New, Updated SonarTest

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

The file contains:

19 audio tracks
3 DXi audio tracks
3 MIDI tracks (routed to the DXis)
5 Busses (3 setup as auxes)

19 Track EQs (4 bands enabled for each)
6 Sonitus Gates
6 Sonitus Compressors
1 Sonitus Delay
1 Sonitus Multiband
1 Sonitus Reverb
2 Lexicon Pantheon Reverbs

2 Dreamstation instances (each setup for 16-note polyphony)
1 Cyclone instance

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.

If you have a Dual-CPU system... or one with Hyperthreading... or both... post results with Sonar's Multiprocessor Engine both on and off.

Along with your results, post detailed system specs, and I'll try to put together some detailed charts mapping out the performance of various CPUs at various latencies.

Thanks ahead for all of your help with this!



Now... this is a nice bonus to having a web-based forum. I can update this top post at will in order to keep updated results readily available to all. Here's what we have so far (this will be updated as new data comes in):

CPU Chart
CPUs are listed in order of low-latency performance.
Blue Lines represent Intel systems.
Green Lines represent older-generation single-CPU AMD systems.
Red/Pink Lines represent new-generation single-CPU AMD systems.
Yellow Lines represent multi-CPU systems.
Dotted lines represent multi-CPU systems with Sonar's MP capabilities disabled.



-Scott

My own results:

AMD AthlonFX51 (2.2GHz)
ASUS SK8N nForce3 Motherboard
1GB PC3200 CAS2.5 Registered DDR (2x512MB)
Albatron GeForceFX 5900 128MB AGP Video
Maxtor 60GB 7200rpm ATA133 System Drive
Western Digital 200GB 7200rpm ATA100 Audio Drive
Maxtor 120GB 7200rpm SATA backup drive
Sony DW-U14A DVDR
Enermax 431W PS
WindowsXP Professional SP1
MOTU 2408MkIII


46.4ms........25%
23.2ms........27%
11.6ms........30-31%
5.8ms..........35-37%
2.9ms..........43-46%
1.5ms..........62-67%

SONY VAIO PCG-NVR23 laptop, Athlon 1.6 GHz, 512 RAM, 80 GB HD, Win XP.

2 buffers in playback queue

50 ms. 55-56%
40 ms. 57-59%
30 ms. 57-61%
20 ms. 57-63%
10 ms. 65-78%

I also get about -34db of noise on the main outs, mostly on the right channel.

I also get about -34db of noise on the main outs, mostly on the right channel.

This is likely because we have 19 tracks monitoring a single input pair... and that input pair on the notebook is probably rather noisy.

Thanks for the results!

-S

It doesn't seem to make any difference, but is it deliberate that
the Master bus is muted? Anyway...

HARDWARE:

AMD Opteron 146 (2.0GHz)
ASUS SK8N nForce 3 mobo
2x512MB PC3200 Corsair registered ECC DDR SDRAM @400MHz
Matrox P750 AGP graphics card
RME Hammerfall DSP 9632 audio card
Zalman HSF and PSU
(Disk, CDROM, NIC not used in benchmark)

SOFTWARE:

Windows 2000 SP4
Sonar 3.1
RME ASIO drivers v2.62

RESULTS:

1.5ms ....... 64-72%
2.9ms ....... 44-47%
5.8ms ....... 36% +/- 1%
11.6ms ..... 31-32%
23.2ms ..... 28%
46.5ms ..... 26%
92.9ms ..... 25%
185.8ms ... 25%

I'm not an overclocker, and the Opteron isn't set up to play
games with the clock multipliers, but just for grins, I overclocked
the whole CPU by 5%, for a 2.1GHz processor clock and 210MHz
(x2) FSB. What's interesting is that there was actually *less*
variation in the CPU display at short latencies than at the standard
operating frequency. In some cases, the speedup came out to more
than 5%, presumably because the measurement isn't really exact.
The results *seem* to show that the Opteron at 2.1GHz is very
slightly faster than the Athlon FX 51 at 2.2GHz at low latencies.
That could be due to measurement error, or it could be a real
phenomenon of speeding up the FSB as well as the CPU.

1.5ms ....... 61-63%
2.9ms ....... 43-44%
5.8ms ....... 34%
11.6ms ..... 30%
23.2ms ..... 27%
46.5ms ..... 25%
92.9ms ..... 24%
185.8ms ... 24%

It doesn't seem to make any difference, but is it deliberate that
the Master bus is muted?

Yes... so many input monitored tracks generate a lot of noise with cheaper soundcards. It's safer to leave it muted... and it doesn't impact the results at all.

-S

Hi Scott

Intel 2.4gig O/C to 3.0gig @ 250fsb
Asus 865PE Chipset DDR
**NO** H/T
Memory @ 1:1 @ 3/4/4/8
2 x 512 DDR500
WinXP SP1
Sonar 3.1 **NO** MP

Asio 46ms %25 <-> %26
Asio 23ms %27 <-> %28
Asio 11.6ms %32 <-> %33
Asio 5.8ms %40 <-> %42
Asio 2.9ms %58 <-> %60
Asio 1.5ms no cpu reading

Thx,
timboe
PS: My H/T and MP is turned off as no matter what I try, as Kontakt is not thread-safe, it is simply too erractic to run it in multiple instances - with MP and H/T off, all seems very happy.

Here's a low end result for you
AMD AthlonXP 1900+ (1.6GHz)
ECS K7S5a motherboard
512MB DDR RAM (2x256MB)
Yamaha SW1000XG audio
Matrox G450 DualHead AGP video
Maxtor 30GB system drive, ATA/100
2x Maxtor 60GB audio drives, ATA/100, RAID-1 via Adaptec RAID 1200A controller
Enermax 431W PS
Windows 2000 SP4

Audiotrak Maya - ASIO:
46.4ms - 44%
23.2ms - 47%
11.6ms - 57%
5.8ms - 71%
2.9ms - dropout

Audiotrak Maya - WDM:
46.4ms - 46%
23.2ms - 49%
11.6ms - 58%
5.8ms - 76%
(4.4ms - 85%-95%)
2.9ms - dropout

Yamaha SW1000XG - WDM:
46.4ms - 48%
23.2ms - 53%
11.6ms - 59%
5.8ms - 76%-90%
2.9ms - dropout

Ron Kuper mentioned previously how the meter reading would vary betwen ASIO and WDM, although the actual CPU usage is the same. So you'll need to compensate for one or the other before graphing.

Also the choice of audio card/driver makes a noticable difference. If you get enough data perhaps you could remove this variable (i.e. only include M-Audio Deltas, Echo Mias, or RME Hammerfalls, or...).

Ron Kuper mentioned previously how the meter reading would vary betwen ASIO and WDM, although the actual CPU usage is the same. So you'll need to compensate for one or the other before graphing.

Also the choice of audio card/driver makes a noticable difference. If you get enough data perhaps you could remove this variable (i.e. only include M-Audio Deltas, Echo Mias, or RME Hammerfalls, or...).

Good points. This is why I'm going to try to use ASIO results for the most part. They may also be more consistent than WDM overall... since the buffer size is set at the driver. With WDM... a latency of 11.6ms might mean the driver has either a 64, 128, 256, or 512 sample buffer. ASIO keeps things a bit more honest.

-S

Here's another system, my laptop DAW (which is my "real" DAW,
the Opteron machine is for development and experimentation.)

HARDWARE:

IBM Thinkpad A31
Intel Pentium 4M @ 1.8GHZ
768MB PC2100 RAM
RME HDSP PCMCIA/Multiface audio adapter

SOFTWARE:

Windows 2000 SP2
Sonar 3.1
RME ASIO drivers v2.62

1.5ms ....... Audio Shutdown
2.9ms ....... Audio Shutdown
5.8ms ....... 73-76%
11.6ms ..... 58% +/- 1%
23.3ms ..... 49-50%
46.4ms ..... 45-46%
92.9ms ..... 44%
185.8ms ... 43%

I just did a 5% overclocking of my Opteron (brute force,
FSB speedup) and edited my earlier Opteron system results
posting to include the overclocked numbers. The system seems
happy and is running just as cool, but I'm gonna back it
down to spec, 'cos I'm that kind of guy...

Results from my dual Athlon MP in MP engine mode

mobo- Tyan S2460
Dual Athlon MP 2000+ ( 1.67 Ghz)
Creamware Luna II and Pulsar 1
Asio drivers found in SFP3.1 c

23.2 msec- 27%
11.6 msec- 35%
5.8 Msec- 46%
2.9 msec- 70%
1.5 Msec- 88%, didn't want to stay running.

When MP engine was turned off, it would not run past 5.8 Msec

For those of you with MP systems, do you mind comparing results with and without MP enabled in SONAR? Thanks.

with out MP engaged

23.2 Msec- 47%
11.6 Msec- 56%
5.8 Msec- 72%
2.9 - would not run
1.5- Would not run

EDIT: Ok I got it. ;) Nevermind.

I would like to try the test. Is the file down? Can't seem to download it.

cAPS

ORIGINAL: Scott Reams

My own results:

AMD AthlonFX51 (2.2GHz)
ASUS SK8N nForce3 Motherboard
1GB PC3200 CAS2.5 Registered DDR (2x512MB)
Albatron GeForceFX 5900 128MB AGP Video
Maxtor 60GB 7200rpm ATA133 System Drive
Western Digital 200GB 7200rpm ATA100 Audio Drive
Maxtor 120GB 7200rpm SATA backup drive
Sony DW-U14A DVDR
Enermax 431W PS
WindowsXP Professional SP1
MOTU 2408MkIII


46.4ms........25%
23.2ms........27%
11.6ms........30-31%
5.8ms..........35-37%
2.9ms..........43-46%
1.5ms..........62-67%

Scott,

I thought the SATA serial interface was supposed to be the best drive for audio.

Why are you using the SATA drive as a back-up drive?

My desktop machine
WDM mode only available

50ms 37%
40ms 39%
30ms 40%
20ms 44%
10ms 50->55%

This is
2.4ghz P4
Soundmax Integrated Audio
Intel GEBV2 (MOBO)

Andy C

HARDWARE:

Athlon XP 2700+
ASUS A7N8X-DX Mobo
1Gig PC2700 RAM
Layla24 (in ASIO mode)

SOFTWARE:

Windows XP SP1
Sonar 3.1
Layla 24 6.08 drivers

1.5ms ....... Can't seem to enable 1.5ms for ASIO (note: not a dropout, I just don't know how to set ASIO for 64 samples)
2.9ms ....... 71%
5.8ms ....... 49%
11.6ms ..... 38%
23.3ms ..... 33%
46.4ms ..... 30%

Scott,
Here's my system (as best as I can describe it):
Dell Dimension 8300
Pentium 4 HT 2.6ghz
512mgb DDR RAM
2 Delta 66's (WDM Mode)
Midiman 4X4 usb midi interface
2 Western Digital HD's at 7200rpm programs-120gig, wavedata-80gig
Windows XP Pro SP1
Sonar 3.1

Here are my results:
44.6 = 31%
23.2 = 33%
11.6 = 38%
5.8 = 49%
4.4 = 58%
2.9 = 74%
1.5 = chokes

Thanks!

Delta .36 WDM drivers)

Latency MP non-MP
----------------------------------
46.4ms 25% 40%
23.2ms 28% 43%
11.6ms 33% 50%
5.8ms 45% 66%
2.9ms 63-68 XX
1.5ms XX XX


Asus A7M266-D mobo
Two MP2800+
1GB DDR
WinXP SP1

Steven

Intel P4 3.0 HT (3.0GHz)
ASUS P4C800 Deluxe nForce3 Motherboard
1GB PC3200 CAS2.0 Registered DDR (2x512MB)
Maxtor 160GB 7200rpm SATA drive
Sony DW-U14A DVDR
Antex Truepower 380W PS
UAD-1 (2)
WindowsXP Professional SP1
RME Hammerfall Dsp Digiface

At first I was surprised... I wondered how on Earth could I be beating the 64 bit Athlons? I then realized that my default sampling rate is 88.2k:

46.4ms........25%
23.2ms........26-27%
11.6ms........28-29%
5.8ms..........31-33%
2.9ms..........40-43%
1.5ms..........56-63%

So at 44.1 I should be more in line with your graph:

46.4ms........26-27%
23.2ms........28-29%
11.6ms........31-33%
5.8ms..........41-42%
2.9ms..........57-62%
1.5ms..........CPU WARNING ;)

So.. I would suggest editing the instructions to include the test sample rate at 44.1 (or multiple rates I guess).

cAPS

ORIGINAL: Scott Reams

My own results:

AMD AthlonFX51 (2.2GHz)
ASUS SK8N nForce3 Motherboard
1GB PC3200 CAS2.5 Registered DDR (2x512MB)
Albatron GeForceFX 5900 128MB AGP Video
Maxtor 60GB 7200rpm ATA133 System Drive
Western Digital 200GB 7200rpm ATA100 Audio Drive
Maxtor 120GB 7200rpm SATA backup drive
Sony DW-U14A DVDR
Enermax 431W PS
WindowsXP Professional SP1
MOTU 2408MkIII


46.4ms........25%
23.2ms........27%
11.6ms........30-31%
5.8ms..........35-37%
2.9ms..........43-46%
1.5ms..........62-67%

Intel 8088 (4MHz)
No name Motherboard
640k base ram
Everex CGA Video
Seagate ST340 System Drive
Seagate ST340 Audio Drive
Microsoft DOS 3.3
PC Speaker for beeps

46.4ms........1225%
23.2ms........1227%
11.6ms........1230-1231%
5.8ms..........1335-1337%
2.9ms..........1543-1546%
1.5ms..........1862-1867%


While this test was running on the 'ol 286, I was actually recording music on the dog 2.4Ghz Intel machine with HT disabled. <G>

Sometimes ya gotta laugh!

Great test.

But it amazed me that Scott used OC results.

I would dearly love to know how well the P4 performed throught without its front end wound up, and how much a 32bit Athlon can do at similar clock speeds to the 64 bit CPU's.

Anyone know ?

It would be better to exclude OC-ed CPUs or busses, not every stock CPU can be overclocked to the same amount.

Much more importantly, can somebody post with a really slow PC, my DAW is currently sticking out a mile as the slowest one in existence.

Here's mine...

WDM

46.4ms........35%
23.2ms........37%
11.6ms........43%
5.8ms..........58%
2.9ms..........82% then dies within 2 seconds
1.5ms..........doesn't run

ASIO

How do I set latency slider in ASIO mode to determine latencies? My Echo Mia card only allows buffer changes in ASIO. I maybe doing something incorrect, not sure.

thanks
Brian

Gigabyte GA-7N400-L1 (bios F7 w/latest NVidia drivers)
Athlon XP 2600+ (running at 2700)
1 gig of DDR 2700 (Dual Channel mode)
Chaintech NVidia 5200 AGP 8x video (w/latest NVidia drivers)
Dell 1800FP (digital LCD monitor)
(2) 80 gig Hitachi Deskstars 7200rpm
(1) 160 gig Maxtor 7200rpm
WinXP SP1 (w/ latest patches)
(2) Mia Soundcards w/6.08 drivers (using Super Channel mode)
Antex 350 watt Case

My Dual Proc DAW

SMP

46.4 msec- 24%
23.2 msec- 26%
11.6 msec- 33%
5.8 Msec- 47%
2.9 msec- 71%
1.5 Msec- Would not Engage

Single Proc mode

46.4 msec- 37%
23.2 msec- 42%
11.6 msec- 50%
5.8 Msec- 67%
2.9 msec- Would not Engage
1.5 Msec- Would not Engage


This is a dual AMD 2600+
Tyan Tiger 2466 MOBO
Delta 44 Soundacard, ASIO

Ok, here are my results
System:
Abit Nf7-S Rev 2
Athlon XP2400+(T-Bred) @ 170*13( 2210 mhz )
2*512 MB Dual Channel DDR
2 Seagate 80 GB HD
M-Audio Delta66 .36 drivers
Geforce FX-5200
Liteon DVD-R
Sony DVD-RW

results (Asio) :

46.4 ms 29-30%

34.8 ms 31-32%

23.2 ms 34-34%

11.6 ms 38-39%

5.8 ms 49-51%

2.9 ms 71-74%

1.5 ms DROPOUT

Niko

The results *seem* to show that the Opteron at 2.1GHz is very
slightly faster than the Athlon FX 51 at 2.2GHz at low latencies.

I'm pretty sure this is because you are using lower-latency memory than I am. That Corsair RAM has much more agressive timings than my Kingston memory. Otherwise... an AthlonFX51 -is- an Opteron 148.

-S

Scott,

I thought the SATA serial interface was supposed to be the best drive for audio.

Why are you using the SATA drive as a back-up drive?

On this motherboard, the SATA controller is a PCI device... which means that a) it shares PCI bandwidth with the audio interface, and b) it is bottlenecked by the 133MB/sec of PCI anyway. The ATA133 controller gets its own bandwidth.

-S

ORIGINAL: sbavin

It would be better to exclude OC-ed CPUs or busses, not every stock CPU can be overclocked to the same amount.

Much more importantly, can somebody post with a really slow PC, my DAW is currently sticking out a mile as the slowest one in existence.

I don't intend to exclude them... just to clearly mark them with a big "OC". As more results appear, I'll post multplie graphs. One with all single-CPU machines. One with only stock single-CPU machines. One with all machines. One with all dual-CPU machines. Everyone will get what they want.

-S

How do I set latency slider in ASIO mode to determine latencies? My Echo Mia card only allows buffer changes in ASIO. I maybe doing something incorrect, not sure.

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

Thanx for your work, Scott, interesting stuff.
I'd really like someone with the ordinary athlon64 to participate.
It'd be interesting to see how well it could keep up to the FX/opteron.

Niko

Well at first Sonar wouldn't load the plugs. So I installed the 3.1 patch and... it worked. I'll add another Athlon score.

System Specs
Motherboard: Asus A7N8X deluxe (nForce2 dual channel)
RAM: 512Mb Corsir TwinX Timed at 2-2-2-5
Processor: AthlonXP 2700+ T-Bred B core
FSB: 333 MHz
CPU: 2.17 GHz
Multiplier: 13
Audio Device: WDM M-Audio Delta 0.29 driver set to 64 sample buffer

46.4ms: 33%
23.2ms: 33-36%
11.6ms: 39-43%
5.8ms: 51-58%
2.9ms: 73-76%
1.5ms: Warning shown but doesn't drop out

AMD XP2600+ (266 FSB) @ 2.13 GHz
ASUS A7S333 MOBO SIS Chipset
2 x 512 DDR
Matrox G400 DH
UAD-1
40, 60, 80, GB Maxtor HD's @7200rpm
Teac CDRW
Enermax 431 PS
MidiMan BiPort (Serial midi interface)
Steinberg Midex 3 LTB (USB midi interface)
Steinberg Dongle (USB)
Mackie Control
WinXP Pro SP1
RME Hammerfall
ASIO Driver

46.4ms 37-38%
23.2ms 40-42% (My normal setting to mix)
11.6ms 49-51%
5.8 ms 66-68%
2.9 ms Dropout
1.5 ms Dropout

My score observations so far (warning: contains speculation):

This benchmark shows the P4 in a much better light than the old sonarbench. This is most likely due to better optimizations for SSE and other compiler related improvements for the P4. The older plug-ins were most likely primarily x87 in nature and ran well with the Athlon FPU.

This particular test file seems to like memory bandwidth a whole lot. The 1GHz FSB P4 at 3.0GHz (timboe) turned out a better score than the 3.0GHz P4 with a stock 800MHz FSB (cAPSLOCK). The Athlon FX and Opteron scores are very high. This could be due to the higher bandwidth and lower latency memory access of those chips, but differences in architecture make it difficult to speculate. The Athlon XP chips fall approximately in line with the P4 equivalent. For example my XP2700+ scores curve very closely with the P4 2.6GHz with an 800Mhz FSB scores turned in by mistergarner, coinciding at 2.9ms and 23.2ms.
(HT was only enabled on the C version of the P4 so that Dell machine should have an 800MHz FSB)

With the current prices, that makes the sub $200 Athlon XP and the Pentium 4 very close in price vs. performance. The top of the line is also well matched, the $408 Opteron 146 should outperform the $385 P4 3.2GHz by about that much money. The $700 Athlon 64 FX 51 is definitely the single processor champion, but I can’t say it’s worth the extra cash (sorry Scott, but I’m still jealous). I would have to guess that the 2MB L3 cache of the P4 Extreme Edition isn’t going to make enough of a difference in Sonar to make it worth $915.

The only puzzle piece missing is the standard Athlon 64 chips, as mentioned by Niko. That may indicate if Sonar responds well to the improved memory latency, the bandwidth, or most likely, a combination of the two. If the Athlon 64s perform as well as their big brothers, they would be the price vs. performance champion.
(Prices from www.pricewatch.com)

Btw, THANKS for this effort!

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

if i felt industrious today i'd load all of this data into a database & make it
searchable online.

but instead i gues i should do other work.

Here's what I'm noticing:

The difference between the two 3GHz P4s (OC and non-OC) is negligable for the most part. In fact... the stock one wins at the lowest latency.

The curve is much different for all the A64s/AFXs/Opterons than for other CPUs. The 3GHz P4 and AthlonXP 3200+ can hang with them at the highest latencies... but the new AMD CPUs pull away from everybody convincingly at the lowest. This includes the Athlon64... which has half the memory bandwidth of the A64/Opteron... but lower memory latency. I'd conclude that the on-board low-latency memory controller is the reason for this. The A64/FX/Opteron is a great CPU for low-latency audio.

As for what is worth the money... I'd have to agree on one point. The AthlonFX is not a great value (in this case). An Athlon64 3400+ would likely outperform it by a bit, with its identical clockspeed and lower memory latency.

So:

The single-CPU king of the hill would be the $404 Athlon64 3400+ (2.2GHz, 1MB L2) in this test. The best value would most likely go to the Athlon64 3000+ (2GHz, 512kb L2, $211) or Athlon64 3200+ (2GHz, 1MB L2, $270). At least so far. Of course... I suspect that dual Opterons will be the ultimate performance champion in this case.

-S

Something is out of whack on that 2800MP system

also, any conclusions on P4 hyperthreading?

ORIGINAL: Scott Reams
So:

The single-CPU king of the hill would be the $404 Athlon64 3400+ (2.2GHz, 1MB L2) in this test. The best value would most likely go to the Athlon64 3000+ (2GHz, 512kb L2, $211) or Athlon64 3200+ (2GHz, 1MB L2, $270). At least so far. Of course... I suspect that dual Opterons will be the ultimate performance champion in this case.

How fast of a computer will I need to make *GOOD* music?

Also, will duel Opera-Trons make my hihat sound any better?

Hyperthreading gives me a 10-25% (or so) boost depending on latency. The lower latencies show the lower boost in performance.

Perhaps someone with more time than me could do a conclusive test... I could be a little off. ;)

cAPS

ORIGINAL: wogg
[snip]
The only puzzle piece missing is the standard Athlon 64 chips, as mentioned by Niko.

Well, the other missing piece would be a couple of Centrino/Pentium-M
scores. On the old Sonartest, and on the Reaktor benchmarks, they
were amazingly efficient.

Boy....I'm getting lousy results!!
Anyone know why?

P4 1.8 Titan GA-8IE800 intel845E Chipset
512 DDR Ram
2-7200rpm HDrives
Delta66/Omni 27drivers

WinXP
Sonar3.1
Mackie Control Surface

WDM
46.4 65cpu
23.2 65cpu
11.6 78cpu
5.8 xxx
2.9 xxx
1.5 xxx

Anything I can do to lower my cpu ? Woody

ORIGINAL: Glennbo

How fast of a computer will I need to make *GOOD* music?

Also, will duel Opera-Trons make my hihat sound any better?

You are starting to sound a lot like Ted... :)

I know you are kidding around, but I hope you aren't implying that this information is not useful. We all know quite well that a DAW's processing capabilities are only one aspect of a larger equation.

Will a faster DAW make my music writing better? No. Will it smooth out the recording process... allowing more focus to be put into creativity? Sure. The less bouncing I'm doing, the more time I am spending on the music.

-S

ORIGINAL: woody24

Boy....I'm getting lousy results!!
Anyone know why?

Can you try again with ASIO?

A couple things to keep in mind... your CPU clock is not much over half that of the 3GHz P4... and the 400MHz FSB speed -is- half that of the 3GHz P4. I'd expect your CPU% at 46.4ms to be about 60%... so you aren't far off.

-S

ORIGINAL: Duojet

Something is out of whack on that 2800MP system

It looks about right to me. Some things to remember:

The 2800+ MP is a Barton CPU... and has a slower core clock than the 2700+ and 2600+ XP (2.08MHz vs 2.17/2.13MHz). It has a slower FSB than any of the more modern XP CPUs (266MHz vs 333 or 400MHz). It also has an older chipset by comparison. Newer single-CPU XP chipsets are better optimized overall.

Edit: Actually... looking closer, the dual 2800+ system isn't doing much better than the dual 2000+ system... despite a 25% clock speed advantage and twice the cache. It definitely deserves a second look.

-S

P4, hyperthreaded, 2.6C overclocked to 3.3 GHz, 1Gb PC3200 RAM as 2x512, Maxtor 80Gb ATA133, WaveTerminal 192L card. Asus P4C800 MB.

WDM:
46.4 - 24%
23.2 - 27%
11.6 - 32%
5.8 - 38%
(won't go lower than 5.8)

ASIO:
5.8 - 41%
(won't go to anything other than 5.8)

yes, but it looks like it should be further ahead of the 2000+ MP system. also, the 2700 xp system seems TOO FAR ahead(like you said, FSB etc). nevertheless this analysis is priceless. you couldnt find this anywhere else on the internet. most sites do some synthetic benchmarks and call it a day.

i thought the extra cache would have helped more than clock speed. also its interesting to see that the dual channel memory of the fx51 doesnt help much here. i think my next system will be a 3400 athlon 64.

BTW here are my scores:

AMD athlon xp 2400+ 266FSB
333 Mhz 512 MB DDR
MSI Nforce 2 (k7ng)
seagate 7200 rpm 8mb cache

ASIO:
46.4 - 37%
23.2 - 40-41%
11.6 - 48-50%
5.8 - 63-65%
Choke on anything below 5.8

the dual 2800+ system isn't doing much better than the dual 2000+ system

Great. Well there's a few hundred bucks and a long weekend down the toilet!

(just upgraded from 1900+'s)

Steven

ORIGINAL: Duojet

yes, but it looks like it should be further ahead of the 2000+ MP system.

Agreed. I updated my original reply to mention this.

-S

ORIGINAL: Steven Bell

the dual 2800+ system isn't doing much better than the dual 2000+ system

Great. Well there's a few hundred bucks and a long weekend down the toilet!

(just upgraded from 1900+'s)

Steven

It's probably worth looking at why this is happening. Your system has every reason to be 20-25% faster than that dual 2000+.

-S

just a suggestion, might a line graph work better?

ORIGINAL: woody24

Boy....I'm getting lousy results!!
Anyone know why?

P4 1.8 Titan GA-8IE800 intel845E Chipset
512 DDR Ram
2-7200rpm HDrives
Delta66/Omni 27drivers

WinXP
Sonar3.1
Mackie Control Surface

WDM
46.4 65cpu
23.2 65cpu
11.6 78cpu
5.8 xxx
2.9 xxx
1.5 xxx

Anything I can do to lower my cpu ? Woody

Well with ASIO drivers I get about 10% improvement on all settings....

Should I be using ASIO instead of WDM?
I thought WDM were better???

And thanks a lot for taking the time to do all of this!
So my 1.8 is already to slow.....geeesh....I've only had it about 4 months!
Woody

Well with ASIO drivers I get about 10% improvement on all settings....

Should I be using ASIO instead of WDM?
I thought WDM were better???

ASIO can be better depending on the interface. Try it for a while.

And thanks a lot for taking the time to do all of this!
So my 1.8 is already to slow.....geeesh....I've only had it about 4 months!
Woody

Your system is only too slow if it doesn't handle the way you like to work.

-S

ORIGINAL: Duojet

just a suggestion, might a line graph work better?

I just tried it...

It's better in one way... as it is easier to follow one CPUs performance across several latencies. It is, however, problematic, in that it is more difficult to pin-point which CPU is which... and some of the default line colors are hard to see (although this is user-configurable to a point). I'll try to tweak it and make it more useable.

-S

ORIGINAL: woody24

ORIGINAL: woody24

Boy....I'm getting lousy results!!
Anyone know why?

P4 1.8 Titan GA-8IE800 intel845E Chipset
512 DDR Ram
2-7200rpm HDrives
Delta66/Omni 27drivers

WDM
46.4 65cpu
23.2 65cpu
11.6 78cpu
5.8 xxx
2.9 xxx
1.5 xxx

Anything I can do to lower my cpu ? Woody

Well with ASIO drivers I get about 10% improvement on all settings....

Which is still pretty slow relative to the 1.8GHz P4M laptop numbers
I posted earlier today. Do you have particularly ghastly memory
timing, by any chance?

Should I be using ASIO instead of WDM?
I thought WDM were better???

As I understand the two driver models, ASIO should
theoretically always provide lower absolute latency
than WDM. In practice, it depends on the drivers
that actually get written for the card, and there's a
lot of variability. I had a sound card where MME
worked better than WDM. If using ASIO gives you
10% lower CPU consumption *and* is just as stable,
I'd say yes, you should be using it instead of WDM.

ORIGINAL: Scott Reams

The results *seem* to show that the Opteron at 2.1GHz is very
slightly faster than the Athlon FX 51 at 2.2GHz at low latencies.

I'm pretty sure this is because you are using lower-latency memory than I am. That Corsair RAM has much more agressive timings than my Kingston memory. Otherwise... an AthlonFX51 -is- an Opteron 148.

Right. But an Opteron 148 runs a 2.2GHz core with a 400MHz FSB,
whereas overclocking the 146 by 5% runs a 2.1GHz core with a 420MHz
FSB. So it has a 5% slower clock but a 5% faster FSB relative to the 148.
Which effect would dominate would be a function of the cache miss rate.