btw Goddard, thanks for the lecture on AMT, but that's only one aspect of Intel's ME.

Jonbouy


btw Goddard, thanks for the lecture on AMT, but that's only one aspect of Intel's ME.

Oh really, what pray tell are the other aspects? Or were you thinking of the ability to remotely disable a system ala stolen mobile phone remote "kill switch"?

After reading what Eric was reporting, the only aspect of IME which concerns me is the ability to disable it. Can this no longer be done? Used to be possible to "stop state" it so it didn't put any traffic on its interface buses (iirc, ctrl-p).

I'm running SB Xeon platform with discrete (off-core) graphics, not a consumer SB platform with IGP, so will admit ignorance on that aspect. Although I find the ability to remote into systems comes in handy sometimes, especially with servers, am absolutely not a fan of anything that allows remote access which can't be turned off completely.

I'm running SB Xeon platform with discrete (off-core) graphics, not a consumer SB platform with IGP, so will admit ignorance on that aspect.

I'm aware of the remote management capabilities provided by AMT and like yourself ignorant of the local management stuff that is part of IME, but when a tech is telling me something in relation to whether HPET is enabled or not then I figure he knows something we don't.

I'm interested to learn what that is rather than assume the guy doesn't know what he's talking about like you seemed keen to do.

The bottom line for me is still this:

http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.ashx?m=2650837

No, I don't know if the SB/IB consumer platforms (perhaps especially mobile ones) are using the IME/PCH for temp monitoring and fan control (which, if so, might help explain the spiking being seen). 

I see. So anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't know what they are talking about. 

I never said or assumed anyone didn't know what they were talking about. If I think something which someone has said is wrong, I explain why. I simply don't think people, even those with a lot of empirical experience, should make blanket recommendations (such as, to turn off HPET) without giving an adequate explanation of why. I'm not ready to take anyone's word for anything without some technically grounded reason being given (so that people can have a reasonable basis to judge for themselves). 

Just because Scott says to turn HPET off, and you say your system runs better with HPET off, that to me is far from sufficient reason upon which to conclude without some technical basis, especially if I can get better performance by using HPET (and understand the technical basis for why that is so).

You seemed pretty adamant in dismissing and downplaying any technical merits of HPET until I posited that perhaps you'd settled for a lesser performing system due to not being able to use HPET, whereupon you said that you could use it but chose not to. Seems to me Chuffington that you're only interested in learning what people have to say so long as it reinforces what you already think (or think you know).

I linked to technical explanations of why HPET is advantageous for audio, and also to several simple free utilities which can enable anyone to test and judge for themselves how HPET works. So nobody need take my word (or yours, or Scott's) for anything, they have the tools to see and decide for themselves on their own system if they care to do so.

I see. So anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't know what they are talking about.

Where on earth did I say that?  Don't put words in my mouth fella.

btw I already gave the explanation of why HPET off helps when turbo is enabled.  Actually I even think Wikipedia of all places does too.

This may help you understand the issue with it though when operating at near realtime...

http://git.kernel.org/?p=...04d421b103a89f7becf47c

Here's a much simpler test for the average DAW user to try out.  If you have a project that's just about on the edge as far as pops and clicks go on your setup, try a reboot and disable the HPET, yippee it works swell again.

You don't need to wade through a load of technical bumph or get hypnotised by a load of tests you can do it in a practical environment, the techs have worked it out for us mere mortals.  Good for them I say.

"Intel Management Engine"? That's only a remote management and provisioning utility for business desktops, and while it does allow remote setting of a PM profile and setting in which sleep states the system can be remotely woken and what system events are logged/reported, it has nothing to do with actual power management. I take it you are using it for remote support, but don't understand why you think it is relevant here.
"
 
You might want to update your reading on this subject. I would recommend that you start here with the link below. VPro was started as separate Intel technology that used the IME. The IME was not designed for VPro by itself.
http://download.intel.com/technology/product/DCMI/DCMI-HI_1_0.pdf
 
So lets get this straight. We should spend countless hours convincing different manufacturers to adjust their drivers that effect less than 5% of the IT industry versus disabling HPET which resolves the matter immediately without further time and expenditure? Further we should ignore all testing/observations that show the HPET having negative impact on asio devices and asio engine in general. Asio has the capability to interrupt at a far faster interval than the HPET with WDM drivers and was around well before the HPET was even designed. No offence but I  would be out of a job and someone else would be posting here in my place if I followed that line of thinking. Scott is forgiving but I dont believe incompetance on my part will get me very far with him.
 
Eric
ADK

Goddard

Jonbouy


So to recap after the testing done when my machine was built (1155) it was decided the best option was to leave core parking, turbo, hyperthreading and speed step alone, and to turn off HPET in BIOS.

Now I'm not a particularly technical guy but that yeilded the best results for me for Audio Performance and would you look at all the science that's been quoted mean-time and it looks like I pretty much figured it out by looking at the figures I was getting.

I'm quite chuffed about that really as it's an encouragement to go along with the actuals that I see rather than the conflicting theories I hear.

Hold on there, Chuffington. Before you go on patting yourself on the back, consider that you are still settling for a lower performance level than your system and software should be capable of providing. So, adequate to your requirements, okay, how nice for you, but don't think that makes you a genius. Maybe you just got sold a lower performance system because your DAW vendor (and/or their suppliers) couldn't be bothered to make their wares work properly with HPET on.

Please show what data and evidence you have to support this position. I have tested systems with HPET on and they have shown zero, absolutely zero performance gain with Pro Audio applications or Videoediting applications. The testing however has shown considerable performance gain at low latency with Asio with HPET off. Please enlighten all of us where this stance is supported in any way or is this conjecture based on what you are reading about the HPET?

"Jonbouy"
LOL

The funny thing is that same guy that makes all these baseless inferences about other people whilst crying when he gets called something as harsh as a smart alec, will be imposing his vast knowledge on unsuspecting new arrivals on this forum impressing everyone with the very things he has learned on this thread over the next few months.

Just watch. It's all quite sad really.

 I'm gonna skip the music making part from now on I'm going to dedicate my machine to running DPC latency checker so I can impress everyone with my single figure charts. That DAW software just messes up the figures when you start using it. I'm going to uninstall all my audio software it's a low latency DPC killer...

Great job in ignoring me bouy. And an even better job in making a complete fool of yourself.

"Goddard"
I'm not ready to take anyone's word for anything without some technically grounded reason being given (so that people can have a reasonable basis to judge for themselves).

Just because Scott says to turn HPET off, and you say your system runs better with HPET off, that to me is far from sufficient reason upon which to conclude without some technical basis, especially if I can get better performance by using HPET (and understand the technical basis for why that is so).

My thoughts exactly and the reason why I did not agree with Scott to begin with. Also, the recent research I've done on this subject simply confirms it without a doubt. HPET OFF is not a tweak nor is it a "one size fits-all" fix for systems having trouble with a high precision external clock. And as mentioned by Goddard...,

"Goddard"
First of all, the OP is using a laptop on AC power, and wants performance, not power saving. And while I agree (and sympathize) with you that the power saving oriented power management policy does raise some performance challenges, especially with mobile platforms, you (and your boss) need to realize that while turning off HPET may avoid what you observe as being caused by HPET, what you are observing is realy being caused by crappy drivers with poorly implemented timing routines which get exposed by HPET (so, as a PC vendor, why don't you guys do something about that?), and that by turning off HPET you are actually lowering the potential platform performance for streaming audio, MIDI, etc.

Of course you won't see any benefit of having HPET disabled being as you are not even getting the up to 12% gain in stock performance from having turbo enabled.

You've already spent 3 pages of insisting that having core parking turned on is the way to go on your dedicated DAW remember?

There's absolutely no point in having HPET disabled when you've already nobbled your machine to that extent anyway... 

If you think I look a complete fool I'd suggest turning the mirror around.