Members JoshuaLogan Posted March 12, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 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. If I went with a dual core, what processor and motherboard would you recommend? links on newegg would be nice if you will do that... thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dropsix Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 If I went with a dual core, what processor and motherboard would you recommend? links on newegg would be nice if you will do that... thanks Do you care about overclocking or using sli or crossfire or anything along the lines of doing something you'd be called a computer geek for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cookie2 Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 Pentium 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dropsix Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 Pentium 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DeadNight Warrior Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 I bought myself a new computer a few months back, dual core w/2gb RAM, and it's certainly had no problems coping so far. Projects that used to have my CPU going ape{censored} at around the 90% mark are now down at 10-20% on the CPU meter. This is running {censored} like DFHS, fully processed, synth plugins, C4s and other plugs all over the place on guitars, vocals, bass, etc. etc. I just finished a demo for a friend's band, something like 11 tracks for drums, 8 tracks on average for guitar, two bass tracks, a couple of vocal tracks, all running effects in real time 'n' whatnot, and the CPU just didn't give a {censored} in the slightest. Unless you're hoping to run VSTis for a full orchestra in real time while sequencing 'n' whatnot, I think you'd find a dual core with plenty o' RAM would do you fine for a while yet. Even then, I'm not sure the quad would help at all there, I think you'd be looking more at running a few PCs together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JesperX Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 If I went with a dual core, what processor and motherboard would you recommend? links on newegg would be nice if you will do that... thanks http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128059http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115029 I'd go for something like that assuming you don't care about crossfire or SLI. There's also the 3.0 ghz proc, but it'll cost you more and you could probably clock the 2.66 up to 3 ghz no problem if you wanted.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115028 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JoshuaLogan Posted March 12, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 Do you care about overclocking or using sli or crossfire or anything along the lines of doing something you'd be called a computer geek for? overclocking a little bit MAYBE if I could do it easily, but probably not. I will use the computer for other things, but it will mainly be for recording and music production. I'll probably be using a presonus firestudio with cubase or nuendo. I won't be using a TON of VSTi's, but probably a few... synths/piano mostly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dropsix Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 overclocking a little bit MAYBE if I could do it easily, but probably not. I will use the computer for other things, but it will mainly be for recording and music production. I'll probably be using a presonus firestudio with cubase or nuendo. I won't be using a TON of VSTi's, but probably a few... synths/piano mostly... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128086Something like that or similar spec should do you fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JoshuaLogan Posted March 12, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128086Something like that or similar spec should do you fine. to go with which processor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mincy Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 If money isn't an issue, buy the fastest thing you can. Otherwise, buy a cheaper processor and spend the money on better quality (and quanity) components. For home recording you probably won't push a dual core or a quad core to it's limits, but if you don't get enough memory, a good mainboard and harddrive, you might push the throughput on the buses, especially when recording and playing back a previous track(s). The processor is only one part of the equation. Check out http://www.tomshardware.com. They have great benchmarks for cpus, video cards, mainboards, memory and harddrives and it might help you to get what you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Aibric Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 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. +1 Go for a fast dual core. If you're going to be using Cubase or something, I don't even think the newest version takes advantage of a quad core processor. I don't know about Pro Tools or Sonar, though. For the price of a slower quad, you can get an excellent Core 2 Duo. Hell, my laptop with the older Core Duo T2400 does the job just as fine today as it did when I got it two years ago. I can have tons of recorded tracks, EZDrummer, EWQL Symphony Orchestra and some other VST Instruments and whatnot without maxing out. My desktop is a Athlon X2 5600+ and it performs similarly, and I put that computer together for really cheap. Dual core was out there for a while before it provided any serious advantage. Wait a while on the Quad core and it will eventually be more useful and cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JoshuaLogan Posted March 12, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 If money isn't an issue, buy the fastest thing you can. Otherwise, buy a cheaper processor and spend the money on better quality (and quanity) components. For home recording you probably won't push a dual core or a quad core to it's limits, but if you don't get enough memory, a good mainboard and harddrive, you might push the throughput on the buses, especially when recording and playing back a previous track(s). The processor is only one part of the equation. Check out http://www.tomshardware.com. They have great benchmarks for cpus, video cards, mainboards, memory and harddrives and it might help you to get what you need. I just don't know what to get. I want to get everything powerful enough to not have issues with slow down or freezing or latency, but I don't want to spend more money than necessary. I'm trying to put together a computer for about $1000.... maybe up to $1200ish. But this isn't just for mediocre home recordings with a couple tracks, but full on music production. I've already got all of the recording and mixing details finished and know exactly what I'm going to be doing. I just need to get the computer now. Here is how i'll be recording/mixing/producing/etc.-Guitar: Direct from Axe-FX-Bass: Direct from Axe-FX-Drums: Steven Slate Drums 2.0 used with Kontakt and maybe Drumagog-Occasional synth/piano/etc.: midi keyboard controlling VSTi's and softsynths-DAW: Either the latest version of Cubase or Nuendo-Firewire inteface: Most likely the Presonus Firestudio I know I want to use XP and have 4gb of memory. I just need to figure out which processor and motherboard I need to get to handle all of this without problems. I have the money ready and waiting for everything... just need to figre out what to get... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 For a $1000 system, I'd pick up something like this....http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Weathered Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 The more important factor is running a separate audio drive. If you're running the program from the same drive you're trying to write from, it's going to affect performance. I am running PTLE 7.4 on my laptop (2.2 ghz dual-core, 2 GB RAM running Vista) and it hasn't shown the slightest issue with multiple tracks, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LaXu Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 If you're going to have 4 GB of RAM then you should go with Vista 64-bit because XP 32-bit can't use 4 GB and XP-64 doesn't have much driver support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members code_blue Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 Get a quad core. Some will try and convice you that dual core is faster in some way, but I think they are just that typical percentage of technology dinosaurs that don't trust new things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JoshuaLogan Posted March 12, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 The more important factor is running a separate audio drive. If you're running the program from the same drive you're trying to write from, it's going to affect performance.I am running PTLE 7.4 on my laptop (2.2 ghz dual-core, 2 GB RAM running Vista) and it hasn't shown the slightest issue with multiple tracks, etc. yeah I'm planning on getting multiple hard drives. possibly 3, but atleast 2. if I go 3, I will have one just for the computer for programs and internet and blah blah blah, then 1 for music-related stuff, and a separate one for mix projects. is it necessary to have an external drive or would two (or three) different internal sata drives be fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members code_blue Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 XP-64 doesn't have much driver support. The driver support is fine. Probably better than Vista 64-bit actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JoshuaLogan Posted March 12, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 If you're going to have 4 GB of RAM then you should go with Vista 64-bit because XP 32-bit can't use 4 GB and XP-64 doesn't have much driver support. Well, I know a 32 bit OS can't recognize 4 GB but it's close.... something like 3.5 GB or so. I want to avoid vista altogether right now because it also doesn't have very good driver support yet, and the OS itself uses a lot more system resources so it's quite a bit slower... I just want to go 4GB for XP because it'll pretty much max out the memory capability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members code_blue Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 No point spending the extra for the quad core, get a faster dual core.No point in spedning extra for the dual cores though either is there?Quad core prices are extremely low right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 Get a quad core.Some will try and convice you that dual core is faster in some way, but I think they are just that typical percentage of technology dinosaurs that don't trust new things. People usually build computers within a certain budget.If you're spending $200-250 on a processor, you can get a dual core with a much faster clock speed than a comparably priced quad core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JoshuaLogan Posted March 12, 2008 Author Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 For a $1000 system, I'd pick up something like this....http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115037 How does that compare to the 2.4 ghz quadcore Q6600? (here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017) With these dual cores and quad cores, is each core the rated ghz or is that the total speed? I mean, for that 3.0ghz dual core you posted, is each core 3.0ghz or are each 1.5ghz for a total of 3.0ghz? And same question for the quadcore, is each core 2.4ghz or is each only at 600mhz for a total of 2.4ghz? I'm pretty sure it's the speed each core runs at and not total, but just checking to make sure so I have a full understanding on what I'm deciding between... heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blargh Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 How does that compare to the 2.4 ghz quadcore Q6600? (here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017)With these dual cores and quad cores, is each core the rated ghz or is that the total speed? I mean, for that 3.0ghz dual core you posted, is each core 3.0ghz or are each 1.5ghz for a total of 3.0ghz? And same question for the quadcore, is each core 2.4ghz or is each only at 600mhz for a total of 2.4ghz?I'm pretty sure it's the speed each core runs at and not total, but just checking to make sure so I have a full understanding on what I'm deciding between... heh It's probably a better idea to look at benchmarks than clock speed.I use my PC for gaming a lot, so I'm biased towards dual core since quad doesn't really give much of a performance boost.If you're not gaming, the Q6600 would probably be a better choice, but you wouldn't go wrong with either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JesperX Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 Well, I know a 32 bit OS can't recognize 4 GB but it's close.... something like 3.5 GB or so. I want to avoid vista altogether right now because it also doesn't have very good driver support yet, and the OS itself uses a lot more system resources so it's quite a bit slower... I just want to go 4GB for XP because it'll pretty much max out the memory capability The max RAM for 32 bit XP is 3GB. Vista driver support has improved a lot since release, granted it's still not great, but it'll eventually get there. You can also turn off a lot of the resource hogging things in Vista, a lot of which is the stupid UI. There are a lot of step by step guides for optimizing Vista installs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wanky Posted March 12, 2008 Members Share Posted March 12, 2008 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? go quad and make sure u go with a 64 bit OS, and get atleast four gigs of ram, or else u won't be able to take full advantage of ur quadcore CPU. ull multi task much better w/ a quad relating to audio production, u need a good comp, but whats more important is u need good sound card/processor the intel extreme and core 2 quad look good, but i think the AMD phenoms are cheaper and every bit as good tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.