XXHighEnd

I have an i7-950 CPU that I had been running at 3.7GHz with -7.  (The BIOS of my mobo makes it easy to choose 3.0 - no overclocking - 3.3, or 3.7.)  Prior to trying XTweaks in -8 I figured it was safest to begin experimenting with no overclocking, so I've currently got the CPU at its rated 3.0GHz.  Temps with any of the XTweaks I tried were quite comfortable, less than half the temps at which I'd get warnings, and with low fan speeds.  The same was true (comfortable temps and low fan speeds) when running -7 with the CPU at 3.7GHz.

So I'm curious what the thoughts are of Peter and other users regarding sound quality.  If temps and fan speeds remain reasonable, would higher CPU speeds be better or worse for sound quality?  I'll listen myself of course, but before I get back home to the computer I'd be interested in any impressions from others.

Hi Jud - Just a general thing :

It may be very hard to receive consensus about this; there are too many things related which will work out differently for everybody. My *feeling* is that the higher speed is the better generally, but, that may not be so when things heat up and thermal noise gets in the way. So, with my normal audio PC (i7/870, not overclocked) I can run the thing at 100% and see nothing much happen for temperature rise. I have it at 85 and it sounds better than the opposite (43).

Otherwise I have no opinion, because it takes a hell of a lot of time to combine with all there is to combine. Already one thing is that I, personally, just *want* to have the higher latency (Q1 etc.) because theories tell me it is for the better. With some XTweaking this indeed is so (but can be sibjective). For example, I just tried SFS=2 (see other topic) and it plainly sounds nasty. But whether this is different from pre-XTweaks - I wonder. We get used to things fairly quick, and XTweaks just brings that soooo normal sound. But for me with that high latency.

Notice that normal overclocking won't do much for our audio because it's actually not used. Not so with XTweaks where you can really engage it and keep it going, no matter the load going on.

I hope others can provide more useful input !
Peter

Hey Peter, speaking of latency, one question about Q1 factor in your sig: Is that Q1 = 14, multiplied by 2 gives a result of 28?  Or Q1 = 14, multiplied by 28 is twice 14 squared?

Without calculator : 14 x 28 = [the answer]
Squared ?

But notice that in my case it is 14 x 28 x (Device Buffer Size)  4096.
Latency is easily 10 seconds now for Alt-u etc.
Btw, this does not allow for continuous Attended Playback, nor won't Alt-n work in Unattended.

Yeah, 28 = 14x2, so 28x14 = 14x14x2 = 14 "squared" x 2.  (196x2=392).

Some people ...
:)

...and 196x2= (200-4)x2....

 ;)

Doesn't look scientific enough.

196xV4= (200-2^2)x2

:fishy: