Haha just my luck, im in the south

Congrats, but you should have better done one change after the other to see that brings the most benefits.

With a combination of changes you will never know what the root cause was.

Additionally you didn't try different PCIe slots.

What I would do is, to keep the OS tuning but revert to intel graphics.

Do measurement in different PCIe slots. Observe, whether the PCIe slots do any difference.

Then install the PCIe Graphics card in the main slot for this purpose so that it gets the x16 Lanes.

Then you need to be careful when plugging the RayDAT. Don't take any of the x16 slots, it can be,
that your main slot for graphics would automatically change to x8 Lanes for the (all) big PCIe sockets ...

If the RayDAT performned better in a x16 Slot, even if it had only x8 or x4 Lanes (which doesnt matter for the RayDAT, it requires only one slot) then look in the docu, which of these you can take without making the additional Graphic card less performan (x8 Lanes). I think in CPU-Z or GPU-Z you can look / observe how many lanes are active.
Or in the graphics driver, dont remember exactly.

Thats how I would do it to get additionally some knowledge out of this !

And if you say it runs better now .. please present the new LatencyMon numbers (kernel timer values), average, peak ....
Thats of course also interesting for me/us in the forum in what regards this changed.

On my board most of the Lanes come from CPU, only for ~2 slots they come from chipset.
Of course its better to take Slotes with LANes that come from CPU.

The only thing is really to take care not to take another x16 Graphic card slot, that leads to an automatic re-assignment of lanes, so that your graphic card gets not x16 but only x8 lanes. And yes it dynamically autoconfigures the distribution of lanes.

> Im confident the Gfx card taking the load of the CPU for processing the desktop helped a lot to
> stop redraws from causing clitches.

We are not in church Believing is not knowing by proofing.

EDIT: and TBH .. I am very keen to know whether the built-in GPUs in Desktop CPU cause the same shit like on Laptops.
As I do not have such a CPU I can not proof this on my own. But I had already discussions in other boards and well at this state these are only "assumptions" from my side. It would be very helpful for me, if you really could validate this.

Would be interesting whether it makes a difference. I had a board, where some slots were not so good and caused side effects for a Firewire card. Based on that experience I would say its a good exercise to really learn your mainboard to know

Your mileage may vary ... only my technically oriented $0.02 worth

Thanks very kind from you.

BTW a mainboard block diagram to be found here:

https://www.manualslib.com/manual/10208 … e=8#manual

My observations, see pic ...

Find the best solution, then you have most reserves ...

Its not possible to predict whether disabling hyperthreading brings something or not.
You need to try it out and observe.

Ok, good luck and thanks for the feedback Matthew.

page faults happen, when the information is not in RAM and need to be read from disk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_fault
This can happen to Xeon and non-Xeon systems.

Mainboards need to support Xeon and ECC RAM.

The main advantage of getting a Xeon based platform is more the quality of parts.

You may have heard already, that CPU manufacturers take the best CPUs with no no faults from the middle of the wafer. This goes then to the server products, where companies need to give enterprise customers SLAs on parts and the service. The parts that are not great go to consumer area. Shall structures be damaged, so that maybe a certain core does not work they deactivate defective parts and make a different product out of it with less cores etc ....

Also the mainboards in the server board and chipsets will be build with the intention that high workloads can be run 24x7 if needed. ECC RAM is there to early detect and fix DRAM error so that your data doesnt become corrupted.

Also the layout and other components of server or workstation boards are built in a way to achieve best performance. So to say enough PCIe layers for PCIe sockets etc ...

You buy this not for overclocking (which does not work) you buy this for performance and stability.

Also an advantage of Xeons is, that you can choose from a wider range of CPUs. Either more core or higher base frequencies. Some of them offer support for dual or quad processor boards.

I dont want to say that you do not get quality with consumer boards.

Its simply that Xeon based systems are more carefully designed for quality and to deliver performance.

Still its advised, even with a Xeon based system, like I have, that you perform windows tuning, so that the CPU doesnt need to process so many bullshit tasks and make room to be able to process audio data in time even under load.

My system works great, the only thing which I can not go for is tunderbold. But .. with the UFX+ USB3 works great enough, so I won't upgrade my system and stay with this HW for longer time with Win7 as I see no merit and quality degradations and too much potential spyware in Win10.

I just updated my articles in regards to the system which I build.
If you have interest, get prices, calculate and you will have a nice and stable system.
http://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/inde … mponenten/
http://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/inde … -X10SRi-F/

And some details in terms of Blowers ...
http://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/inde … arrow-ILM/
http://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/inde … al-Design/

With the new BIOS v2 you can go for E5-1650v4 now and 2400 ECC RAM (I am limited to 2133 by v3 CPU).
But these few MHz less are IMHO not an issue.

do you think buying another gfx card will really help the issue? if the Nvidia drivers have problems, isnt it possible the new card will still be affected by the same issues?

BTW .. could you please stay in one thread please ?
I wrote this now to the old thread although from the order of actions this is nothing for this thread anymore.
Thanks.