|
I hate to ask this question, but I need advice for building a new PC
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Stephen Wiley |
I know we see a lot of threads like this lately, so I apologize in advance. Big thank you to those who do take the time to chime in. Very much appreciated.
I am wanting to build a new PC for strictly audio production but I really am at a loss of what is important these days and what's not. It has been at least 5 years since I have built a PC. My last two have been regular stock computers from Dell, but I am wanting to build this one because I already have a monitor, CD-Rom, vid card, don't want a big badass graphics card, etc. (Most mobo's also come with a video card too, which I'm sure is plenty sufficient) - I obviously already have an audio interface. (Saffire Pro 40 from Focusrite)
From what I gather, I will need a CPU, Mobo, RAM (4gb), HD, case, power supply. I'll be using newegg.
First question - Are computers pretty much the same to build as they used to be? Screw the motherboard into the case, connect everything, load up the BIOS, install the OS, and go?
When it comes to RAM, HD, case, power supply etc, that isn't hard to figure out, but I am at a total loss when it comes to CPU choice. Obviously you can get the insane AMD CPU cycles or go for the lower Ghz Intel that is supposed to be a 'smarter' chip. Overclocking also seems to be taboo now, which somewhat confuses/concerns me, as it was largely not done except for a select few Celeron processors back when I made PC's.
Again, with ONLY production in mind, I am eyeing the following CPU's as they are in my price range. FWIW, I use Ableton Live 8 and want to use Windows XP. One of my main questions is Dual Core or Quad Core? If Ableton can use a Quadcore to its fullest extent, obviously the quadcore is the answer, but can it? I've read multiple accounts that getting a strong dual core is better, but these reviews don't specify if they use the PC for games (which they probably do) or business, etc.
Intel Core i5-660 Clarkdale 3.33GHz 4MB L3 Cache LGA 1156 73W Dual-Core Desktop Processor
*Reportably overclockable to 4.2ghz. ($200)
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale 3.16GHz 6MB L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor
Reportably beast-ability overclocking. 4.2ghz on plain air with one saying it put his quad q6600 to shame. People seem to be complaining about the price being too high ($190)
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 140W Quad-Core Processor
Reportably overclockable to 4ghz. Many reviews saying it is insane value for the money, but that "games" (Which I care nothing of) don't usually utilize the quadcore build. This seems to be the obvious choice IF Ableton 8 is optimized for making use of all 4 cores.
Thanks guys a ton. I know this is a long post. For those who took the time to read it and give thoughtful help, thank you.
ps. please do not turn this into an intel vs. amd debate!!!!! |
|
|
| kitphillips |
You need to spend more on the CPU. Have a look for an i7 with
triple channel RAM
4 cores
Direct media interface to RAM
Don't overclock if you want a stable machine. Go for the 2nd or third best i7 with the things I mentioned above. I don't know what the number will be or anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o....22_.2845_nm.29
Basically, whatever you can afford from the bloomfield series here is probably your best shot AFAIK. Or wait a few months until the 6 core processors drop in price a bit.
Ableton uses quad cores very effectively by all accounts. Also, the new i7 range will dynamically scale the processor speed and turn off a core if its not being used. Its the best processor out there right now for music production, and its only another $100 extra on your budget. You'd be very silly IMO not to get an i7. The bloomfield ones all use the LGA 1366 socket as well, which makes them a better proposition from the perspective of upgrading later too from what I understand.
You probably SHOULD get a low end graphics card with just 1 gig of ram or something, since the on board ones on the motherboard will steal your system RAM, which will take it away from your music applications.
Make sure you get a fast hard disk. A Raptor is a good idea for your program files and sample libraries, use some other cheaper 7200 RPM disk for everything else.
Make sure you get a motherboard with the most USB 3 connections you can find. Don't skimp on processor or motherboard, they're the two things you can't upgrade easily. You can make do with less RAM, one Hard disk, no graphics card initially while your waiting to save, but the motherboard and CPU are essential IMO. |
|
|
| kooma |
i would suggest u to go with 64-bit win7. there's no point in having 4GB of RAM with 32-bit OS where only 3.2GB is usable. also XP doesn't handle multiple cores well (thou ableton does).
as for the CPU - i would get an i5-750 quad with 4GB of RAM. if money is not an issue go with i7. then u have choice between 3GB (for 32-bit OS) or 6GB (for 64-bit) of RAM. |
|
|
| tehlord |
For your own comparison I recently built a system based around a Q9450/4GB DDR/XP32 and it's handled everything i've thrown at it so far with ease. The most obvious would be the most recent 40 channel multi VST (2 reverbs on send) project that hovers around the 30-40% CPU usage at 10-15ms latencies, so you don't NEED an i7 imo.
It's still pretty much the same build process as it has been for the last decade.
The most critical choice for you will be motherboard. You'll want something that you can significantly upgrade the CPU and DDR on at a later date so you don't have to go down the reinstall route if you need to upgrade the machine at a later date. |
|
|
| kevin shawn |
| Gigabyte boards are super stable and you can easily swap out the processor if need be for upgrades. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by tehlord
For your own comparison I recently built a system based around a Q9450/4GB DDR/XP32 and it's handled everything i've thrown at it so far with ease. The most obvious would be the most recent 40 channel multi VST (2 reverbs on send) project that hovers around the 30-40% CPU usage at 10-15ms latencies, so you don't NEED an i7 imo.
It's still pretty much the same build process as it has been for the last decade.
The most critical choice for you will be motherboard. You'll want something that you can significantly upgrade the CPU and DDR on at a later date so you don't have to go down the reinstall route if you need to upgrade the machine at a later date. |
Rubbish IMO.
They got rid of the FSB and made the move to triple channel RAM. You'd be silly not to take advantage of all that new technology, especially when its so helpful for high throughput applications like music production.
Its the same build process, but the architecture has been drastically revised.
You certainly don't NEED an i7, but its the best power/cost ratio of any processor out there at the moment, allows the easiest upgrading, and will have enough power to keep performing in the future, when you want 60 channels instead of 40. |
|
|
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
Rubbish IMO.
|
How is it rubbish when I built and use such a system without any issue and plenty of headroom?
Would your solution be better? Yes. It would also be more future proof and more expenisive.
Maybe you shouldn't get so high on your own advice, at least I was only offering mine up as opinion rather than cast in granite fact. |
|
|
| Stephen Wiley |
| Highly appreciate the advice guys. I'm kinda on a budget here, so adding an extra 100 or 50 here and there adds up. Not really concerned about upgrading 2,3 maybe 4 years from now. I just want something that is going to give me a load of processor cycles so I can run highly CPU consuming synths. (Dcam synth squad comes to mind as well as discovery pro's oversampling modes with 64 voices) - I don't mind a little extra waiting on load times for sample and what not. I just want CPU power, period. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by tehlord
How is it rubbish when I built and use such a system without any issue and plenty of headroom?
Would your solution be better? Yes. It would also be more future proof and more expenisive.
Maybe you shouldn't get so high on your own advice, at least I was only offering mine up as opinion rather than cast in granite fact. |
Well, there are a few things that are plain wrong in your post.
1/ Having a better motherboard won't make it easier to upgrade later. Thats all down to the chipset, and most i5s aren't on a chipset that is going to be easily upgradable.
2/ Its the same build process forever, but a different architecture makes a big difference. Its not like the i7s are the same in ANY way as the Core2Quads.
Your system is probably fine. The one I recommended has the best power/cost ratio out there. Whether you NEED all that power is another issue. But there were elements in your post that were misleading IMO. I'm not high on my own advice, and its certainly nothing personal. I'm just very convinced that the i7s are a very good option right now.
| quote: | Originally posted by Viber
Its interesting that people insist that the i7-920 is way stronger than the i5-750 when in games for instance they are pretty much the same (sometimes the i5 is even better):
I wonder how those two would compete in music apps testings. |
The i7 would cane the i5. Because it has triple channel RAM, which is far more important for music than games. Also, 4 cores are better used by music apps than games, which often aren't multithreaded very well. Music apps make better use of those resources than games would. Don't assume that just because games are equal between i5 adn i7 that mnusic apps will be. |
|
|
| Stephen Wiley |
kit - just curious. i see you have a lot of knowledge when it comes to intel, but what about AMD? I mean I can get a 3.2ghz quad core that OC'd to 4ghz for $160 - Is that not some f'in value?! I'm on a budget here and I really can't afford to go for Intel's best processor available. Just wondering what your thoughts were on the quadcore phenom 3.2ghz since you seem to know Intel products very well.
thanks! |
|
|
|
|
