Topic: ..even lower latency?

PCI ore PCIe

Im using a MADI interface

As far as I can se (having had tree PCI system and now tree PCIe system (same PC),
there is absolutely no differences in latency. I can?t use a smaller buffer or I utilize more CPU power.
The only difference so far is that the PCIe card makes screenupdates give audible clicks earlier  (lower CPU) than before.
But 192kHz is nice (for those who fancy that.

If 192 is not a necessity, I would recommend the PCI, the PCIe screen update clicks is very irritating

Re: ..even lower latency?

I have not registered this.

Re: ..even lower latency?

stepside wrote:

PCI ore PCIe

Im using a MADI interface

As far as I can se (having had tree PCI system and now tree PCIe system (same PC),
there is absolutely no differences in latency. I can?t use a smaller buffer or I utilize more CPU power.
The only difference so far is that the PCIe card makes screenupdates give audible clicks earlier  (lower CPU) than before.
But 192kHz is nice (for those who fancy that.

If 192 is not a necessity, I would recommend the PCI, the PCIe screen update clicks is very irritating

HI,

The amount of CPU used by your host program to deal with I/O and your motherboard PCI and PCI-e implementation are what preventing you potentially getting lower latencies. Running cards on any system be it PCI or PCI-e will push the buss  pretty hard. If you can get all 192 I/O activated and routed in your host program and work properly at 6ms or under then you are doing good. Don't forget that PCI-e still isn't truly independent from the PCI but us a bridged connection to botht he North Brige (usually the Video card and the other 16x slot) and th south bridge (1x thru 8x slots) on most motherboards.

Chris

Chris Ludwig | ADK Pro Audio
www.adkproaudio.com
https://www.facebook.com/adkmg