CPU level pushing 45% w/ 3 tracks on Q10/AMD 2400/ASUS MOBO

[breaktheground]

I just got my new AMD 2400/ASUS A7N8X deluxe OS with an Aardvark Q10. I've fixed the glitches, updated the drivers, but now my CPU level is maxing out on a basic acoustic song with 3 tracks and minimal plugins.

How do i fix this? should i try placing the Q10 in other PCI slots?

thanks for any help you guys have!

ryan

[Cranky]

Why are you running a brand new Mobo and an Athlon Xp 2400 on windows 98? To me it seems like you're defeating the purpose of upgrading your stuff if you're running a 5 year old OS.

[breaktheground]

So what OS do you recommend for this setup? and how does running 98/old OS's effect these kinds of things?

thanks!

ryan

[maggotcontrol]

Windows XP and Windows 2000 handle low latency realtime effects much better than 98 especially under high stress. As I suggested earlier, go with XP and install it under ACPI mode. Minimal tweaks are necessary for that board. Unfortunately you went for the XP 2400+ which runs at 266MHz fsb versus the 2500+ that I also suggested for a much greater increase in performance. What is your buffer latency set to? Perhaps it's set to such a low setting that it's unusable.
http://www.studiokobari.com

[Cranky]

Hi Ryan,
Maggotcontrol just answered that question very eloquently I must say. The latency slider has a great impact on CPU usage and the amount of tracks you can play back. What program are you using for recording? If you're using Sonar there are also a lot of settings that affect this under Options-Audio like I/O buffer size, Number of buffers in playback queue, Buffer size slider and such.


[This message has been edited by Cranky (edited 04-21-2003).]

[Herman Munster]

Respectfully, I'm going to disagree with some of the previous comments. A new system with an AMD 2400+ (regardless of the FSB) should be playing 20 tracks easily out of the box without any tweaks whatsoever (and that includes the tweaks in Sonar). You've got some kind of conflict in your setup.

Go to cakewalknet.com, and download the sonartest file. That's a cpu intensive file, but I could run it at about 45% on my PIII 1 ghz when I had Win98se. If you're not getting at least that something is wrong with your basic setup.

Herm

[+Erik.+]

i agree with herman on this, a lot of people are using win98 succesfully. i faster computer will not cripple the OS.

XP is certainly better but not to a point that you would be seeing the problems you have on a fully workin 98 system.

your problem might be resolved with a reinstall, can't say for sure but there's defintely a conflict there.

[This message has been edited by +Erik.+ (edited 04-23-2003).]

[Alan]

Originally posted by Herman Munster:
Respectfully, I'm going to disagree with some of the previous comments. A new system with an AMD 2400+ (regardless of the FSB) should be playing 20 tracks easily out of the box without any tweaks whatsoever (and that includes the tweaks in Sonar). You've got some kind of conflict in your setup.


Ditto,although I'm using win 2K now I'm getting very high track/plug counts with the 266FSB 2400 and got similar on 98se a while back.After you figure out your bottle neck/problem, Sonar is designed to run better on N.T.(2K or XP),but you should be getting waaay better than you are on 98se.

[DAW-Freak]

Have you enabled DMA for all HDs? 98 doesn't do that by default.

[breaktheground]

Freak- I have enabled DMA for both my HD's and...

I've optimized my setup from the aardvark website and through aardvark tech support as well. They said Sonar was designed mostly for 2000 and XP so that might be a reason why my CPU meters are pushing 45% on a 4 track song. I increased my ASIO buffers substantially and the CPU now reads 30%, an improvement, but i'm seriously upset now. I'm getting the same readings as I did with my P3, and spending the 400$ on my new AMD setup now seems useless until i find the bug/problem.

does upgrading from win98 to 2000 or XP improve CPU power or show it on the sonar display?

should i try changing the card into another PCI slot?

should i uninstall sonar/aardvark and see what happens?

this sucks.

ryan

[Bops2000]

I am thinking hard drive issues.
Virtual memory in win 98 could that be an issue?

[breaktheground]

virtual memory? hmmm.....interesting...

When i try to use certain plugins (like timeworks EQ or compressor X) it says "cannot use, out of memory." which leaves me stumped cuz i have 512 which seems like enough.

could these two problems be linked to one overall problem? that win98 is too old for my setup? if so, how do i fix the virtual memory problem? or can i not and do i need to update to 2000?

thanks for your patience on a really annoying problem.

ryan

[Pretty Pretty Cyanide]

Since it is 98 press cntrol +alt+del and list here what is all running.


BTW Systray and Explorer should be the basics of what should be running. If you have an antivirus running disable it and disconnect physcially from the net.

[Cranky]

From Cakewalk's site:
----------------------------
Out of Memory Error

Users will typically receive this error when attempting to apply an effect. This issue is caused when Windows registry information regarding a specific effect gets corrupted. Reinstalling the effect should resolve the issue.
This issue can sometimes occur when you are low on video resources. Close any extra views which are open and shut off any programs running in the background. In the case of a resource leak, you should update your video card drivers, as well.
--------------------------------------
Also, have you checked to make sure your Video and Sound cards are not sharing the same IRQ?

[This message has been edited by Cranky (edited 04-23-2003).]

[breaktheground]

cynanide: I disabled everything except systray and explorer from my startup menu, aardvark recommends that highly on their site. i just did some fooling around in sonar...

since i use nothing but the track view in sonar, i apply my affects from the trackview (i think thats non-destructive) so i can remove them at any time even after I save and shut down the computer. well I removed every plugin i was running on the 3 track song (an EQ, compressor, and reverb on each track) and the CPU meter decreased about 5% for each plugin i took out. so w/o any plugins the song is running 1% cpu.

I'm using waves and timeworks plugins, so basically they eat up my CPU power? is there any way to avoid this? I was reading something about AUX buses and how they decrease CPU power with effects. I haven't ventured into aux busses as of yet, someone give me the runaround and let me know if this is how i solve my problem.

thanks again!

ryan

PS- I record my first band on saturday, wish me luck!

[xxkingxx]

i may be off but have you checked to make sure the CPU is reading it's right speed, just in case the A7N8X may be cheating you.

[+Erik.+]

when i get these problems i backup, format and reinstall.

it saves more time then troubleshooting.

[trock]

Yes, Waves plugs are CPU intensive - as is Sonic Timeworks ReverbX but using reverbs as insert effects instead of aux effects is simply begging for your CPU to be eaten up.

There are EQs and compressors available that use minimal CPU - such as Ultrafunk and others.

If you're determined to stick with Win98, ensure that it is 98SE or, even better, 98lite.

trock

[breaktheground]

trock-I'm not determined to use 98 in anyway, its just what was put in my computer, i think cuz the guy who installed it said it was better for media/sound projects....

I was actually going to bring this up, but i didn't want my problem to seem overexagerated, but i think this has something to do with it.

on my bios, it says my bus speed is 100mhz, shouldn't it be 133 or 166 (i have the AMD 2400)? and when i change it to 166 or 133, my computer won't even go past setup into windows, so i then have to default to CMOS and go to my default setting which is 100mhz or whatever.

Does the fact that i am running 100fsb (i think thats what its called) affect my CPU meters cuz the computer isn't running on its full speed?

also, on my system properties it says i'm running a AMD 1800+ and not a 2400, i think i'm onto something here...

[+Erik.+]

right, that's another issue but it still has nothing to do with this. my athlon 1400 is fast as hell for this stuff.

still, sounds like you are running the wrong bus speed and it should be at least 133.

the correct speed is bus x multiplier, so whatever your multiplier, divide it into 2400 and you should get the bus.

so my athlon 1400 is running ddr ram and uses a bus of 133. So my clock is 10.5 (1400/133).

i guess your clock/bus should be either 2400/133 (18x) or 2400/166 (14.5x). i don't really know these chips so i can't say.

but you are right, your computer isn't going as fast as it should, but should still be fast enough to running a hell of a load of track.

i guess your multiplier is running at 18 with a bus of 100 (1800cpu). so it sounds like you need the 133mhz option.

in fact, forget all these figures because the XP chips don't run at these clock speeds. you need to know you real speed and use similar mathematics.

[maggotcontrol]

I see what the problem is.
Yea, set the front side bus to 133 and memory should be 266 or 2x133. The memory timings should be fairly relaxed since I don't know exactly which modules you're using. Generally 3-3-3-6 should be stable with a decent branded DIMM. Make sure that the CPU has enough voltage applied. There should be a CPU Vcore setting in the A7N8X bios. Set that to 1.65v. Memory should be 2.6v or at default. If you have high end memory such as Twinmos/Winbond or Corsair XMS LLPT, you may want to try going to 166 fsb and 333 memory. The great thing about the nForce 2 boards is that the PCI speed will always be locked at it's rated speed of 33Mhz. Same with the AGP. So you can overclock the FSB and memory safely without damaging other devices. Let me know if you need any help with it.

edit: also set the multiplier to auto or 15x when going 133 fsb and drop it to 12x when going to 166 fsb. That should yield good results.

-yoshi
http://www.studiokobari.com

[This message has been edited by maggotcontrol (edited 04-24-2003).]

[trock]

My XP 2400+ only gives the correct speed when running my DDRAM at 133 (266) (a limitation of my mobo).

+Erik.+ and maggotcontrol are correct in what they say. After you've fixed your bus speed you'll also find that what I said about Waves plugs and about trying to run reverbs as insert effects is also correct. 5% for a plug is actually not that much and there are many plugs that take a lot more and many that take a lot less.

trock

[trock]

P.S. CPUHawg (free download) at http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/CPU_HAWG_3.htm

measures the CPU usage of plugs.

trock

[maggotcontrol]

>My XP 2400+ only gives the correct speed when running my DDRAM at 133 (266) (a limitation of my mobo).<

Trock, that's not just your boards limitation, that's how all boards work. The Athlon XP 2400+ runs natively at 2.0GHz. In order to achieve that, there are 2 sets of numbers that are multiplied. Those two are the CPU multiplier and the FSB. The 2400+ is 15x133MHz where 15 is the multiplier and 133MHz is the FSB.

Most motherboards auto detects the multiplier but often not the FSB. On the DDR boards, the memory speed divided by half is the FSB. So if you're running PC2100 memory(266MHz) at it's rated speed, the FSB will be 133MHz. It's just that you have to set it in the BIOS or via jumper since it doesn't always default to the optimal setting.

Now if the total CPU MHz is beyond that of it's rated speed (for example 2128MHz on a 2400+), you are overclocking and could potentially damage your CPU depending on how efficient your system's cooling is.

So here's a rundown on what you need and how to set it up correctly:

Any AMD Athlon XP chip except for the newer Bartons have a rated optimal FSB speed of 133MHz. You must have a motherboard that support that FSB and you also must have memory that can run at 266MHz aka PC2100.
Bartons run at 166MHz FSB therefore you need 333MHz memory aka PC2700 and a motherboard that support that.
nForce 2 boards are the current best boards for audio on an AMD platform.
To find out the optimal multiplier on your processor, divide the total CPU speed by the FSB you're planning on running. For example, the 2400+ XP runs at 2.0GHz. Divide 2000 by 133 or 166 and you'll get the approximate multiplier. In this case you'll get 15 and 12 respectively. Only do 166MHz if you're confident that you have good enough cooling and that you have top notch memory that can handle the 333MHz speed. On nForce 2 boards, running 166/333 can be a bit finicky depending on the memory models used. It doesn't like Kingston KVR or even Crucial!

Hope this helps.

-yoshi
http://www.studiokobari.com

[trock]

"Trock, that's not just your boards limitation, that's how all boards work."

Sorry, I more meant a limitation of my chipset/mobo/memory combination. AFAIK, I have to go to a faster chip or even a different mobo and faster memory to get 333, although this is definitely not my area of expertise so I'll shut up now http://www.audioforums.com/forums/smile.gif

trock



[This message has been edited by trock (edited 04-24-2003).]

[breaktheground]

PROBLEM FIXED!

thanks maggotcontrol, trock, and erik, all i had to do was set my multiplier and change the bus speed. I did 166x12 but it went straight to the blue error screen in windows. So i am comfortable at 133fsb. oh yeah! i have PC2700 333mhz 512 corsair ram so i think i should be able to swing 166, i'll try that now and see what happens, hopefuly i won't get another error.

thanks again.

[xxkingxx]

Gee willigers

no mention of my name in the thank you credits -boo hoo-

It was me who suggested the motherboard not reading the chip correctly.

"I was actually going to bring this up"

Glad I could be of assistance.

That issue was a standard on that motherboard at least when it fiirst came out back in October/ November. I thought by now that would be fixed...guess not.

I'm just glad you are up and running


Hey

Is anybody here...listening to me...anybody
I guess the party is over

brr...brr
I feel so alone... so left in the cold.




[This message has been edited by xxkingxx (edited 04-24-2003).]

[maggotcontrol]

Well when it bluescreens, there are just a few possibilities to the cause.
1. Overheating.
2. Memory timing too aggressive.
3. Not enough voltage applied to CPU and/or RAM.
4. That particular CPU model or stepping isn't very overclockable. (although just about every Athlon Tbred A/B has overclocked to 166 and beyond with ease)

When overclocking to 166/33, the CPU may want 1.7v and the memory 2.7v. My only warning is to make sure you have adequate cooling and to relax the memory timings. Other than that, it shouldn't be terribly difficult.

With Corsair XMS, you really shouldn't have a problem EXCEPT, some of the newer Corsair XMS series actually use Samsung modules and aren't compatible with these nForce2 boards at above 150 FSB. The Corsair low latency XMS series seem to work though. I've gotten beyond 200MHz FSB with it although I had to change fans during testing and it became pretty loud for a DAW.

yoshi-
http://www.studiokobari.com