two of the same CPU are available. I will do so here as well.

I'd also add... If this was about bias, you wouldn't see the 3GHz P4 beating the AthlonXP 3200+. It does in this test.

-S

ORIGINAL: Scott Reams

Slow down there, Kevin. :)

I didn't post your numbers because it's a notebook, which almost always gaurantees less performance. I hadn't noticed that your numbers were actually better. I'll be updating the chart in a minute. I have always taken the best result when two of the same CPU are available. I will do so here as well.

I'd also add... If this was about bias, you wouldn't see the 3GHz P4 beating the AthlonXP 3200+. It does in this test.

Dude, there *was* a smiley there. I know that you're gritting
your teeth and trying to give Intel credit where credit is due. ;o)
Anyway, I was really surprised that my laptop outperformed
the Dell workstation. Maybe it's better RAM - Martin didn't
specify what kind, and Dell may not be very clear about this
in their factory configurations. Maybe his P4 1.8 has smaller
caches than the P4M at the same frequency.

If you get some more laptop results in, I could easily imagine
your wanting to publish a seperate "mobile processors" chart.
And I do wish someone would run this stuff on a Centrino!

WinXP Home SP1
HP Notebook mobile AMD Athlon 4
CPU: 1GHz
RAM: 512 MB
Optimized for DAW
18 GB Hard drive
M-Audio USB Audiophile
Sonar 3.1

Asio:

46.4ms........Not available
23.2ms........Not available
17.4ms........Dropout "very high"
11.6ms........Dropout "high"
5.8ms..........Dropout "medium"
2.9ms..........Dropout "low"
1.5ms..........Dropout "very low"


WDM:

50ms...........85%
30ms...........95%
20ms...........Dropout




I'm off the chart! Hmmmmmm.

How's your GUI? Snappy or sluggish?

Snappy for the most part, once in a while it is sluggish.

Hello,

WinXP Pro SP1
Mobo: ASUS P4B266
CPU: P4 2.6 GHz
RAM: 1024 MB DDR PC 2100
System disk: IBM 60 GB 7200
Audio Disk: IBM 80 GB 7200
Graphic card: GE FORCE 400 MX
Audio card: Aardvark PRO 24/96 in ASIO mode.
Sonar 3.1

Results:

46.4 ms: 33 %
23.2 ms: 37 %
11.6 ms: 43 %
5.8 ms: 57 %
2.9 ms: 83 %
1.5 ms: N.A.

Pierre

I went back and did he tests without tweaking the WDM profile.
ASIO:
42.7 - 31%
21.7 - 32%
10.7 - 39%
5.3 - 47%
2.7 - 65% (as low as it can go)

WDM:
42.7 - 32%
21.7 - 34%
10.7 - 38%
5.3 - 48%
2.7 - 66%
1.3 - 67%

Sid...

Your results still look really strange. I'd expect much more than a 1% change from 2.9ms to 1.5ms (which are the actual latencies... as this is a 44.1KHz project and your default is set to 48KHz).

-S

Hi, Scott. A few days ago I submitted results for an AthlonXP 2200+, but I haven't seen them (or any 2200+ data) in the graph yet. Are my findings being excluded because they are anomalous in some way? My results are here: http://www.cakewalk.com/forum/m.asp?m=35631&mpage=3&key=

BTW, thanks for putting this test and survey together. It helped me determine that ASIO performs slightly better than WDM on my system.

--Mike

Mike...

No... I just overlooked yours. They'll be up in a second.

BTW... does your audio engine actually remain engaged at 2.9ms with 90-92% CPU usage?

-S

Anyone got any data do Xeon processors, preferably dual ?

Andy C

OK, here is my contribution...

DAW/PC: Asus P4C800 S478/800mhz I875P, Dual DDR, TwinMOS PC3200 DDR-DIMM 1024MB, Intel Pentium 4 2.6 GHz PC800 Socket PGA478, 512kB "Northwood", Seagate Barracuda IV 60GB IDE 7200RPM, Seagate Barracuda IV 80GB IDE 7200RPM, Matrox Millenium G450 Dualhead, View Sonic 17" x2, Plextor CD-R/RW 48x/24x/48x

XP Pro (with all updates)

MOTU 24 I/O with ASIO driver with H/T disablet in BIOS:

46,2 =30%
23,2=33-34%
11,6=39-40%
5,8=52-53%
2,9=77-79%
1,5=N/A

BTW... does your audio engine actually remain engaged at 2.9ms with 90-92% CPU usage?

Yep. The audio engine never stops and just wavers that minimal amount between 90% and 92%. (I thought you might be curious about that, given that I hadn't seen any other data at or above 90%. Plus, my data seems to be better than the 2400+. All I can say is that this mobo/CPU combo has been really solid for me [VIA gets my vote, regardless of past problems], and I try to keep all unnecessary Windows services turned off.)

HOWEVER ... When I do the tests using WDM instead of ASIO, the audio engine will not engage at all when set to 2.9ms or 1.5ms. Also, the other four latency settings register a few percentage points higher when using WDM.

--Mike

Green Lines recommend older-generation single-CPU AMD systems.

I never trust the recommendations of green lines. (They're so jealous that they'll say anything just to make the other lines look bad.)

What are you talking about? It doesn't say "recommend" anywhere in the top post... ;)

-S

Yep. The audio engine never stops and just wavers that minimal amount between 90% and 92%.

Cool. Your experience got me wondering if my own system would do the same under the same load conditions...

I took the test file and cloned the OH track 29 times (for a total of 30 OH tracks with EQ) in order to bump the CPU usage up to 90% at 2.9ms... and it ran solid. Nice.

-S

What are you talking about? It doesn't say "recommend" anywhere in the top post... ;)

Ahh the joys of web forums

What are you talking about? It doesn't say "recommend" anywhere in the top post... ;)

Nice. Next I suppose you'll tell me that the blue lines aren't "Represent"ing any stronger than the rest of the lines.