|
Computer specifically for producing? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nutsan |
yeah but isnt the intel running at thequivelent of 6.6 ghz and the althon a 5ghz that a big difference to compare.
| quote: | Originally posted by Low Profile
Intel Core2Duo
Intel Core2Duo
Intel Core2Duo
Intel Core2Duo
Intel Core2Duo
Intel Core2Duo
Intel Core2Duo
...got the point??? :P
Those things are the fastest processors EVER to hit the manistream market. They're somewhat more expensive than the X2 CPU's (which are also very good, and DIRT cheap!, very good "budget" option (haha:)) ), but the power of this thing... wow... just imagine running 20 instances of albino 3 at the same time... with 5ms latency :D (I can actually do that on my computer, I have a Core2Duo E6600, 2gig DDR2 and an M-Audio Delta 44 audio interface)
Some comparison charts of most of todays CPUs... E6600 compared to X2 5000 (top of the X2 line), E6600 kicks it's ass every time :)
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.h...2=465&chart=177 |
|
|
|
| Low Profile |
| quote: | Originally posted by nutsan
yeah but isnt the intel running at thequivelent of 6.6 ghz and the althon a 5ghz that a big difference to compare. |
Um... no, the old megahertz don't mean anything in todays processor world. The E6600 is running at 2.4 ghz and the X2 5000 at 2.6 ghz. Bottom line is that the Duo's are (on average) more powerful than the X2 CPUs, but that's not saying the AMD's aren't kickass processors! (especially for the money).
...and a 6.6 ghz processor would need liquid nitrogen cooling in order to prevent it from going thermo-nuclear :D |
|
|
| nutsan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Low Profile
Um... no, the old megahertz don't mean anything in todays processor world. The E6600 is running at 2.4 ghz and the X2 5000 at 2.6 ghz. Bottom line is that the Duo's are (on average) more powerful than the X2 CPUs, but that's not saying the AMD's aren't kickass processors! (especially for the money).
...and a 6.6 ghz processor would need liquid nitrogen cooling in order to prevent it from going thermo-nuclear :D |
fair dos. it was a question not a statement. i only asked becuase my athlon 64bit 3400+ runs at like 2.2ghz which is the "equivelent" of a pentium 3.4 ghz.
my comp seems to runs loads of vsts just fine. my processor has 1mb of L2 cache which is pretty good for an athlon most are half of that for the same price i paid (at the time), i also got 2 gig of ram. but i can run loads of big sytnhs like absynth , atmosphere, rapture etc...
cant see the justification of spending loads more. if u got the money then i guess go for it (i know i probs wuld). just the way prices are falling so quickly and new things are coming onto the market seems to make more sense not goin top of the range anymore.
i mean dual core is the rage atm but the new power mac has quad core, and can handle 16gig of ram just silly :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: |
|
|
| dj_kane |
| 16 gig of ram. jesus thats ridiculous. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Low Profile
just imagine running 20 instances of albino 3 at the same time... with 5ms latency :D (I can actually do that on my computer, I have a Core2Duo E6600, 2gig DDR2 and an M-Audio Delta 44 audio interface) |
Err, yeah, I can do that on my single-core Athlon 64.
20 instances of z3ta or Reaktor or SIR, now that might be interesting.
But that's the thing really... dual-core has a major advantage over single-core, but in terms of parallelism in production, the additional clock speed gives you hardly any gain. Core Duos are beating the AM2 chips in the benchmarks, there's no question about that, but the benchmarks are all based on performing millions of operations in series, whereas with production the problem is always parallelism.
If you're playing games, yeah, maybe get a Duo. For production, you won't notice much of a difference between a Duo and an AM2/X2 at half the price. |
|
|
| DJFreaq |
A computer with a big dick. And nothing else installed on it.
CONSIDER THIS:
You don't have to have one computer specifically for audio production. Just build a bitchen computer and have 2 partitions on a drive.
1. Windows XP Pro: For dicking around and tranceaddict
2. Windows XP Pro: JUST your audio apps installed... and NOTHING else. Kill some services by going Start -> Run -> Services.msc, and start hacking away at stuff you don't need. (windows security center, firewall, networking, windows sound, themes)
It's pretty simple. You can have a gigantic penis of a processor, but it's nothing with out a gigantic penis of some RAM.
Yea, I'm sure someone has already made these points. But I wanted to make sure it was spelled out again.
**on a side note. I've been considering writing a tutorial for windows users on how to reduce their consuption of resources by tooling down Windows XP to just a shell for you audio apps, and NOTHING else. Maybe I'll get around to writing it if someone hasn't allready.
----Adam Wrzeski |
|
|
| messytechie |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJFreaq
A computer with a big dick. And nothing else installed on it.
CONSIDER THIS:
You don't have to have one computer specifically for audio production. Just build a bitchen computer and have 2 partitions on a drive.
1. Windows XP Pro: For dicking around and tranceaddict
2. Windows XP Pro: JUST your audio apps installed... and NOTHING else. Kill some services by going Start -> Run -> Services.msc, and start hacking away at stuff you don't need. (windows security center, firewall, networking, windows sound, themes)
It's pretty simple. You can have a gigantic penis of a processor, but it's nothing with out a gigantic penis of some RAM.
Yea, I'm sure someone has already made these points. But I wanted to make sure it was spelled out again.
----Adam Wrzeski |
It's a common idea - but you could do what I do and just strip down your windows so it's just running the basics anyway and use it for everything. Saves arsing about with dual booting and all that crap, and all your other programs run quicker too.
Back to the subject - with regards to the X2 chip - I've got a motherboard that supports it, can I just pull out the old one, put in the new X2 one, and it will work straight away?
Can it really be that simple? |
|
|
| DJFreaq |
Questions like: "Can it be that simple?" Usually answer themselves.
Check to make sure the chipset in your current motherboard supports the X2.
And as for one OS... dual booting is not a problem for me. I guess I'm just obsessive compulsive and I want one operating system solely dedicated to audio land. |
|
|
| messytechie |
I know my motherboard definitely supports X2, i made sure of that so i could upgrade, i've got the Asus A8N-SLI.
So does that mean it is that simple????? |
|
|
| messytechie |
If it is, I may have to do a little jig
:tongue3 |
|
|
| dj_kane |
anyone know where you can get ram preferably the uk for a reasoanble price. i checked out aria.co.uk and a gig is £90 including delivery. i saw some cheaper on the highstreet. anyone know anywhere cheaper?
thanks |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Yes, if you've got a Socket 939 mobo, you can just give it a BIOS upgrade and it'll support the X2. Just make sure you get the S939 X2 and not the AM2 X2.
And do it fast, because 939's either getting discontinued or has already been discontinued. |
|
|
|
|
