Okay Scott, here are your numbers:

WDM with HT enabled and MP enabled in Sonar:
46.4-- 24-26%
23.2-- 25-28%
11.6-- 31-33%
5.8-- 41-43%
2.9-- 59-61%
1.5-- won't engage

WDM with HT disabled
46.4-- 29-31%
23.2-- 31-34%
11.6-- 38-40%
5.8 -- 49-52%
2.9-- 71-74%
1.5-- won't engage

System spec's:
Intel P4 3.2ghz
Intel D865PERL MOBO
2gig 400 somethin' somethin' ram (don't know the brand)
2 Maxtor Ultra ADA 120gig HD's (7200rpm)
2 IBM SCSI 73gig HD's
Radeon 9200 dual head video card
Edirol SD-90 for system sounds
Tascam FW-1884 for audio

Sorry to change the subject slightly but has anyone got a link for a similar Sonartest for previous versions of Sonar? I'm still running SonarXL 2.2.

Where is SonarTest? I aint seen him for yearz.

ORIGINAL: Manolo

Hi, my results with ASIO drivers are:

Sound card: Aardvark Direct Pro 24/96
W2000 SP4

Did you have the ASIO turbo mode engaged, and the ASIO buffer set to 192? If not, I would be curious to see if it improves your performance.

I've done the test with MME drivers:

46,9 ms -> 37-39%
23,9 ms -> 35% (?)
12 ms -> 41-43%
6 ms -> 50-54% (audio stopped, i have to run again the audio engine)
3 ms -> 70-73% (audio stopped, i have to run again the audio engine)
1 ms -> CPU warning but no dropout

I am using W2K with Sonar 3. My motherboard is capable of H/T but I never even heard about it until I joined this forum. I read that hyperthreading is for XP/LINUS. Should I try using it, or disable it or what should I do. What are the benefits? Thanks in advance.

Spec.

P4 2.4
1GB DDRAM 400
ASUS P4800

While I'm on a roll here (sorry for all the questions) I have 2 files on my C drive that won't defragment-2 big red blotches. Any ideas.

thanks for response. I'll give a few more details. It wouldn't be from loading samples I don't think because I have my data on a different physical drive than Sonar 3 program. THe namers of the files are:
1253KB\WINNT\SHELLCON CACHE
1405KB\RECYCLE\NPROTECT\00005873.NKS
Someone suggested running Norton Disc Doctor or utilities (which I don't own.) My technician moved to Taiwan for a while and I'm having to wear all the hats with heavy deadlines. It's not kkeping me from working but it concerns me that everytime I run a check it says that it needs to be defragged and the not so appealing red block is there.

The 1st one, I have also and don't know what the other is, but they look of no concern and their size is too small to have anything to do with your large frags. Well, that's all I have to offer. As you said, if all your sample libraries connected with vstis are on the 2nd drive then this is something else. Maybe someone else here would know.

"but it concerns me that everytime I run a check it says that it needs to be defragged and the not so appealing red block is there. "

And yes, this is what I always got from my fragmented drive.

Maybe you should start a new thread on this one. Maybe that's why no one is answering.

Doh! The manual wasn't too clear on the subject and I've always used WDM in the past [/idiot]

ASUS P4PE mobo
2.4 gHz, Intel 845 chipset
1 GB Crucial 333 DDR RAM (2 - 512s)
2 Western Digital 7200 80 GB HDs (one programs, one audio)
Matrox G550 Dualhead graphics card
RME Multiface - ASIO driver 2.6.2
Windows XP Pro - sp1
Sonar 3.1.1

46ms - 34%
23ms - 38%
12ms - 45%
6ms - 59%
3ms - 87%
1.5 - Tango Uniform

I've just started to use Sonar heavily and based on this and another project I've got going on I wouldn't say my prospect for the future is exactly ecstatic. I ordered another 512 MB RAM chip today. Hoping that helps out. I've done all the XP tweaks I can find (except hyperthreading, don't think my mobo supports it).

I'm doing house music, so lots of DXi and effects and automation are essential. I really expected far better performance than what I'm seeing.

Any ideas are GREATLY welcome!


zendin

Oops! So sorry, it's a 2.4 gHz. I went ahead and fixed my above post as well.

Anyone have any feedback yet? Thanks once again

Woody, Zendin --

RE: Poor performance numbers with 845-based P4 motherboards.

You're both using motherboards with the 845 chipset (Zendin has 845PE, Woody has 845E). Unfortunately, the 845 is not so great as far as memory throughput goes. The original 845 truly sucked rocks in that department; the 'PE' version is a bit better than the 'E' version, which is a fair bit better than the original version. I have an Asus P4T with a 1.7G P4 and an 850 chipset (which required $$@$! RDRAM), and on memory-sensitive benchmarks, it still blows away 2+ G P4 systems with 845 chipsets). If you want the nitty-gritty details, there are chipset reviews on anadtech.com, tomshardware.com and other geek sites.

Zendin, your problem is fixable, with a bit of pain. You have a socket 478 processor, which means you can move both the processor and your RAM to a new mother board with an 865 chipset (or better). The Intel D865PERL has been getting great reviews elsewhere on the forum, and it's around $100. There are lots of other choices depending on the features you want. (In my case, the hot new motherboards don't use RDRAM, so I have to buy new everything when I upgrade .....)

Woody, you've got a 1.8G P4, but it seems to be a socket 478 given your motherboard. Your system can also be improved, but you may need to spend more money than Zendin. Least cost: you could keep the same processor and ram and just upgrade the motherboard. However, 1.8G is a bit slow for current P4s, and you might consider a new one. Happily, they've just gone on sale: with the new Prescott P4's introduced and the HT P4's now going mainstream, the non-HT P4's have been price-dropping. You can probably reuse your existing RAM (you didn't give the speed), but it might be a bottleneck as well.

FWIW, I just bought a 2.8G 533M FSB P4 from newegg for about $170; I'm modding my P4T motherboard with a p478 socket adapter so I can use the 2.8G P4 with my 1G of PC800 RDRAM (at 533 FSB) -- slightly overclocked, but others have made it work.

In other words -- lose your motherboard, buy an 865-based one, and you should be happier (look at Scott's stats; you're the only two people with 845-based systems).

Good luck!

Jim

Edited 2004-8-2 to add links below. Note that 845PE is clearly better than the original 845, but still no match for 865PE, 875P.

Intel P4 memory performance at 533 FSB: 845, 865, 875 chipsets
http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=1823&p=9

Intel P4 memory performance at 800 FSB: 845, 865, 875 chipsets
http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=1823&p=15

Issues with 865 chipset and DDR400 memory
http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=1823&p=6

Did you build this yourself, or did you buy it from a custom daw place?