Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
I stand corrected on the caching issue. But I still have better manners when dispensing technical info. > > they don't put cache on motherboards anymore, it's integrated in the CPU. > > what century are you in? > > > > more likely the difference is from the FSB frequency, memory frequency and > > type, and the chipset used. Chipsets can have a lot of variation in > > performance. It can also depend on how many other devices you have > > competing for bandwidth on the PCI bus. > > > > kim > > > > At 03:48 AM 4/23/2003, Steve Goodman wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Jesse Ray Lucas" <jlucas@neoprimitive.net> > > > > If you're doing hard disk recording on Windows XP you might check out > this > > > > site for some performance tweaks: > > > > > > > > http://www.musicxp.net > > > > > > > > My latency was 11ms before. After the tweaks I got it down to 5ms. > It'll > > > > almost do 3ms, but not quite. > > > > > > > > Aardvark claims 1.5ms latency on a 1.5Ghz machine, but mine's a > 1.7Ghz. > > > > Maybe it's the AMD CPU??? Does RAM affect latency? > > > > > >If there's not enough of it it does. What's the motherboard you're > using? > > >Its cache size can affect everything. > > > > > >Steve Goodman > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > Kim Flint | Looper's Delight > > kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >