TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Building a new Studio computer. Need a sanity check.
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Building a new Studio computer. Need a sanity check.

OK, I'm looking at building a new machine for my main studio computer, and the research i have so far leads me to this:

This machine is going to be running Cubase 4 with a MOTU 24IO audio interface, Serial Unitor8 MIDI Interface, and a Glyph external drive.

• Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
  4 cores should be enough.
  
  
  
• Crucial 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory
  Only need 2 GB of ram at the moment, since I do not run a lot of software samplers.
  
  
  
• ASUS P5B Premium Vista Edition LGA 775 Intel P965 Express ATX Intel Motherboard
  This is critical because it is the only motherboard that has the following:
  A serial port for my Unitor 8 MIDI Interface (most newer MOBOs do not have a serial port)
  1 PCIe slot for my PCIe UAD-1 card
  2 PCI slots for my other UAD-1 Card and my MOTU-424 Audio interface card
  Built in firewire port for my Glyph external drive.
  
  
  
• XFX PVT84JUDF3 GeForce 8600GT 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16
  Getting this for the dual DVI outputs.
  
  
  
• Western Digital Caviar SE WD1600AAJS 160GB 7200 RPM 8MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive
  Dont need a large drive here, because its only going to be my system drive.
  
  
  
• Thermaltake TR2 W0070RUC ATX 430W Power Supply 115/230 V
  Reviews on this said it was a quiet power supply
  
  
• Thermaltake Armor Series VA8003BWS Black Full Tower Case w/ 25CM Fan
  Seems like a well-designed case with plenty of cooling and room for expansion. And its not Antec .
  
  

Honestly I'd put at least 200Gb on the main CPU...



Give yourself the freedom... logic 8 is like 80 gb....



maybe some sound proofing for your cpu case.. everything is just going to bounce right out of those windows... id skip the gimmicky cases.


i know you said you didnt like antec, but this sort of case would be a much better solution

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...N82E16811129154



also, dont just stop at hardware, make sure the whole package does what you need, check this out about soundproofing cpus...


http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=982

Re: Building a new Studio computer. Need a sanity check.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric J OK, I'm looking at building a new machine for my main studio computer, and the research i have so far leads me to this: This machine is going to be running Cubase 4 with a MOTU 24IO audio interface, Serial Unitor8 MIDI Interface, and a Glyph external drive. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor 4 cores should be enough. Crucial 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Only need 2 GB of ram at the moment, since I do not run a lot of software samplers. ASUS P5B Premium Vista Edition LGA 775 Intel P965 Express ATX Intel Motherboard This is critical because it is the only motherboard that has the following: A serial port for my Unitor 8 MIDI Interface (most newer MOBOs do not have a serial port) 1 PCIe slot for my PCIe UAD-1 card 2 PCI slots for my other UAD-1 Card and my MOTU-424 Audio interface card Built in firewire port for my Glyph external drive. XFX PVT84JUDF3 GeForce 8600GT 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Getting this for the dual DVI outputs. Western Digital Caviar SE WD1600AAJS 160GB 7200 RPM 8MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive Dont need a large drive here, because its only going to be my system drive. Thermaltake TR2 W0070RUC ATX 430W Power Supply 115/230 V Reviews on this said it was a quiet power supply Thermaltake Armor Series VA8003BWS Black Full Tower Case w/ 25CM Fan Seems like a well-designed case with plenty of cooling and room for expansion. And its not Antec . Anyone see anything here that is unnecessary or anything I am missing? I figure this system should be good enough to last 3 or 4 years and have plenty of power. it is replacing a Dell Dimension 8400 with an old 3.2 Ghz Hyperthreaded Processor. What do you all think?

Sounds pretty solid to me; although, I might recommend anteing-up the memory on that machine. Since you are planning to use it for 3-4 years and most DAWs I'm familiar with are tremendous memory hogs--it might not hurt to do 4 Gigs of RAM. Plus, if you're running Vista and not XP, you might want to ante-up. Just a recommendation though--you clearly have a better comprehension of contructing a kick-ass system. Good luck on your future productions!

If you really need that serial port, then it's fine. Otherwise I would recommend an IP35 chipset -based mobo (Abit IP35 Pro for example). They came out this summer (vs. P965 last year) and have better support for upcoming hardware.

Great choice for a CPU. There are two models of the Q6600; older B3 and later G0, of which G0 produces less heat.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations Honestly I'd put at least 200Gb on the main CPU... Give yourself the freedom... logic 8 is like 80 gb....

I'm assuming you are referring to the Main Hard Disk, not the CPU? If so, then yes, I can probably get 250GB for not much more money, but I figure nothing is going on the system drive other than the OS, and the applications. I have the Glyph disk for all my audio and project files.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations maybe some sound proofing for your cpu case.. everything is just going to bounce right out of those windows... id skip the gimmicky cases. i know you said you didnt like antec, but this sort of case would be a much better solution http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...N82E16811129154

Good Point, you're definitely right on that one, that case seems much better. I'm not really concerned with that it looks like, only how it works. It's not that I dont like Antec, I just have had problems with their cases in the past.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations also, dont just stop at hardware, make sure the whole package does what you need, check this out about soundproofing cpus... http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=982

Excellent, thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by phantom limb Sounds pretty solid to me; although, I might recommend anteing-up the memory on that machine. Since you are planning to use it for 3-4 years and most DAWs I'm familiar with are tremendous memory hogs--it might not hurt to do 4 Gigs of RAM. Plus, if you're running Vista and not XP, you might want to ante-up. Just a recommendation though--you clearly have a better comprehension of contructing a kick-ass system. Good luck on your future productions!

Yes This was definitely in the plans. The thing is that memory is an easy upgrade, so I figure I'll just sink my money into the "not-so-easy-to-upgrade" parts now and then i can add things like extra RAM or more disk as the need arises. Since I'm replacing a machine now that has 2GB, then I figure that this should do for a short time.

quote:

Originally posted by Chronosis If you really need that serial port, then it's fine.

Well the decision for this is as such: I already have a perfectly good MIDI interface, although it is a bit old. I'd have to tack on an extra $300-$400 to this upgrade just to replace a perfectly good 8x8 MIDI interface with a comparable USB one. I could get a PCI Serial port card, but it seems silly to waste a PCI slot on something like that.

In addition most new interfaces are USB now and I remember reading somewhere that serial port activity receives a higher priority in the motherboard bus than USB activity PLUS I'm not sharing the serial bus with anything else where as with USB I'm sharing that bus bandwidth with all my other USB devices. That may be total BS or dated information, so do not take my word on that one. Granted, we're only talking about MIDI data here, so its not like it is a real bandwidth hog or anything, but it seems silly to replace a perfectly good interface.

quote:

Originally posted by Chronosis Otherwise I would recommend an IP35 chipset -based mobo (Abit IP35 Pro for example). They came out this summer (vs. P965 last year) and have better support for upcoming hardware.

Can you expand on this a bit?

quote:

Originally posted by Chronosis Great choice for a CPU. There are two models of the Q6600; older B3 and later G0, of which G0 produces less heat.

Thank you, I'll take that into consideration for sure.

I wouldn't get a quad core. Windows XP doesn't handle quad cores too good as it is, but programs just aren't that well optimised yet either. A faster dual core is better IMO.

On the topic of a case and cooling, look into the Antec Solo. It has hard drive elastics etc. and comes with no PSU. Corsair HX520/640 are the quietest PSU on the market, so look into those too. Buy a Scythe Ninja CPU heatsink, but don't put the fan on the heatsink itself, put it on the CASE MOUNT below the PSU. This way you cool your CPU and have positive air pressure inside the case at the same time. Hence, that is the only fan needed inside your computer.

i think your choices are pretty good. PRetty much what everyone suggests on most forums

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm I wouldn't get a quad core. Windows XP doesn't handle quad cores too good as it is, but programs just aren't that well optimised yet either. A faster dual core is better IMO.

That's the first thing I thought of too, but maybe his option is more future-proof.
Seeing as he wants it to last approx. 3 to 4 years, chances are big that
Cubase might get the necessary updates for quad-core support (in the form of 4.x updates or Cubase 5)
and maybe, maybe Vista will get its act together and have support for it too. Just a thought though.

- farris

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm I wouldn't get a quad core. Windows XP doesn't handle quad cores too good as it is, but programs just aren't that well optimised yet either. A faster dual core is better IMO.

Interesting, this is the first I'm hearing of this. Can you expand on this a little? I'm not saying your wrong, I just want to make sure I'm not making a mistake. I'm working on Windows XP Professional and I know there a lots of people that are working on XP Pro with Cubase 4 on Quad Core with no problems (so they say). I'll do some more research on this before I commit.

I guess I can always go with an Intel E6850 Core 2 Duo @ 3.0 Ghz. Its the same price as the Q6600. SInce the E6850 is a 1333 FSB, will it still work if my MOBO is only 1066? WIll the processor shift down?

Since I'm not planninug going to Vista anytime soon, would it be better to look into getting a dual processor configuration with two dual-cores or is that going to be the same problem?

quote:

Originally posted by Eric J dual processor configuration with two dual-cores or is that going to be the same problem?

same problem

it's all to do with scheduling and splitting of processes into threads. vista has a redeveloped scheduling algorithm. xp (as far as i am aware) still uses the same methods as windows nt. i can't really provide empirical evidence for my next statement, but the general consensus is that the windows kernel doesnt have the depth of smp support or good scheduling of linux/freebsd/osx. number crunching has always been the number one priority of *nix kernels, hence why they have generally been crap for desktop use in the past.

the next part is how the actual program has been developed. splitting the workload between cpus is not an easy task. there are all kinds of synchronisation problems that make it near impossible for some to achieve it well, if at all. Also, this splitting process itself incurrs some overhead. the more cores you have to split things between, the more resources will be wasted on co-ordinating that. in other words, you would see higher relative cpu utilisation on a quad core than a dual core, for the same processing intensity.

since the whole multi-core movement has only just started, i'm convinced it will take a long time for existing programs to reach great efficiencies. the reason for this is that we're talking about the basic fundamentals of the program; the ammount of code that would need to be rewritten is enormous. some companies (eg. fl studio) probably won't ever have awesome multi-core support, because they just weren't designed for it in the first place.

Read this and you should get some idea regarding cpu performance and other interesting stuff Eric...



DAW BENCH

quote:

Originally posted by DJDIRTY Read this and you should be fine Eric... DAW BENCH

Awesome, thanks. I knew you'd come through for me

According to the results on the above site, the Quad Core performance is more than double the performance of a similar Dual Core when the two processors are compared at the same clock speed. Without having any reference to how the host system is handling the thread scheduling, it seems that the Quad Core used with Nuendo/SX is miles ahead of a comparable Dual Core processor.

From the site:

"Where the New Intel Core2Duo architecture litterly ' hit the ball out of the park ', the new Quadcore chips have raised the Performance Bar to levels never experienced or even thought possible in a Single CPU environment."

What I take away from these numbers is that the Quad Core seems to be the way to go, especially in the Nuendo/Cubase environment.

echosystem - I'm not saying you are wrong, and I did find several people on forums that were basically echoing your sentiments. I acknowledge that it is a risk, but I feel a little better knowing it is an informed risk and that if it does not work out as I hope that I didnt go into it blindly.

However, I think I'm going to go ahead and take the plunge and get the Quad Core chip. I really do appreciate the advice from you.
I'll surely keep this forum updated with the results of this experiment.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric J echosystem - I'm not saying you are wrong, and I did find several people on forums that were basically echoing your sentiments. I acknowledge that it is a risk, but I feel a little better knowing it is an informed risk and that if it does not work out as I hope that I didnt go into it blindly.

yeh, just looked at those benchmarks then... they don't have enough of a variety of plugins for the results to be accurate imo. regardless, the results are fairly convincing. i only saw the rain bench (i think?) where xp quad core performance sucked ass, particularly in sonar. they seemed to be really pro-vista though, so it was probably a sales ploy.

another thing i neglected to mention is that a lot of dsp cards have trouble with multi-core setups. if you're wanting to use a uad at any stage, better research into that - i don't know the specifics.

that said, it still depends on the app. for example, you're obviously going to get way better performance in fl studio on a dual core. cubase seems to take advantage of quads well though.

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm yeh, just looked at those benchmarks then... they don't have enough of a variety of plugins for the results to be accurate imo. regardless, the results are fairly convincing. i only saw the rain bench (i think?) where xp quad core performance sucked ass, particularly in sonar. they seemed to be really pro-vista though, so it was probably a sales ploy.

I remember seeing a lot of posts on the Cubase forums regarding the new 4.1 and if there was any problems on multi-core setups. I havent seen anyone posting any problems, and there seem to be a lot of people on that forum using quad core setups, so I just took that as "no news is good news". Generally if there is some kind of problem in Cubase with just about anything, they'll be people bitching up a storm over it on that forum, guaranteed.

I know that Cubase 4 is basically Nuendo and there seems to be a lot of effort by Steinberg to try to take some market share from Pro Tools in the Post Production arena, so it made sense to me that they'd try to shore up their software to work with the fastest hardware available, since they cannot rely on outboard DSP like a Pro Tools HD system seem to.

quote:

Originally posted by echosystm another thing i neglected to mention is that a lot of dsp cards have trouble with multi-core setups. if you're wanting to use a uad at any stage, better research into that - i don't know the specifics.

Its funny you mention the UAD cards, because that was one of the first things i checked into when considering this upgrade. I have 2 UAD cards and so I wanted to make sure that the cards would work with a new setup. I have checked the UAD forums on this and there seem to be a lot of people that have quad core's and are not having any problems, so i feel pretty safe that things are going to work OK. Time will tell of course

Again, I appreciate you giving me the warning in the first place. It better to research it and not regret making a mistake later on because I didn't have all the facts.

Todays totally off the subject commment:
I just noticed today is my one year anniversary on this board. Woohoo, time to party!

Hey guys. Few weeks ago I did a little test with my friend's quad.. We both run cubase sx, except I got the intel e6600 while he has intel q6600, same ram same motherboard, hd and psu.. - I build his system myself - he specified that he wanted everything exactly the same (after hearing from me that for the last 6 months I have ZERO problems) except with the recent intel quad core price drop it wasn't a brainer..
So we loaded up one of my projects on his machine, and it was running at half load of my system. Basically, I was around %40 load on an e6600 he was at%20 on q6600. He's been running some crazy plugin counts on his system in his other projects after getting the quad, and he's more than happy. I am personally going to go quad as well, since my motherboard is compatible, just waiting for Christmas

Eric, don't listen to what most douchebags on internet forums have to say. If you're going to go a quad, get Vista. Just make sure your interface manufacturers drivers are upto scratch. XP multicore support was tacked on so it's fucking rubbish be it a dual or a quad. Also, in regards to people with certain DSP cards having issues with multicore CPUs, I personally think that's a load of bullshit. In regards to FL studio, if you get a Q6600 quad or an E6600 dual, it will run EXACTLY the same, same clock speeds, same internals, just doubled up. Saying that FL runs better on a dual core than it does on a quad is a VERY ambiguous statement. What if the quad is a 3.33ghz Penryn and the dual is a dual core P4? Go quad and never look back dude. Oh your PC will need a slightly beefier power supply (500 watts + imo). Good hunting.

If you want to future proof then get a quad, makes more sense to me . i think you'd be silly to pick a dual over a quad (future software updates will support it, no matter which program).. the future isnt about faster dual core chips, its about more cores, and quad will eventually be a minimum.

quote:

Originally posted by deceptikon Eric, don't listen to what most douchebags on internet forums have to say. If you're going to go a quad, get Vista. Just make sure your interface manufacturers drivers are upto scratch. XP multicore support was tacked on so it's fucking rubbish be it a dual or a quad. Also, in regards to people with certain DSP cards having issues with multicore CPUs, I personally think that's a load of bullshit. In regards to FL studio, if you get a Q6600 quad or an E6600 dual, it will run EXACTLY the same, same clock speeds, same internals, just doubled up. Saying that FL runs better on a dual core than it does on a quad is a VERY ambiguous statement. What if the quad is a 3.33ghz Penryn and the dual is a dual core P4? Go quad and never look back dude. Oh your PC will need a slightly beefier power supply (500 watts + imo). Good hunting.

Well eventually I'm sure I'll upgrade to Vista. I'm running it on my fiancee's laptop and my secondary DAW which is running Ableton Live 6 (woohoo!). So far i havent had too many problems with it other than, you guessed it, drivers. Fortunately the secondary DAW is just for live monitoring and spectrum analysis, so its not a problem to run BETA drivers, but I would never consider it for a primary workstation at this stage.

I know that my MOTU drivers are Vista compatible, but I'm just waiting on SP1 at the minimum to go to Vista, plus I like to see a few other people take the plunge before I go there. The only other barrier to getting Vista for me at the moment is that I have an old Unitor 8 interface and I'm not sure how the drivers will work on Vista, if they will at all. Since eMagic is now an Apple company, I have zero chance of seeing any updated drivers for the MIDI interface, which means any upgrade to Vista will require a new MIDI interface.

However, considering my time frame for this computer, I definitely see Vista in it's future so I agree with you that its best to just go ahead and prepare for the future now.

quote:

Originally posted by deceptikon XP multicore support was tacked on so it's fucking rubbish be it a dual or a quad.

Wrong. Windows has had SMP support since NT. Nothing was "tacked on" in XP. It was already there, just not "active". Regardless, quad core performance is presumed better in vista, for the reasons I stated earlier, provided the bloat doesn't outweigh the benefit.

quote:

Originally posted by deceptikon Also, in regards to people with certain DSP cards having issues with multicore CPUs, I personally think that's a load of bullshit.

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=...page=1�
This applies to a lot of DAWs.

quote:

Originally posted by deceptikon In regards to FL studio, if you get a Q6600 quad or an E6600 dual, it will run EXACTLY the same, same clock speeds, same internals, just doubled up. Saying that FL runs better on a dual core than it does on a quad is a VERY ambiguous statement.

I said a dual core with faster cores is better than a quad with slower cores. This is true for FL Studio and any other program that doesn't have good multicore support.

quote:

Originally posted by deceptikon Eric, don't listen to what most douchebags on internet forums have to say.

what, like you?

Re: Building a new Studio computer. Need a sanity check.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric J OK, I'm looking at building a new machine for my main studio computer, and the research i have so far leads me to this: This machine is going to be running Cubase 4 with a MOTU 24IO audio interface, Serial Unitor8 MIDI Interface, and a Glyph external drive. Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor 4 cores should be enough. Crucial 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Only need 2 GB of ram at the moment, since I do not run a lot of software samplers. ASUS P5B Premium Vista Edition LGA 775 Intel P965 Express ATX Intel Motherboard This is critical because it is the only motherboard that has the following: A serial port for my Unitor 8 MIDI Interface (most newer MOBOs do not have a serial port) 1 PCIe slot for my PCIe UAD-1 card 2 PCI slots for my other UAD-1 Card and my MOTU-424 Audio interface card Built in firewire port for my Glyph external drive. XFX PVT84JUDF3 GeForce 8600GT 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Getting this for the dual DVI outputs. Western Digital Caviar SE WD1600AAJS 160GB 7200 RPM 8MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive Dont need a large drive here, because its only going to be my system drive. Thermaltake TR2 W0070RUC ATX 430W Power Supply 115/230 V Reviews on this said it was a quiet power supply Thermaltake Armor Series VA8003BWS Black Full Tower Case w/ 25CM Fan Seems like a well-designed case with plenty of cooling and room for expansion. And its not Antec . Anyone see anything here that is unnecessary or anything I am missing? I figure this system should be good enough to last 3 or 4 years and have plenty of power. it is replacing a Dell Dimension 8400 with an old 3.2 Ghz Hyperthreaded Processor. What do you all think?

Sounds good!


Actually, sounds almost exactly like my new PC. Quad Core is a great choice for ableton. 2GB RAM is key (I only got 1, need more!!!).

I did splurge and get the water cooled version, which has worked out well so far. Enjoy!

Keep in mind when watching this that echosystem claims that FL will only use 2 cores of the CPU. Excuse the mild load on it from recording my 2560x1600 desktop:

http://www.trancescape.net/lol/

I will post exact contents of the mixer channels if anyone ones, but unless I'm hallucinating quite vividly FL Studio with some VST instruments and effects actually loads up all 4 cores of my processor. Odd that. Hmmm.

Just a heads up guys, this dude is a friend of mine who has had some releases, played out live, etc etc etc, the Aussies who have been around here for a while may know him but this echoes my sentiments and those of a few other producers i know:

alpharisc says:
I wouldnt advice anyone to buy a dual core over a quad core..
alpharisc says:
regardless of the application they are using
alpharisc@arcK says:
it doesnt make sense to buy a higher clock dual core EVER...

Oh well, what would we know?

And one final note, a G0 stepping Q6600 ($327AU atm) will do 3.4-3.6ghz per core on AIR COOLING with ease. How do I know? Been there, done that.

quote:

Originally posted by deceptikon echosystem claims that FL will only use 2 cores of the CPU.

I never said that.

I've said it once... I will say it again.

FL Studio will only run thread safe VST instruments on other cores. Everyone knows this. VST effects, FL effects and FL instruments can only run on one core. That core also holds the mixer, audio "engine" and the ASIO driver. So, we have:

Limited to 1 core:
Mixer
ASIO driver
All FX
FL instruments
FL sample channels
Non-thread-safe VST instruments

Can be delegated to other cores:
Thread-safe VST instruments only - not all are thread-safe!

Now... you can get a 3ghz Core2Duo or a 2.4ghz Core2Quad for the same price. If you're using good FX, this will be by far the biggest CPU eater. Let's be conservative and say your projects are 30% thread-safe instruments. In FL Studio, only 30% can be delegated to other cores. This is what would happen on a 2.4ghz quad core:

Core 1: 70% - Closer to 100%
Core 2: 10% - Irrelevant
Core 3: 10% - Irrelevant
Core 4: 10% - Irrelevant

In reality, these figures would be higher, due to the overheads of sharing a load between another two cores. This is what would happen on a 3ghz dual core (adjusted for clock speed difference):

Core 1: 54% - Further from 100%
Core 2: 22% - Irrelevant

Which one do you think is more likely to pop and click? It's not rocket science. It is a matter of headroom on the first core, not total processing power. Any DAWs with poor dual core support will fall in this category. Those tests obviously show Cubase isn't one of these. However, that doesn't mean Cubase is immune from the XP vs. Vista quad core debate, that is a problem for everyone (this, at least, we both agree upon).

Now lets remember we don't all use our computers just for music. Video games etc. are mostly all limited to one core. Obviously a faster dual core is better there too...

Seems your amnesia is affecting you again mate, Aesthetic was in the convo and read what you said. Oh well, I'm done in this thread, if anyone wants some proper advice, don't hesitate to PM me. Enjoy

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.