194,115 users have contributed to 42,911 threads and 257,916 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 4 new thread(s), 14 new post(s) and 82 new user(s).
INTEL S5520, Supermicro X8D, Gigabyte GA-7T - all available in several versions depending on your other needs.
again: strictly stick to the compatibility list of the mainboard when ordering memory!
be aware only 1 memory module per channel (= 3 per processor) allows 1333 - if you plan to insert more (6 per processor) you are fine with 1066 anyway.
christian
Many thanks Christian.
I suspect I'll have to go the 2GB module route (6 per processor) in order to minimize cost, and may even have to start with 1 CPU and add the 2nd when prices fall a little. Better that way than have a system with no room for 'growth'.
I'm finding that the 24GB requirement really limits spec options a little. I had an X58 system all ready to go, but I just couldn't find reasonably priced 4GB unbuffered RAM modules, and I didn't fancy maxing it out with 6x2GB modules, and then discovering it wasn't enough. 4GB ECC registered modules are a fraction of the price, meaning you can spec a Xeon system for pretty much the same cost.
I'm hoping 3 1TB drives with the VI's spread across them and a 9500GT should be ok on the HD and graphics front.
Thanks again for your help.
Jules
That's the reason I asked about the motherboard in the system which is reporting such good performance.
That said, I would have thought that if one X5500/5520 chipset motherboard has latency issues, then others will have too, but maybe not.
Anyhow, the spec for our rig has evolved, the system has been ordered and is currently being built - luckily I only needed one extra mortgage on my house to pay for it!
Spec is Supermicro X8DT3, 2xIntel Xeon W5580 (3.2GHz), 24GB Ram in 4GB modules (this way the memory bus can still run at 1333MHz because there's only 1 DIMM in each channel - this mobo has 12 memory slots), Vista 64bit Ultimate, mixture of 1TB SAS and SATA drives, 512MB 9500GT Graphics etc.
It should be as fast as current components allow. I'll post as soon as I have some results. If it doesn't work I'm in deep trouble!!
Jules
@cm said:
the X58 motherboards are not compatible with ECC memory modules (see above) and i can't confirm the latency issue for the 5520
christian
Yes I agree, X58 isn't compatible with ECC, but it doesn't have to. The memory controler isn't in the chipset but, in the Cpu. Ecc support is one of the few difference between the Xeon 35xx/55xx and the Core i7. So you can use Ecc memory on a standard X58 motherboard if you use a Xeon.
But.......... but the thing I didn't notice is that you can't use ECC registered sticks on a X58 motherboard (I don't know why), and non-registered ECC sticks are more expensive than non ECC.
@Trailerman said:
Spec is Supermicro X8DT3, 2xIntel Xeon W5580 (3.2GHz), 24GB Ram in 4GB modules (this way the memory bus can still run at 1333MHz because there's only 1 DIMM in each channel - this mobo has 12 memory slots), Vista 64bit Ultimate, mixture of 1TB SAS and SATA drives, 512MB 9500GT Graphics etc.
I have very bad results with the S5520, but everything is ok on a X8DAi, so I think you shoudn't have any problem with the X8DT3.
Thanks Stephane - I feel better about the motherboard choice.
You're right that the memory situation is a little confusing, and the wild variations in price between buffered, unbuffered, ECC, non-ECC, registered etc. doesn't help.
Jules
IMO the most important specification for an intel 5520 based motherboard is that it offers a PCIe-x16 PEG slot for grafic card ...
for the memory i can only repeatedly recommend to strictly stick to the compatibility list of the motherboard and actually have a close look at the possible combinations of memory modules (dual rank, quad rank, buffered, unbuffered, ECC)
christian
Hi Christian
Can I ask why you feel an x16 slot is so important? I would have thought it should only really be necessary if you're gaming. IS there something I should be aware of here?
I think the board my system builder is currently using has an x8 slot in an x16 housing, although I'm trying to confirm. This is fairly critical if it's going to cause a problem.
Many thanks for your help.
Jules
just a practical issue - while the available range of grafic cards for x16 PEG slots is huge the assortment of models for PCIe-x1 is very limited.
i also noticed that not all grafic cards are working in x8 slots or vice versa not all x8 slots support grafic cards (we already have a nice collection of not working combinations resp. combinations working only in 16bit mode and/or VGA resolution here ....)
of course this is only important if you need to have a monitor or two attached ...
christian
Many thanks Christian - that's very helpful.
As soon as the bare bones of the system is in place, I'll ensure that the graphics slot and card are fully compatible and get the builder to test properly in 32bit mode.
If I understand you correctly, everything should be ok if there are no graphics card compatibility issues and it delivers solid performance at 16 and 32bits or are there other graphics specific issues I should be aware of?
Many thanks again for your help.
Jules
Thanks Christian - all clear.
I was concerned that there was some technical reason why the motherboard needed an x16 slot; perhaps your tests were suggesting any system running this amount of processing and sample-streaming simultaneously suffered PCI bus overloads if graphics were not run over an x16 interface. It sounds like it's more a general compatibility issue, which I'm sure we can cope with.
Sorry to have pushed you for more details. It would just break my heart if this system had a fundamental issue which prevented it from running Mir.
All the best
Jules
@Dietz said:
Re: RAM
In a stress test I ran today, I had 50 indivdual VIs playing glitch-free at the same time in stereo, latency set to 1024 samples, CPU @ 80%, with a system comparable to the one you outlined above (12 GB RAM). I used 11.2 GB RAM for this setup, with Nuendo 4 for MIDI output on the same machine.
Taking into account MIR's abilitiy for dynamic processing (only those VI's that really play will use MIR's convolution core and thus tax the CPU), you will most likely run out of RAM before the CPU overloads. 😊
HTH,
If I get an Asus P6T, and want more than 12GB ram what shall I get? Are there any other kits available rather than the Kingston 12GB unECC kit of 3, that costs over $1000? thanks
Hi Christian and the rest of the Vienna team.
First of all: Congratulations with getting MIR on the market - a big step for Vienna, but a giant leap for mankind -at least composers etc.[;)]
DG raised an importent question about latency, which sort of got lost in the mail. Running with 1024 is sort of ok when rendering a project, but as DG pointed out: What about the recording phase - when playing, 1024 is simply too much delay for comfort.
Can you operate with a simple reverb setup during recording, allowing you to set latency to say 256 or better still: 128 ?
And then afterwards turn on all the bells and whistles.
Achievable latency is always going to reflect the specifications of your system and the complexity of the project you're running within Mir.
For example, I'm running Mir at 128ms hardware buffer and have no problems whatsoever with what I consider to be decent sized arrangements - say 50 VI instances containing fully scripted matrices, with up to 25-30 of them playing simultaneously. If I had to do something much more involved I would increase the buffer size if I saw CPU load issues. That said, I have a very fast quad-core Xeon system which was specified primarily for Mir.
In essence, you're absolutely right, you can always run at a lower buffer setting whilst recording indivdual parts, mapping out ideas and basic arrangements etc. and if you find further down the line that the full arrangement is stressing the system, increase the buffer size when you render the final mix.
Jules
@hose said:
If I get an Asus P6T, and want more than 12GB ram what shall I get? Are there any other kits available rather than the Kingston 12GB unECC kit of 3, that costs over $1000? thanks
@Trailerman said:
Achievable latency is always going to reflect the specifications of your system and the complexity of the project you're running within Mir.
For example, I'm running Mir at 128ms hardware buffer and have no problems whatsoever with what I consider to be decent sized arrangements - say 50 VI instances containing fully scripted matrices, with up to 25-30 of them playing simultaneously. If I had to do something much more involved I would increase the buffer size if I saw CPU load issues. That said, I have a very fast quad-core Xeon system which was specified primarily for Mir.
In essence, you're absolutely right, you can always run at a lower buffer setting whilst recording indivdual parts, mapping out ideas and basic arrangements etc. and if you find further down the line that the full arrangement is stressing the system, increase the buffer size when you render the final mix.
Jules
Jules, for me the point is how do you run at a lower buffer whilst programming? Do you switch something off? Can you switch something off? My sessions have around 120 instruments, often with 70 or so playing at the same time, so this is really important to me. Currently I just work without reverb and plugs whilst programming, and then raise the buffer for mixing.
DG
