Advice on building a new PC sought

[outland]

Excuse the questions, but I am getting ready to build another system and I'm trying to gauge with just how much horsepower and in what form to config a new music/media system. I'm assuming either (feel free to tell me your opinion on these):

 

1) An OC'ed (to 3.2 GHz) Penryn 9450 Quad 1600 OCed FSB with 4GB DDR2 RAM (upgradeable at least to 8GB and hopefully further to 12 GB) and multiple HDDs (for a total of about 2.5 TB), splitting audio chores (and therefore hopefully offsetting the desire for RAID 0 arrays). OR....

 

2) A dual 3.2 GHz Xeon Quad system (total of eight cores) 1600 FSB with 12 GB of DDR3 RAM (much more expandable than this due to the server class mobo), multiple HDDs probably set in RAID 0 for ultimate throughput. the idea here is to future-proof as much as is possible given the state of today's technology.

 

Monitors and graphic cards are a non-issue as they will be considered separately.

 

Are there obvious problems in either of these systems? Is the dual Xeon system truly more "future-proof" or is it a waste of money comparatively? (MaxPC this month built a similar system and suggested that such a system "might" be more future proof than a system built around the yet to be released Nehalem quad. They also built the system as a dual boot (Vista 64 bit/XP 32 bit) because of fear that Vista is not quite ready for prime-time solo yet).

 

Software run will be Sonar, Project 5 v.2.3, Rapture, Dimension, Z3ta+, Triangle II, Square I, Pentagon, Live 7, Reason 4, NI Komplete with Kore 2, Ivory, BFD2, the Spectrasonics plug-ins, AAS plug-ins, Camelion 5000, Tim Conrardy's synths, Symptohm: Melohman, RealGuitar, RealStrat, Ugo synths and FX, Waves NPP, Acid 6, Sound Forge 9, Vegas 7, Finale. I use Layla 3G for audio (64 bit driver does exist) and MOTU midi express 128.

 

Any opinions are very appreciated!

[tedmich]

Huh? A mac Quad runs Vista faster..and dual boot with the MAC OS handles music stuff great..for gaming just get an Xbox IMO

[outland]

 

Huh? A mac Quad runs Vista faster..and dual boot with the MAC OS handles music stuff great..for gaming just get an Xbox IMO

 

Thanks for the comment.

 

Anyone out there with ideas on the PC I'm looking to build?

[sdf9235]

System 2 is the way to go. With music recording it's all about cores and memory. With 12gb ddr3 and 8 xeon cores you'll have more than enough

[Okuno]

I'd have to agree with the dual processors. Also, going to DDR3 is definitely more future-resistant (I hesitate to say future-proof), but I'm not sure RAID 0 is worth it.

 

 

From wiki: A RAID 0 can be created with disks of differing sizes, but the storage space added to the array by each disk is limited to the size of the smallest disk.

 

 

Not so great for HD expandability later. There'll be a bunch of automatic mess when you want to swap things out. As much as I like not having to do things manually, I'm really a traditionalist when it comes to data storage: if you do it yourself, you know what's happening.

 

Also, as far as your OS goes: I would normally just recommend a dual-boot mac/XP, but for you, go with either XP monoboot or an XP/Vista dual. I'm not going to risk my money on the hope that vista will get better, but from your specs, I'm guessing you've got plenty of money (God, I so want quad cores, then I might really. whine, complain, etc...) And if you've got old installs laying around, you might as well use them. My copy of XP has bounced between three comps and a couple reformats now.

 

Also, as to your Nehalem question, I don't keep up on specific parts but I'd say a good rule to go by is: if you can wait 2 or 3 weeks until a brand-new processor or technology comes out, then you might as well. Of course, it really has to be what it advetises. Why did I only do research after my new comp was on my desk!? Oh, right 'cause the other had a case of terminal processor crawl.... <.>

 

Anyway, hope that helps!

[outland]

 

I'd have to agree with the dual processors. Also, going to DDR3 is definitely more future-resistant (I hesitate to say future-proof), but I'm not sure RAID 0 is worth it. Not so great for HD expandability later. There'll be a bunch of automatic mess when you want to swap things out. As much as I like not having to do things manually, I'm really a traditionalist when it comes to data storage: if you do it yourself, you know what's happening. Also, as far as your OS goes: I would normally just recommend a dual-boot mac/XP, but for you, go with either XP monoboot or an XP/Vista dual. I'm not going to risk my money on the hope that vista will get better, but from your specs, I'm guessing you've got plenty of money (God, I so want quad cores, then I might really. whine, complain, etc...) And if you've got old installs laying around, you might as well use them. My copy of XP has bounced between three comps and a couple reformats now. Also, as to your Nehalem question, I don't keep up on specific parts but I'd say a good rule to go by is: if you can wait 2 or 3 weeks until a brand-new processor or technology comes out, then you might as well. Of course, it really has to be what it advetises. Why did I only do research after my new comp was on my desk!? Oh, right 'cause the other had a case of terminal processor crawl.... <.> Anyway, hope that helps!

 

 

Thanks, guys!

 

It does help. Right now, FWIW, you are two of three votes for System 2. Eight votes have been logged for System 1 on the basis that it is also overkill. One very important voter (works for intel) has hedged his bets and says both would be great.

 

Nehalem just muddies the waters; the Quads for it are out in Q4 '08, the Octs probably quite some time after that. The way they deal with memory is what sets them apart; the FSB is eradicated and cache is therefore much downplayed (or dismissed?) in these procs. Whether apps will need to be optimized for this is anyone's guess, I think. Interestingly, this idea is similar to what AMD is doing now.

 

Okuno, do you know if a Vista 64 bit/XP dual boot is possible? This is getting to be more and more what I am thinking of. I have to check MaxPC; I think this is how they spec'ed their Dream System (8-08 issue).

 

I have RAID 0 on my present system; no problems with it, and boy is it fast (Raptors at 10,000 RPM in RAID 0. They scream). ut 32 MB cache Seagates each multi-threading Ivory/BFD/Kontakt, etc. can't be that much slower if I separate the threading apps onto different HDDs. So, I probably have ruled out the RAID 0 idea.

 

The difference in the cost of the Systems may not be as much as you might think: @ $3400 to $4900 (4 GB RAM both systems, no montior, no sound card) the main difference is obviously the second Xeon proc.

[Eminence_Front]

If you're going to drop a couple grand....

 

Raid-5 on the Storage, with a Raid-0 Boot Pair. (5 drives) Seperate channels.

 

The I/O is really where the bottleneck is for Multimedia recording and editing. This is why workstation class systems have dedicated I/O controllers... It doesn't matter how fast those cores can crunch arithmetic , they can only write to disk and read from disk in a finite bandwidth.

 

Stick with Sata, don't worry about Sata-2. The controller ASICS can't yet perform at 3.0 GB/s or whatever, so you're bottleneck on storage isn't the bus it's the drive, no need for the additional expense. The fastest recorded laboratory result for data transfer on any ATA technology is about 118 MB/s. Which means that even Parallel ATA at 133 MB/s is still relatively current.

 

 

As for the Processor's, the modern dual and quad core CPU's are very very similar in architecture to the Xeon server class chips with the exception of the backend L2/L3 cache. As a matter of fact, the Pentium-4 Extreme Edition I run, is only a single core chip, but based on Xeon architecture. The different between it and a standard P4 is the 2MB L2 cache.

 

The cache is excellent for transactional processing in a persistent basis, but unless you're doing rendering and encoding 12 hours a day, I really doubt you will see a huge improvement from the Xeon...

 

Just my .02

 

Spend your money on excellent software, alot of memory and storage....

 

Or a Mac, the architecture of the hardware is very specialized toward A/V production.

[outland]

 

If you're going to drop a couple grand.... Raid-5 on the Storage, with a Raid-0 Boot Pair. (5 drives) Seperate channels. The I/O is really where the bottleneck is for Multimedia recording and editing. This is why workstation class systems have dedicated I/O controllers... It doesn't matter how fast those cores can crunch arithmetic , they can only write to disk and read from disk in a finite bandwidth. Stick with Sata, don't worry about Sata-2. The controller ASICS can't yet perform at 3.0 GB/s or whatever, so you're bottleneck on storage isn't the bus it's the drive, no need for the additional expense. The fastest recorded laboratory result for data transfer on any ATA technology is about 118 MB/s. Which means that even Parallel ATA at 133 MB/s is still relatively current. As for the Processor's, the modern dual and quad core CPU's are very very similar in architecture to the Xeon server class chips with the exception of the backend L2/L3 cache. As a matter of fact, the Pentium-4 Extreme Edition I run, is only a single core chip, but based on Xeon architecture. The different between it and a standard P4 is the 2MB L2 cache. The cache is excellent for transactional processing in a persistent basis, but unless you're doing rendering and encoding 12 hours a day, I really doubt you will see a huge improvement from the Xeon... Just my .02 Spend your money on excellent software, alot of memory and storage.... Or a Mac, the architecture of the hardware is very specialized toward A/V production.

 

 

And a fine .02 cents it is, too. Thanks!

 

I was aware of the bottleneck problems. What throws a wrinkle (and a pretty good size wrinkle at that) into the works for me is Nehalem.

 

I need to find out just what the price is going to be, if it's reasonable to expect it for Q4, and what, if any s/w will be able to address its new architecture. It will have hyper-threading and no FSB. I could (in theory) just wait as little as one month more and pick up a very significantly faster quad. But, of course, the price is likely to be really high, and, I assume, the mobos that deal with the new chip may be higher as well (unless there is a savings in losing the FSB that can be passed on to the buyer).

[Eminence_Front]

a conundrum.

 

Trying to future proof anything is going to result in empty wallets.

 

Moore's law still generally applies these days.

 

I really think, even though I am not a Mac person, that a used G5 would be well worth the money and probably last you longer than any x86 based system...

 

 

BD

[outland]

a conundrum. Trying to future proof anything is going to result in empty wallets. Moore's law still generally applies these days. I really think, even though I am not a Mac person, that a used G5 would be well worth the money and probably last you longer than any x86 based system... BD

 

Well, I am not a Mac person either, and (not trying to start an argument with anyone) every Mac I've used has been ridiculously unstable (far more than any of my PCs). I'm not crazy about how the platform tries to "funnel' you into its paradigm. I get the feeling that if I got one, I'd probably just run PC apps all the time. But, I did spec one last night. It was absurdly overpriced. I noticed that it's running the same procs (you'd expect this with intel making the chips), 2 GB of DDR2 is going for $500 (no joke, check the Apple store). A 500 GB HDD is $200 (high, but not absurd).

 

Oh, let me just give you the price and how I spec'd it:

 

Mac Pro: Dual Xeon, (no choice of mobo), 16 GB DDR2 RAM, Mac RAID card, 4 500 GB SATA HDDs, 1 optical "all purpose" read/write drive, a 256 MB video card, 2 20" monitors, cordless kb. Price: $7777.

 

Price of the same PC system at ADK (swap out 22" displays for the 20"; 20" are not offered): $6359.

 

The odd thing here for me is that I thought the cost difference was going to be more. But given all my bad experience on Macs, there really isn't a question here for me.

 

Nehalem is the conundrum, however, you're so right. It very well might get me some more significant usable time at the end of the computer's life. But as one techie (and many others) has suggested: the HW is so far ahead of the SW that it really is ridiculous. No one's really dealing with what's available now (Cakewalk, at least, is closest) and we have another major paradigm shift hitting us in Nehalem. Who knows if Hyper-threading is going to be intergrated? (Although, preliminary anecdotal stuff is really good).

 

You see, last time I attempted future-proofing a machine, I actually did pretty well: about 5 years of stable service. But I am aware that it may not be possible to duplicate that experience.

 

So, and just wondering here, and please, forgive me if I'm being thick, but I'm guessing that you wouldn't wait for Nehalem?