Buying a new pc for recording: Quad Core or Dual Core?

[JoshuaLogan]

I'm buying a new desktop PC for recording soon... and I'm wondering, should I get a Quad Core or a faster Dual Core? I've read that lots of tasks and software don't actually take advantage of quad core very well, and that getting a faster Dual Core processor (for about the same price) might be a better idea...

 

But I don't know how this relates to audio production...

 

What do you guys think?

[gorath23]

I guess it depends on what software you are using and what you plan on using in the future. For most hobby recordists I think that a Dual would be easily enough, just make sure you have enough RAM (especially if running Vista). Quad Core might keep your computer more competative for a year or two after the Dual becomes insufficient. Personally I'd just go for a Decent Intel Dual Core with one of the higher-end chipsets and pocket the change from the Quad. How are you liking the Bare Knuckles btw, I'm about to get a Nailbomb in my LP.

[Kitarist]

quad core is better in doing lots of tasks than dual core.

 

i would get the quad core also because its the future of the cpus

[JesperX]

Unless you're running a LOT of CPU intensive programs simultaneously (like 3D modeling stuff and a whole load of other progs), I would really go with the faster dual at this point.

 

As someone who knows software, I can tell you you won't see an explosion of massively multithreaded programs come out of nowhere. The areas in which we're able to take advantage of multiple processors are still relatively limited.

 

I run multiple windows of firefox, two software dev environments, iTunes, and a bunch of smaller stuff simultaneously and I'd still go for the faster dual core at this point. It will last you plenty long before you'll even need to think about upgrading to quad.

[HKSblade1]

as long as your board has a 775 socket it should be able to interchange cpu ?? IIRC

I have a Pent D, but want to switch to Core 2 or something else. Shouldn't have to change the mo board if I'm not mistaken

[MattACaster]

I'd go Quad just because they are pretty inexpensive right now. I think my Q6600 was like $250.

[Jarick]

Intel MacBook + Logic Pro FTW. I've run 20 tracks with a crap load of plugins, convolution reverb, and a bunch of other programs in the background without maxing out one of the two cores.

[cryptic1911]

get the quad.. if a program cant take advantage of the quad, its not really going to take advantage of a dual either.. but a quad will be faster overall

 

I have a q6600 quad now, but just ordered a mac pro with dual 2.8ghz quad xeons

[the_bleeding]

do you play Crysis?

if no, get the dual core.

[Dropsix]

 

do you play Crysis? if no, get the dual core.

 

You're only looking at about 10fps (max) more than the dual if you choose a quad for crysis. And thats if you buy one of the expensive ones and even then 10fps is still pushing it.

But if you're gonna be running recording software, messenger software, a billion internet explorer pages and whatever else you may desire get the quad. Thats what I do and I rarely have other 30% CPU usage.

Also if his graphics card isn't up to scratch Crysis will tear a quad a new one without trying.

[JesperX]

 

get the quad.. if a program cant take advantage of the quad, its not really going to take advantage of a dual either.. but a quad will be faster overall

 

 

Unless you're doing a lot of encoding or doing a lot of rendering in Maya or 3DS Max, you'll see better performance where it counts with the faster dual core systems than a slower quad core.

 

Theoretically, if you run a LOT of programs simultaneously you can reach the point where the slower quad exceeds the faster dual in terms of performance, but we're not talking about 6 windows of firefox, instant messaging, and whatever else. We're talking a lot of really heavily CPU dependent apps before the gain even becomes noticeable.

[mrtokai]

No point spending the extra for the quad core, get a faster dual core.

[Herald of Light]

D0od3r, how many times are we going to have to go over this?

 

You don't need a quad core, and any in existence now aren't really ever going to be of just a whole lot of use.

 

Even the very next line of the Intels coming out are going to put the ones that come out on the 15th completely to shame, and quad cores STILL will not be the de facto standard by that point.

 

 

do you play Crysis? if no, get the dual core.

 

 

Uh, I have always been under the impression that Crysis does not really support quad core processors. In fact, the ONLY game I know of that does is Supreme Commander. It's about the only game that could even have the potential use for it to begin with, as the complex AI with a potential 10,000+ units going all over the place is going to need just a wee bit more than a graphics card to get the job done. And even so, the increase in performance over using a dual core of the same speed does not outweigh the increase in performance of using a just plain faster processor. It's not like having twice as many cores makes the FPS double. That is not how video games work.

 

I have never understood why people make such a big deal about this game. My friend has an E2180. It's a butchered, very low end Core 2 Duo. He runs Crysis on high. If you don't have Vista (and wtf would you for a recording computer?), then you're not going to be running it on "very high," and you're not going to be seeing the game in a state where it's incapable of running properly without a $4,000 computer. It will run perfectly fine.

[SoCalMX70]

the Intel Q6600 is what I have and it's pretty damn cheap... and easily overclockable. I have it running at 3.17ghz on stock voltage and it flies. I won't need to build a new rig at least a couple years with what I do.

more and more programs are being written to utilize multiple threads (which means dual and quad cores will get better use). No reason not to get a quad core with the prices they're at.

[Dropsix]

the Intel Q6600 is what I have and it's pretty damn cheap... and easily overclockable. I have it running at 3.17ghz on stock voltage and it flies. I won't need to build a new rig at least a couple years with what I do. more and more programs are being written to utilize multiple threads (which means dual and quad cores will get better use). No reason not to get a quad core with the prices they're at.

 

 

They said that around this time last year about the quads and the software support to enable them to reasonably (to the point where one can say quad=definitive yes) excel beyond the performance of duals in most situations other than programming, editing, encoding etc,(which not a lot of people do too much) of is still lacking.

 

An E8400/E8500 will clock close to 4Ghz pretty easy on air. To do that with a quad you either have to watercool it pretty damn good or just do it on air and risk damaging your cpu.

[SoCalMX70]

They said that around this time last year about the quads and the software support to enable them to reasonably (to the point where one can say quad=definitive yes) excel beyond the performance of duals in most situations other than programming, editing, encoding etc,(which not a lot of people do too much) of is still lacking. An E8400/E8500 will clock close to 4Ghz pretty easy on air. To do that with a quad you either have to watercool it pretty damn good or just do it on air and risk damaging your cpu.

I'm pretty sure with the heatsink i'm using I could easily get my q6600 to around 3.8ghz with very little voltage tweaking... no reason to do it though because I just don't need it. My goal was to get my rig a good overclock on stock volts and i accomplished that.

Yeah I will admit programs are still a bit lacking in the multi-threaded area, but they're still coming. There are some video/audio editors using multiple threads... almost all the new games are multi threaded... not that i game much

[JesperX]

There are some video/audio editors using multiple threads... almost all the new games are multi threaded... not that i game much

Encoding is one of those areas that contains tasks which are highly independent.

 

Saying most new games are multithreaded is kind of misleading as well. The truth is that certain sections of the engine are multithreaded, like rendering and particle systems and whatnot. They are far from being massively multithreaded and far from needing a quad core over a faster dual core.

[HackedByChinese!]

Get a faster dual like an E8400.

[Dropsix]

I'm pretty sure with the heatsink i'm using I could easily get my q6600 to around 3.8ghz with very little voltage tweaking... no reason to do it though because I just don't need it. My goal was to get my rig a good overclock on stock volts and i accomplished that. Yeah I will admit programs are still a bit lacking in the multi-threaded area, but they're still coming. There are some video/audio editors using multiple threads... almost all the new games are multi threaded... not that i game much

You arent getting 3.8Ghz without at least 1.45-1.5vCore

The default on the q6600 is 1.275 or something so you'd defo have to do some voltage upping.

If you did get it up to 3.8, it'd be waayyyyy too hot.

[cryptic1911]

Yes, you're correct, but I'm assuming someone looking at duals and quads has a reason for buying it if all you do is internet, then it wont make any difference. In my case, I'm going to be using vmware, reason 4.0, logic 8 pro, photoshop, ripping dvd's, so it should work better in my case

Unless you're doing a lot of encoding or doing a lot of rendering in Maya or 3DS Max, you'll see better performance where it counts with the faster dual core systems than a slower quad core. Theoretically, if you run a LOT of programs simultaneously you can reach the point where the slower quad exceeds the faster dual in terms of performance, but we're not talking about 6 windows of firefox, instant messaging, and whatever else. We're talking a lot of really heavily CPU dependent apps before the gain even becomes noticeable.

[JesperX]

Yes, you're correct, but I'm assuming someone looking at duals and quads has a reason for buying it if all you do is internet, then it wont make any difference. In my case, I'm going to be using vmware, reason 4.0, logic 8 pro, photoshop, ripping dvd's, so it should work better in my case

My point is that you won't see a benefit unless you're doing a lot of a/v encoding and rendering type stuff all the time and you're only going to see a benefit when you are specifically doing those tasks.

In most cases, it doesn't justify buying a slower clocked quad vs a faster clocked dual.

[Herald of Light]

Yeah I will admit programs are still a bit lacking in the multi-threaded area, but they're still coming. There are some video/audio editors using multiple threads... almost all the new games are multi threaded... not that i game much

 

But that doesn't mean they make use of QUAD cores. That's TWICE as many cores as a dual core, which is already double the single cores that have been standard since the dawn of time, as far as PCs are concerned. And there really aren't many of them out there. Intel has had the Q6600 for about a year, I guess, and it was about $300 the entire time, and only very recently used with commonly advertised, affordable computers, likely because of the new line about to come out. AMD is still struggling to even get going with them.

 

It's a LONG way away from meaning anything.

 

A DAW that makes appropriate use of a dual core processor is extremely difficult to load down too much as it is. And a faster processor will just plain run faster, so I don't really see the benefit of hoping that at some point, one or two of those extra cores will mean something more significant than what it already is.

 

I equate this to the Athlon 64 thing. Back then, people were all ZOMG over how they were fast and affordable, and then would be able to handle 64 bit OSs later on, allegedly ensuring their viability for years to come.

 

That was over 5 years ago now, if I remember correctly. And yet, even after Vista, we are still stuck in the 32 bit realm. And a $50 processor will absolutely lay waste to the fastest thing you could possibly buy even just a few years ago.

 

Standardization of quad cores will be the next step beyond that, and we still aren't there. I'm guessing it's going to take until the next version of Windows.

[JesperX]

A DAW that makes appropriate use of a dual core processor is extremely difficult to load down too much as it is. And a faster processor will just plain run faster, so I don't really see the benefit of hoping that at some point, one or two of those extra cores will mean something more significant than what it already is.

 

 

Exactly, even in the case where you're running heavily multithreaded programs the benefit isn't really all the noticeable going from 2-4 cores during the times when it's present at all because we're just scratching the surface, in most situations we don't even take full advantage of dual core.

[blargh]

I don't know what DAW you use but Cubase utilizes both my cores for VST plugins...

I imagine it'll work with 4 cores too. But I doubt you'll need the extra power, unless you've got 50 tracks with CPU intensive plugins on them.

[Herald of Light]

It will undoubtedly make SOME use of them, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it suddenly evenly divides everything between the four, in comparison.

 

In the rare cases where some use of quad cores is made, aside from rendering, a faster dual core that costs just as much will run pretty much just as fast, anyways, and EVERYTHING will be just as much faster.

 

And like you said, good luck killing a dual core to the point where a quad core becomes a necessity. I just can't think of a reasonable situation where that's going to happen. I actually use 50 tracks and over 100 plug-ins, and I get along fine with programs that don't even have multi-threaded audio engines.