Sorry but the link is not working for me!!!! :-(

Hmm. I just tested the link to the site and the download link and they appear to be working.

I also already received a score so the links are working for someone.

Try it again!

Interesting results already.

Mark

Mark,

Just an FYI for you: Your test veg file package errors out on the Wave Hammer plug - that is not included with Vegas 5 and also on a Sonic Foundry Express Chorus effect - which also is not part of Vegas 5. I popped my results to you.

Cheers,

VP

I didn't know WH and Chorus weren't part of V5, I upgraded from V4.

I'm going to redo the script on a system that ONLY has V5 loaded so there won't be any problems.

Sorry about that. Wish I could have caught that before uploading...

Any other suggestions for the revised project?

- Mark

Mark,

Wave Hammer does not even ship with V4 - you must have Soundforge present for WH to be showing up.

To make this totally easy for everyone...just pile on the tracks and leave the track effects in the default config...you know (Noise Gate/EQ/Comp - I think is the standards that are plugged into each track). Then adjust to taste.

We shouldn't get any messages about anything missing.

Just my two cents :)

Cheers,

VP

There's a couple other things to take in to consideration regarding playback:

What is your SC buffer settings?

I only record using ASIO, but when I mix, my systems perform about 20% better with WDM drivers. I may be wrong, but I believe that this is because WDM allows OS managed load balancing for my dual proccessor systems. At least when I check the processing statistics, this seems to be the case.

Yes, you are right. But I noted that on the site and said that the real time playback isn't a scientific measurement, I don't want to get into everyones system specifics.

It's only a measure of what the system CAN do, given a skilled, or unskilled operator.

The timed portion of the test is what is really important.

Give me a few days to get it revised... really busy right now.

- Mark

tmrpro my system works WAY better with WDM than ASIO drivers as well

Drivers are a factor, buffer settings, making sure your sys is streamlined for audio, etc. (but I do understand when he says "gotta start somewhere").

But can anybody spot a key element as for the fastest system (100%) posted?

current applicable answer: o/c
relates to the bus, which in turn relates to the proc, then memory/cache...and so on.

I think the amd is a fine choice, but I still choose to "correctly" o/c an intel and buy applicable hardware to coincide with said planned o/c.
Combine this with a U320 scsi (1 for OS/apps, 1or more for audio drives) and you'll be set for quite some time.

I think the 2MB L2 cache of the P4EE is having a large effect on the significantly improved audio performance over the other P4's tested.

Increase in eff for video test is marginal at best for the P4EE.

Extrapolating the scores shows that an AMD FX55 would just get beat by that overclocked P4EE, but it would just beat that cpu in the video portion of the test. And the FX55 would not be overclocked.

It always amazes me how the fastest AMD and Intel chips seems to be quite evenly matched in many applications. At least since the Athlon was released anyway.

The really interesting thing is that you can pick up an AMD A64 3500 socket 939 and achieve 85% of the fastest possible FX and P4 chips for $280 instead of $1000. And the 90nm version of that chip overclocks nicely according to most forum results.

- Mark

Yeah but that's only 3.2@3.5ghz, so really it has room to move (under standard cooling) and keep within the safe and sane o/c a DAW requires.
Yes, the 4ee L2 is a bonus, but increased perf coincides with the o/c. Don't forget the mem perf with the o/c relating to better perf in both audio and video.

Now, I still stay away from AMD because of the ratio I see of repairs with AMD (mainly heat related) vs. intel. This also plays a major role in obtaining some great o/c stability (read: bang for zee buck). Amd is cheaper, but even that hasn't changed my proc choice.

Planning for a hybrid scsi U320/fast ide I/O on top would really make you happy. Trust me.

Either choice is a win though overall. Thankfully there's competition between the two to keep prices affordable for a/v usage.

Love to see more systems and numbers on that page, when is it updated?

later

I update whenever I receive scores. I think a lot of people have a look at the results but don't submit scores!

Yes, we need more scores to draw solid conclusions.

- Mark

Mark,

Your Verizon email address is bouncing mail. Please email me an alternate. I have numbers for three more systems.

Best regards,

Joe Marusak
joemess@direcway.com

Hey Mark,

Here are results from 2-3 systems. Just to detail out, one of the systems is an Athlon XP system in which I upgraded the processor from the 2600+ to a 3200+ so there are results from both configurations. It appear that with the 2600+ Barton core, which only has a 333MHz FSB, I was taking a substantial performance hit at the memory controller. The numbers are deplorable! With the 3200+ I faired about where I expected to fall. I am looking for a motherboard with a 333 FSB to put the 2600+ processor back to work, potentially as a dedicated softsynth host. I will re-run numbers when I have that system setup as I think the 2600 should have faired much better in the rankings than it did.

Joe Marusak (JoeMess)

System 1: IBM ThinkPad T-40

Intel Pentium M 1.5 GHz (No overclocking)
Intel 855 chipset, 512 MB of PC2100 running at 266 MHz. FSB is 400 MHz
1.5 GHz
A&V=659 sec.
Audio only= 38 sec.



System 2:

AMD Athlon XP 2600+ (Barton core) HT N/A
NVIDIA nForce2-Pro2, 1 GB PC-3200 Dual Channel running at 400MHz, FSB of CPU only 333MHz.
1.917 GHz
A&V=666 sec.
Audio only=38 sec.



System 3: (i.e. 2 with processor upgrade)

AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (Barton core) HT N/A
NVIDIA nForce2-Pro2, 1 GB PC-3200 Dual Channel running at 400MHz, FSB 400 MHz.
2.197 GHz
A&V=561 sec.
A only=32 sec.

Thank you for making this benchmark!

Best regards,

Joe