I'd go with the PCI card, AGP sucks up too many resources which could cause latency. (I actually had to buy a new PC just for recording because I had an AGP card that I couldn't re-arrange in a way that the IRQ didn't conflict with my soundcard)
Reducing the pci latency is something you can do here. Try http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=951 or http://mark-knutson.com/t3/
Again, reduce the vid card (probably currently set to 248) and bring up the soundcard.
Willy.
Val,
Good choice! By that I mean you chose what worked best for you. You rarely go wrong when your decision is based on what your needs and limitations are.
My input on your video card choice would be to go with an AGP Radeon that can support the highest rate (8x) or the next best you can afford. That way you can always move that card along to a newer computer at a later date. PCI is a poor choice in my opinion because 1) you can always slow down an AGP card 2)you need all the PCI slots you can get 3) with AGP you’re off the same bus you have your PCI audio card on (assuming its not on-board, firewire or USB.
Look at ATI Tool
I’m using this tried and true utility and you can make your Radeon do whatever you want: speed it up, slow it down, whatever. Graphic data being on the same bus that audio travels on is not a good idea in my opinion. AGP handles that data separately. If you don’t want to “hog” CPU resources just slow the card down. Mine runs so cool that I disconnected its cooling fan. I slow it down just above the point of failure. The only thing it can handle is basic 2d graphics (and no this doesn’t have any effect on the problem below. I’ve overclocked, underclocked and ran my 9000 at factory speed with no difference. Plus I tried an old ATI pci card and nothing happened except what was expected- the graphics were slower).
----
What I know is that the graphics performance (redraws, ghosting, poor overall performance, outright clumsy and non-standard handling of UI features) was a relatively minor issue and definately tolerable and usable in v3.3. The program is so go good that its not an issue. Many others have noted the exact same thing.
On the other hand what I also know is that across systems (AMD, Intel, different chipsets, audio and video cards) and versions of Windows (ME, 2K and XP) V4 (up to 1600 or so) everyone has the same problems (that may or may not be slightly improved or slightly degraded by any of 10,000,000 unknown factors). The only difference is between how much irritation each particular user can tolerate.
While some people were busy trying to deconstruct a few simple facts I pointed out and tried to make their poor arguments sound like something other than nonsense, I went and tried Ntrack 4 on a number of systems (HP and Compaq Intel laptops, Sony Vaios, and homebuilt intel based systems on Asus, Abit, and MSI). All you have to do is ask and people will download and try something as long as it looks safe. I only saw negligible differences between what is on my screen (with an AMD/VIA system) and what was on their Intel systems. The crude and superfluous screen redraws were still there along with the goofy behavior of docking windows, the strange way that resizing and reorganizing of buttons is handled (channel strip button mexican jumping beans), and the way auto resize does’nt plus the other stuff thats goofy from 3 (giant mute/solo, record buttons when resizing tracks, and other things every 3 user knows about but doesn’t really mind). The only difference was this stuff happened faster than on my much slower 2100+. Thats all.
On this AMD 2100+ the problems have been the same when I had a 1600+ in there. N 3 or 4 couldn’t come close to pushing any limits on this machine unless you set up 10 or 15 convolving reverbs across a number of tracks. MSI confirmed (after many questions from me) that the 2100+ issue was a BIOS oversight on their part so I put one in and performance is way way better.
Tom makes a good point with his story about a measly 400mHz processor handling a big load under v3.3. I was cooking also on a 950 mHz chip with 3.3 and there was little noise and heat to speak of. I think this has something to do with v4 being a resource “hog” with its apparently CPU cycle eating code. Maybe its the graphics UI side of N4 thats the problem, and fewer people pay attention to it because they’ve switched to a faster system.
The real test is: What happens when you run n4 on a slower system??
That will tell you much more than BS about chipset amd vs intel or anything else vs anything else.
My conclusion is that V4 is a “fatter” program with code speed bumps that needs to get on a diet and exercise program with its personal trainer Flavio Antonelli.
no cents