wrenhunter
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 38
- Joined: 2003/11/12 15:49:47
- Location: Boston
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/13 19:10:28
(permalink)
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
|
skeewiff
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 265
- Joined: 2004/01/12 19:10:46
- Location: London, England
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/13 19:11:53
(permalink)
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
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/13 19:19:24
(permalink)
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
< Message edited by Scott Reams -- 1/13/2004 7:24:00 PM >
|
sbavin
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 601
- Joined: 2003/11/11 09:43:21
- Location: England
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/13 19:23:42
(permalink)
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?
|
skeewiff
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 265
- Joined: 2004/01/12 19:10:46
- Location: London, England
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/13 19:25:53
(permalink)
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
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/13 19:28:47
(permalink)
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
< Message edited by Scott Reams -- 1/13/2004 7:34:07 PM >
|
willum
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 103
- Joined: 2003/11/07 22:46:47
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/13 20:08:15
(permalink)
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). 
< Message edited by willum -- 1/13/2004 5:14:50 PM >
|
kisongs
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 72
- Joined: 2003/11/06 00:15:07
- Location: Beverly Hills, CA
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/13 22:20:46
(permalink)
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
|
Jay Stephen
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 267
- Joined: 2003/11/05 16:18:26
- Location: In Studio
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/13 22:47:47
(permalink)
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?
|
Glennbo 
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1840
- Joined: 2003/11/10 22:38:37
- Location: Planet Earth
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/13 22:53:38
(permalink)
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. ;)
|
Ed Evans
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 89
- Joined: 2003/11/09 12:52:34
- Location: Orange County, CA
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/14 00:27:43
(permalink)
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...
|
KevinK
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 863
- Joined: 2003/11/06 06:30:43
- Location: Le Bar sur Loup, France
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/14 04:11:48
(permalink)
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.
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/14 04:33:10
(permalink)
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
|
KevinK
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 863
- Joined: 2003/11/06 06:30:43
- Location: Le Bar sur Loup, France
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/14 05:15:30
(permalink)
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!
|
CSi
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 18
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:33:47
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/14 08:15:02
(permalink)
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.
|
tazman
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2435
- Joined: 2003/11/13 13:01:40
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/14 08:41:21
(permalink)
How's your GUI? Snappy or sluggish?
|
CSi
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 18
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:33:47
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/14 14:29:54
(permalink)
Snappy for the most part, once in a while it is sluggish.
|
piperdaw
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3
- Joined: 2004/01/05 05:41:11
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/15 03:58:40
(permalink)
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
|
Sid Viscous
Max Output Level: -60 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1532
- Joined: 2003/11/30 10:05:25
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/15 09:29:38
(permalink)
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%
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/15 12:23:00
(permalink)
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
|
mmangino
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 21
- Joined: 2003/11/05 17:20:28
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/15 13:28:11
(permalink)
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
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/15 15:25:39
(permalink)
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
< Message edited by Scott Reams -- 1/15/2004 3:28:48 PM >
|
Andy C
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1272
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:09:38
- Location: Scotland
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/15 16:08:28
(permalink)
Anyone got any data do Xeon processors, preferably dual ?
Andy C
|
HMusikk
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 463
- Joined: 2003/11/09 16:08:37
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/15 16:24:15
(permalink)
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
< Message edited by HMusikk -- 1/15/2004 10:26:18 PM >
Gunnar Hustvedt http://www.h-musikk.no/english.html ASUS X99-E, Socket-2011-3,Intel Core i7-6850K, Noctua NH-U9S CPU Cooler, Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 2133MHz 16GB, Samsung 960 EVO 250GB M.2 PCIe SSD (System), Samsung 850 EVO 500GB 2.5" SSD (Data), Samsung 850 EVO 1TB 2.5" SSD (Sample), WD Desktop Black 1TB 3.5" (Audio), Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1060 3GB Windforce, Corsair RM750x 750W PSU, Samsung 34" LED Curved C34F791, Microsoft Windows 10 Pro 64-bit, Lynx AES16e, Aurora 16, Sonar Platinum, Pro Tools 12, Studio One 3
|
mmangino
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 21
- Joined: 2003/11/05 17:20:28
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/15 16:41:32
(permalink)
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
|
mmangino
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 21
- Joined: 2003/11/05 17:20:28
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/15 16:47:16
(permalink)
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.) 
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/15 17:26:58
(permalink)
What are you talking about? It doesn't say "recommend" anywhere in the top post... ;)
-S
|
Scott Reams
Max Output Level: -56 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1918
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:32:28
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/15 17:32:38
(permalink)
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
|
sbavin
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 601
- Joined: 2003/11/11 09:43:21
- Location: England
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/15 17:32:55
(permalink)
What are you talking about? It doesn't say "recommend" anywhere in the top post... ;) Ahh the joys of web forums
< Message edited by sbavin -- 1/15/2004 10:33:43 PM >
|
mmangino
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 21
- Joined: 2003/11/05 17:20:28
- Status: offline
RE: New, Updated SonarTest
2004/01/15 17:40:15
(permalink)
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. 
|