STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived!

Page: < 123 > Showing page 2 of 3
Author
Post
Essentials Only Full Version
eratu
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2856
  • Joined: 2007/01/27 22:08:32
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 09:28:35 (permalink)
John



I am not discounting the Asus MBs in any way. They are good solid MBs. I have used then in the past and got good service from them. What I found extreme was the notion they are the best. To me that depends on what they are used for. As is true of most any brand.


Hi John,

I don't consider Asus the best by any stretch. In fact, I've been a Gigabyte fan for the last few years and rounds of DAWs I've built. I went with Asus this time mainly because of the large number of people I read that had wide success with easy, breezy overclocking, and I knew some people with this motherboard model so I could bug them if I had a problem, in theory.

However, this was easier than anticipated to build and overclock, and I needed no help. That's not to say other people aren't overclocking just as easily and simply on other motherboards, it's just the resources I personally had available for overclocking were greater for this motherboard than for others.... resources I ended up not needing.

Also, I bought this motherboard locally and could easily return/exchange it the same day if I had problems, instead of waiting for NewEgg. Someone else could make a better choice with another brand of motherboard, or they'd be just fine with this one too. This is excellent and I would not hesitate to recommend it. But I'd also suggest taking a good look at the type of motherboard that would work best for the builder. I could have just as easily gone with a Gigabyte.
#31
eratu
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2856
  • Joined: 2007/01/27 22:08:32
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 09:30:25 (permalink)
JonD


dontletmedrown


You know what's funny-- I have that same mobo.  Isn't it ironic that it goes through so much crap BEFORE it even launches windows?  I wish I could bypass the Asus banners and the "click here to continue booting..."   Because of the mobo, my DAW's boot time is longer than my older/slower DAW.


Dave,
I'm not familiar with that specific mobo, but most boards have the ability (in the BIOS) to disable those logo screens.  Have you checked?


Yeah, check your BIOS settings, this boots up just fine, without anything unusual...
#32
dontletmedrown
Max Output Level: -58 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1722
  • Joined: 2006/09/09 13:52:26
  • Location: Camarillo, CA
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 11:26:54 (permalink)
eratu


JonD


dontletmedrown


You know what's funny-- I have that same mobo.  Isn't it ironic that it goes through so much crap BEFORE it even launches windows?  I wish I could bypass the Asus banners and the "click here to continue booting..."   Because of the mobo, my DAW's boot time is longer than my older/slower DAW.


Dave,
I'm not familiar with that specific mobo, but most boards have the ability (in the BIOS) to disable those logo screens.  Have you checked?


Yeah, check your BIOS settings, this boots up just fine, without anything unusual...

Of course it ends up "booting fine", it just takes a lot longer than my old system before windows actually launches.  I really wish I could get rid of the "J Micron" splash screen.


So-Cal Sound Design
#33
eratu
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2856
  • Joined: 2007/01/27 22:08:32
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 11:29:11 (permalink)
Oh, I see what you're saying. I think I disabled the JMicron adapter in the BIOS... :) Don't need it.
#34
dontletmedrown
Max Output Level: -58 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1722
  • Joined: 2006/09/09 13:52:26
  • Location: Camarillo, CA
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 11:33:05 (permalink)
Yeah, I can't disable it since I'm using a spare IDE hard drive into it.

So-Cal Sound Design
#35
John
Forum Host
  • Total Posts : 30467
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 11:35:44 (permalink)
Hi John, I don't consider Asus the best by any stretch. In fact, I've been a Gigabyte fan for the last few years and rounds of DAWs I've built. I went with Asus this time mainly because of the large number of people I read that had wide success with easy, breezy overclocking, and I knew some people with this motherboard model so I could bug them if I had a problem, in theory. However, this was easier than anticipated to build and overclock, and I needed no help. That's not to say other people aren't overclocking just as easily and simply on other motherboards, it's just the resources I personally had available for overclocking were greater for this motherboard than for others.... resources I ended up not needing. Also, I bought this motherboard locally and could easily return/exchange it the same day if I had problems, instead of waiting for NewEgg. Someone else could make a better choice with another brand of motherboard, or they'd be just fine with this one too. This is excellent and I would not hesitate to recommend it. But I'd also suggest taking a good look at the type of motherboard that would work best for the builder. I could have just as easily gone with a Gigabyte.
I fully agree with everything you are saying. I do believe it was your doing the research that put you over the hump sort of speak. I am very happy with my choice too. Personally I think right now we are in a new age of computing power. We are seeing all these things come together in a sort of critical mass that is making all this possible. Great hardware great software and reasonable prices. Its a good time to be involved.  I am very glad you have found this to your liking. Take care Eratu and have fun. 

Best
John
#36
dontletmedrown
Max Output Level: -58 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1722
  • Joined: 2006/09/09 13:52:26
  • Location: Camarillo, CA
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 11:37:50 (permalink)
John

2 graphics slots are plenty.  The Gigabyte has 12 USB ports. For a quad display you only need 2 PCIe X16 slots. To my knowledge there are no other type cards that use those slots.


Some people need more.  Think UAD, Pro Tools HD.  PCIe x1 cards can be used in the PCIe16 slots.  For instance, my system is already maxed with PCIe cards:

1.  Video card
2.  AES16e
3.  UAD1
4.  UAD1

I'll probably end up buying the 7-slot mobo when I go PT HD so I can run either system from the same PC. 

post edited by dontletmedrown - 2009/11/20 11:49:37

So-Cal Sound Design
#37
eratu
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2856
  • Joined: 2007/01/27 22:08:32
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 11:46:41 (permalink)
dontletmedrown


Yeah, I can't disable it since I'm using a spare IDE hard drive into it.


Bingo! Clarity, understood. :)
#38
John
Forum Host
  • Total Posts : 30467
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 11:49:35 (permalink)
John, sometimes you surprise me.  Have you ever heard of UAD?  Pro Tools HD?  Some people need more slots.  PCIe x1 cards can be used in the PCIe16 slots.  For instance, my system is already maxed with PCIe cards:

1.  Video card
2.  AES16e
3.  UAD1
4.  UAD1

I'll probably end up buying the 7-slot mobo when I go PT HD so I can run either system from the same PC. 




You don't need PCIe X16 slots for any of that. I have on my MB 2 X16 slots 3 PCIe slots and 2 PCI slots. I use one PCI slot and 1 X 16 for graphics.  The rest are empty. On my last machine I had all but one slot used they were 1 AGP and 6 PCI slots. Because I am using more USB ports then any other connection type I look for as many of those as I can get on the MB and that is still not enough.

Boards with more then 2 PCIe x 16 slots are marketed to gamers for the most part. That is not a bad thing but it is not important to a DAW. USB and Firewire are far more important for DAW use. At least that is the way I see it.
post edited by John - 2009/11/20 11:50:51

Best
John
#39
eratu
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2856
  • Joined: 2007/01/27 22:08:32
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 11:51:09 (permalink)
John

I fully agree with everything you are saying. I do believe it was your doing the research that put you over the hump sort of speak. I am very happy with my choice too. Personally I think right now we are in a new age of computing power. We are seeing all these things come together in a sort of critical mass that is making all this possible. Great hardware great software and reasonable prices. Its a good time to be involved.  I am very glad you have found this to your liking. Take care Eratu and have fun. 


Thanks, John! You too! I totally agree about this new age we're living in right now... amazes me every time I boot up my i7 DAW. A miracle, really. Just a decade ago, I dreamed about being able to do what I can now, finally, do on a "standard" computer. And to think the new laptop CPUs coming  out have similar relative power, I shudder to think what we will be able to do in 10 more years.
#40
dontletmedrown
Max Output Level: -58 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1722
  • Joined: 2006/09/09 13:52:26
  • Location: Camarillo, CA
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 11:52:57 (permalink)
Well the point is, if you're using lots of cards, that is the board you'll want.  Most only offer 4 max (mine has extra PCI slots, but I don't use those.

So-Cal Sound Design
#41
wormser
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 984
  • Joined: 2007/11/18 11:26:55
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 11:53:00 (permalink)
I've got to agree with Windows 7 x64 being a winner.
Seriously, I skipped everything after Win XP Professional and stuck with what worked and despite having an extremely solid system, I would get an occasional glitch now and then.

I'm a pro pianist playing Jazz and my style has me hitting a lot of keys, quickly, and using the pedals quite a bit. I tend to overload MIDI and Ivory.  Under Windows XP, even streamlined with none of the eye candy etc I would get occasional burps with Ivory at 64 samples and very fast Seagate 1.0tb disks.

With Windows 7, I have done nothing special.
Aero is on, Avira is running, all the services etc are going and so forth.
I haven't hiccuped once with this system when playing at 64 samples.

The system seems smoother to me, the look is very Mac like especially with the themes which I also like playing with and so forth.
This is all the same hardware (listed below) and nothing else has changed except 64 bit drivers of course and one exception was dumping the Midisport 2Port USB (Still no drivers from Midiman) for a Cakewalk UM-2G.

I hate Microsoft, I really do, but I have to give them credit in that they got Windows 7 right this time.
I suppose they had to because if it was another Vista, they might be in serious trouble business wise. Vista got awful reviews but Windows 7 is getting mostly very positive reviews and it seems the only group that is squawking is the Linux community but that's to be expected. Windows cost money and they seem to want everything, including music, for free. Anyway, my advice is check your hardware compatibility and go for it!

System is Intel Q9400, 4G Asus P5Q-SE2, 4 Seagate 1TB SATA drives Nvidia PCIe Quadra 540 card, Delta 66 card and twin LCD 22+16.
#42
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 10031
  • Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
  • Location: United States
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 11:57:50 (permalink)
John,

You can't expect everyone to have the same needs as yours.  A choice of motherboards is more than just what brand, chipset or socket it uses.  Each person will have different needs as far as the motherboards connectivity goes.  Some people still need IDE adapter, others don't.  Some need more PCI/PCIe slots then others, or even more USB ports.  That's why we have so many choices of motherboards nowadays, even from the same company.  If he wants to have 14 or 20 PCIe x16 slots, then so be it.  He has the right to choose, no? :-)


Take care my friend!


Intel Q9400 2.66 GHz
8 GB of RAM @ 800 Mhz
ATI Radeon HD 3650
Windows 7 Professional (SP1) x64
Cubase 6.03 x64
Sonar PE 8.5.3 x64
RME FireFace 400
Frontier Design Alpha Track
Studio Logic VMK-188 Plus

http://www.youtube.com/user/SonarHD
#43
eratu
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2856
  • Joined: 2007/01/27 22:08:32
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 12:01:22 (permalink)
wormser


I have to give them credit in that they got Windows 7 right this time.



Here! Here! +1
#44
John
Forum Host
  • Total Posts : 30467
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 12:05:04 (permalink)
Well the point is, if you're using lots of cards, that is the board you'll want. Most only offer 4 max (mine has extra PCI slots, but I don't use those.
No that is not the point. Unless you have a need for more then two graphics cards there is no advantage in getting a board that has that many PCI X 16 slots. What I think you are missing is I can place as many UAD cards in my system as you can. But at the same time I have better I/O with a lot more USB ports plus in this MB 's case I have 3 Firewire ports using the TI chip set. As well as 1 IDE and 8 SATA 2.  We choose what we get for our own reasons. My choice is a valid one.

Best
John
#45
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 10031
  • Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
  • Location: United States
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 12:05:18 (permalink)
eratu


wormser


I have to give them credit in that they got Windows 7 right this time.



Here! Here! +1

x1000
 
Microsoft did get it right this time.  Actually, they started with Vista SP2.  Ever since then, things have been running very smooth here.
 
But I don't think I'll be completely happy untill we get to 16 or 32 core machines. :-)
 
 
 

Intel Q9400 2.66 GHz
8 GB of RAM @ 800 Mhz
ATI Radeon HD 3650
Windows 7 Professional (SP1) x64
Cubase 6.03 x64
Sonar PE 8.5.3 x64
RME FireFace 400
Frontier Design Alpha Track
Studio Logic VMK-188 Plus

http://www.youtube.com/user/SonarHD
#46
John
Forum Host
  • Total Posts : 30467
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 12:07:56 (permalink)
John, You can't expect everyone to have the same needs as yours. A choice of motherboards is more than just what brand, chipset or socket it uses. Each person will have different needs as far as the motherboards connectivity goes. Some people still need IDE adapter, others don't. Some need more PCI/PCIe slots then others, or even more USB ports. That's why we have so many choices of motherboards nowadays, even from the same company. If he wants to have 14 or 20 PCIe x16 slots, then so be it. He has the right to choose, no? :-) Take care my friend!
See my post above. I think I say much the same thing. And you also take care and have fun.

Best
John
#47
eratu
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2856
  • Joined: 2007/01/27 22:08:32
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 12:09:52 (permalink)
Jose7822


 
But I don't think I'll be completely happy untill we get to 16 or 32 core machines. :-)
 
 
 
Wow, Jose, you're far more greedy than I thought you were, my friend. ;)

Give your quad-core a little love. Her feelings might get hurt if she heard you say that. ;)
#48
Rothchild
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1479
  • Joined: 2003/11/27 13:15:24
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 12:15:14 (permalink)
Hey Eratu I've got a couple of extra questions about this rig if you don't mind.

What sample rate are you running at with the 32 buffer?

I'm not really interested in soft synths, can you offer some insight in to how this baby performs with 50-60 real audio tracks, plugs and say 12 (or better 24 if you've got them) input monitoring enabled tracks?

Many thanks
Child

www.honestypot.com
#49
Rothchild
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1479
  • Joined: 2003/11/27 13:15:24
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 12:17:41 (permalink)
wormser


  it seems the only group that is squawking is the Linux community but that's to be expected. Windows cost money and they seem to want everything, including music, for free.

Hmmm, Free Beer is nice but Free Speech is better. It's for the latter that I count myself a member of that community.

Child

www.honestypot.com
#50
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 10031
  • Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
  • Location: United States
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 12:19:20 (permalink)
eratu


Jose7822



But I don't think I'll be completely happy untill we get to 16 or 32 core machines. :-)



Wow, Jose, you're far more greedy than I thought you were, my friend. ;)

Give your quad-core a little love. Her feelings might get hurt if she heard you say that. ;)

 
LOL I know :-P
 
I say that because now EWQL is releasing a new package called Hollywood Strings which seems will compete with the VSL Libraries in terms of more articulations and better quality than previous EWQL libraries.  I'm sure they'll start with the strings first and then slowly move to the other sections of the orchestra.  Hollywood Strings is gonna be a huge library with 5 different mic positions that I'm pretty sure will take A LOT of processing power to run reliably at low latencies.  So that's where I'm coming from :-)  Eventually, I want to upgrade to the newer libraries when processing power gets to the point where I'm able to run everything on one machine.  So, to me it sounds like a 16 or 32 core one should do the trick.  But I'm happy with what I've got for now.
 
 
Take care!
 
 

Intel Q9400 2.66 GHz
8 GB of RAM @ 800 Mhz
ATI Radeon HD 3650
Windows 7 Professional (SP1) x64
Cubase 6.03 x64
Sonar PE 8.5.3 x64
RME FireFace 400
Frontier Design Alpha Track
Studio Logic VMK-188 Plus

http://www.youtube.com/user/SonarHD
#51
Player
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 330
  • Joined: 2006/03/05 23:29:02
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 12:48:58 (permalink)
Congratulations, Eratu!  Everything has been running great here since January '09.  I am still running Vista but looking forward to Windows 7.

Studio Cat i7
#52
eratu
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2856
  • Joined: 2007/01/27 22:08:32
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 12:56:39 (permalink)
Rothchild


Hey Eratu I've got a couple of extra questions about this rig if you don't mind.

What sample rate are you running at with the 32 buffer?

I'm not really interested in soft synths, can you offer some insight in to how this baby performs with 50-60 real audio tracks, plugs and say 12 (or better 24 if you've got them) input monitoring enabled tracks?

Many thanks
Child


44.1 sample rate for the tests, I normally use 44.1 or 48. I also briefly tested a similar project in Cubase 5.1 at 96KHz at 32 sample latency, which is about 0.3ms latency one way. Needless to say, the CPU hit was high, but it worked. :)

Haven't tried it with 50-60 audio tracks yet, but I did try it with about 25 audio tracks at 32 sample latency (about 0.7ms at 44.1 sample rate) with a video clip, a number of VSTi and at least 25 plugins, and it cut through it like butter, with ample CPU headroom. I suspect 50-60 tracks should be very comfortable at this latency as well, although I doubt I'll run it at 32 sample latency for practical purposes in most situations... but who knows? Now that I can, I might just stay there. :)

I have some huge 100+ track projects with bucketloads of plugins that I have not yet tried to bring over to this DAW just yet. I will update this thread, or my long Win 7 x64 thread when I get to that point.

As for inputs/ input monitoring, I don't normally record more than 2 tracks at a time. When I do, I use a different interface (not the Lynx, although that may change the next time I need to, since the L22 is expandable), and I haven't tested that yet. However, I did superficially test enabling 8 inputs from the Lynx mixer (which has multiple input sources from an optional LStream expansion) and it didn't bat an eyelash with the above test. So my feeling is that if I actually had the LStream expansion with something hooked up to those inputs :) , it would have been fine.

I did hook up the Sapphire Pro 40 for some of the above tests as well, and I got far inferior results than I did with the Lynx. That's to be expected since it is a DICE-II based firewire device, which have notoriously unremarkable low-latency performance with the current drivers. So I wouldn't trust those figures. However, 8+ channels streaming from the Sapphire Pro 40 at 128 sample latency seems like a no-brainer... but not sure yet.

However, I would make the wild assumption that you could handle 12-24 input-monitoring-enabled channels with this type of system without a problem if you had a quality audio driver from Lynx or RME. Hope that helps!
#53
eratu
Max Output Level: -46.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2856
  • Joined: 2007/01/27 22:08:32
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 13:03:49 (permalink)
Jose7822


eratu


Jose7822



But I don't think I'll be completely happy untill we get to 16 or 32 core machines. :-)



Wow, Jose, you're far more greedy than I thought you were, my friend. ;)

Give your quad-core a little love. Her feelings might get hurt if she heard you say that. ;)

 
LOL I know :-P
 
I say that because now EWQL is releasing a new package called Hollywood Strings which seems will compete with the VSL Libraries in terms of more articulations and better quality than previous EWQL libraries.  I'm sure they'll start with the strings first and then slowly move to the other sections of the orchestra.  Hollywood Strings is gonna be a huge library with 5 different mic positions that I'm pretty sure will take A LOT of processing power to run reliably at low latencies.  So that's where I'm coming from :-)  Eventually, I want to upgrade to the newer libraries when processing power gets to the point where I'm able to run everything on one machine.  So, to me it sounds like a 16 or 32 core one should do the trick.  But I'm happy with what I've got for now.
 
 
Take care!
 
 


LOL! I'm with you -- I'll be jumping on those new technologies when the price-point makes sense -- I'm sure I'll find a way to use the resources... But I burned myself on my 8-core (my previous DAW to this i7), which was overkill for XP at the time. I can't wait to gut XP off that machine and put Win 7 x64 on there and see how it compares to this i7. I'm just trying to be very careful saying anything out loud so the DAWs don't have their feelings hurt. ;)
#54
dontletmedrown
Max Output Level: -58 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1722
  • Joined: 2006/09/09 13:52:26
  • Location: Camarillo, CA
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 13:21:40 (permalink)
John




No that is not the point. Unless you have a need for more then two graphics cards there is no advantage in getting a board that has that many PCI X 16 slots. What I think you are missing is I can place as many UAD cards in my system as you can. But at the same time I have better I/O with a lot more USB ports plus in this MB 's case I have 3 Firewire ports using the TI chip set. As well as 1 IDE and 8 SATA 2.  We choose what we get for our own reasons. My choice is a valid one.

 I was highlighting the point I was making.  Of course your choice is a "VALID" one.  I didn't realize you were only posting to validate YOUR setup.  YOU ARE VALID.  Feel better now?

FYI, my AES16e (x1) lives in a x16 slot.  The reason they add the PCIe x16 slots is so that people can use SLI, but they're compatible with x1 cards.  The most I've seen on any board is 3 x16s.  It's not like you can custom order a board to only have PCIe x1 slots.  There are only a few choices available.  That board has more PCIe slots than I've seen on any board, so it makes sense for UAD and PTHD users. 

So-Cal Sound Design
#55
John
Forum Host
  • Total Posts : 30467
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 13:45:47 (permalink)
Asus P6t

Expansion Slots
3 x PCIe 2.0 x16 (at x16/x16/x4 mode)
1 x PCIe x1
2 x PCI


Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P

Expansion Slots
  1. 1 x PCI Express x16 slot, running at x16
  2. 1 x PCI Express x16 slot, running at x8
    (The PCIEx16 and PCIEx8 slots support ATI CrossFireX technology and conform to PCI Express 2.0 standard.)
  3. 3 x PCI Express x1 slot
  4. 2 x PCI slots
Judging by this the gigabyte actually has more PCIe slots. Not that it matters.

I think we are talking over each other.


Best
John
#56
dontletmedrown
Max Output Level: -58 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1722
  • Joined: 2006/09/09 13:52:26
  • Location: Camarillo, CA
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 14:17:37 (permalink)
Lol.  GJ John. thanks for explaining WHAT I ALREADY HAVE.  The entire time, I've been commenting on the P6T6 which has a grand total of 6 PCIe slots. 

So-Cal Sound Design
#57
HighAndDry
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 586
  • Joined: 2007/04/02 04:02:45
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 14:59:23 (permalink)
Did someone say they could run Pro Tools HD on a pc? 

ASRock Z97 Pro 4 Motherboard
Chipset : Intel Z97
Intel i7 4790k
32 gb Ballistix (crucial) 1600 DDR3 ram
Corsair 330R case Corsair Rm750 ultra quiet power supply
Win 10 64 bit
Motu 1248 AVB
Mackie Onyx Blackbird 16 x16 FW
Sonar Platinum

#58
John
Forum Host
  • Total Posts : 30467
  • Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 15:49:38 (permalink)
Dave I was commenting on the MB being used by the OP. I don't know where you fit into this at all.  Check my posts when I made those comments.

Best
John
#59
dontletmedrown
Max Output Level: -58 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1722
  • Joined: 2006/09/09 13:52:26
  • Location: Camarillo, CA
  • Status: offline
Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived 2009/11/20 16:29:00 (permalink)
John


Dave I was commenting on the MB being used by the OP. I don't know where you fit into this at all.  Check my posts when I made those comments.

Sorry, but it's pretty irritating trying to chat with you.  You seem to mis-interpret most of what I type.  Someone mentioned the pt6t which I found interesting, then you jumped in with your "2 graphics slots is plenty".  I was merely pointing out that 2 is not plenty for some people.

Anyways, have fun.

So-Cal Sound Design
#60
Page: < 123 > Showing page 2 of 3
Jump to:
© 2026 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1