time to build a better, more powerful computer on a $500 budget...

T

thedude400

New member
So this seems to happen to me very frequently in home recording. I take the very minimum and what's cheap or free and I try to make it work as long as absolutely possible, or until I'm on the brink of insanity. I have reached a crossroads yet again where I've come to the realization that it's either continue to try to squeeze out the last drops or buck up and fork out some money. Before it was my buddy's copy of Cool Edit Pro for a year or so until I decided to fork over $150 another friend of mine's copy of SX2 (he was switching to Logic). When I first learned how to use Cubase it was amazing and defintely worth the money. But when switching I realized my little Pentium 3 with 256mb RAM wasn't going to cut it. So I raised the bar to a P4 with 768mb RAM (not too much of a jump but enough to get me off the ground). So now after downloading free VST instruments and effects on the internet for over a year, I'm starting to realize the obvious notion that when it comes to free vst's, free does not mean "bug free" nor does it mean "minimal cpu" or "minimal ram" useage. Not to mention the products are rarely that impressive anyway. It's gotten so bad that I find myself either constantly mixing down files to 1 track, or I'm freezing almost every track except the few I'm currently fiddling with. Some free VST's max out my cpu usage meter when 2 keys are being pushed simultaneously. I would like to be able to run between 15-20 tracks at once with at least a compressor and a verb on each. Plus I'll be using Native Instruments Guitar Rig 2. The point is I want to step up and not only buy a synth/instrument program (most likely Native Instruments as well unless influenced otherwise), but I would also like to build the most suiting computer I can for around $500. And that's what I would like help with.

I have all the help I need as far as building the computer small accessories (usb ports, extra video card, tower, mouse etc.). My Dad has been building them for years, but seeing as he isn't into audio recording like myself he wouldn't be able to direct me towards the right components to buy to fit my needs. I would love to be able to mix down with all the tracks running and tweak accordingly, a luxury I have never been able to pull off.

Where should I put my money? I've done a few searches and found a little bit of information but nothing specific to my situation. I've read that a dual core processor would be good. Also at least 1 G RAM if not more like 2 seeing as VST's supposedly drain mostly RAM. And I think I also read that a bigger hard drive does more than just give extra space, but can also improve the whole recording process too?
 
15-20 tracks each with a compressor and verb (both being naturally CPU intensive, at least the reverb anyway), plus Guitar Rig 2 (very CPU intensive), plus virtual instruments, you may have to increase your budget a bit...

And freezing tracks is a normal part of digital mixing. Doesn't matter how good of a CPU you have, if you're working on big mixes like that with a bunch of plugins, you're going to need to freeze some tracks.

I don't know how you're going to squeeze it in a $500 budget. You may be able to just get a few new components to replace in your current machine instead of building a new one from scratch.

First, I'd find a good CPU. Preferably an Intel DualCore. www.newegg.com

Then get a good motherboard that is compatible with that CPU. www.newegg.com

Then with whatever is left, get some more RAM. Minimum of 1GB if you're using a lot of VSTi's. 2GB is more ideal but you will need to spend the money on the CPU first.

Then you can keep your existing hard drive, and other components for the meantime until you have money to upgrade those.

I'm not very up-to-date on the new computer stuff, last time I built a computer was 6 years ago. :o But I'm sure someone can recommend specific stuff like which processor and motherboard combination to get. IMO, that's where I'd put my money first.

Also, which is very important, what interface/sound card are you using now? And are you on Windows or Mac?
 
Hmmm. I just built a new comp for myself, pretty much ended up replacing everything other than the case, my UAD-1 card, the audio card and the SCSI card. the whole thing cost me around $1,100.

The thing is, with the newer motherboards, you're likely not to get more than one IDE bus, which means you'll be able to connect your CD/DVD drive and an HD. I would NOT recommend you put the music HD on the same bus as the CD as it will affect the performance.

This means you'll need to get some SATA drives.
Most likely you won't be able to move the memory from the old mobo either.

$500... hmmm... this is what I'd do:

AMD Athlon X2 64 5200+ Proc: $128.52
BioStar TF 560 A2+ motherboard: $92.92
2GB Corsair TWIN2X2048-5400C4: $63.76
2x 320GB Seagate Barracuda SATA II: $184.00
ASUS GeForce® 7200 GS, (256 MB) PCI Express Graphic Card: $55.37
Total: $524.57

This assumes that you're gonna re-use your computer case, power supply, audio card, etc and does not factor in shipping and taxes.

Sites to check out:

www.shopping.com
www.directron.com
www.zipzoomfly.com
www.newegg.com

A lot of times Newegg will have the better price on paper, but because of taxes and shipping charges, they'll come out more expensive than Directron and ZipZoomfly. I've ordered from the latter two several times and haven't had problems.
 
Thanks for the help so far. That sounds like one monster of a computer. Oh and I'm on a PC not a Mac. For now I'm making due with an Aardvark Q10 as my sound card. It has actually suited me well for a couple years provided I use SP1. I have used it on a biostar chipset in the past and it has worked. I guess I will take my chances and if it's not compatible I'll have to sell it and try to find a used firepod or delta 1010 on ebay.
How much can the audio card affect vst performance?

Also I should mention that I won't be burning with this computer. I will transfer the wave to a thumb drive and burn on a different tower. Also reading the reviews I'm not sure the suggested Mobo is capable of dual video card hookups and Is there a good chance my current video card wont be compatible with the new chipset? how do I know which one will be? I'd like to set up a second monitor to drag over my vst's and keep them in sight while working.
 
i wouldn't buy an AMD processor, i'd go for a Core 2 Duo. it would greatly speed your machine up compared to the AMD.

why do you want dual video cards on a pc for recording?? just get a graphics card that can run dual screen, most can, and they're pretty cheap nowadays.

you need 2 gigs of ram. sorry, but that really isn't an option.... 1.5 gigs would probably do, but 2 gigs is what you need.

I would boost your budget a bit dude if it's possible
 
Asus mobo $90
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131213
Cheapest asus board with the 965 chipset; 3 pci & pci-e slots, no firewire though so you'll lose one of the pci slots if you need it

E6600 Conroe cpu $230
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115003
Cheapest core 2 with 4MB L2 cache (I've got this one & it's fast)

2GB Mushkin DDR2 800 ram $70
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820146117

Asus PCIX16 graphics GeForce 7100 chipset $40
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121027

WD Caviar 320GB SATA x2 $150
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136098

Total $580.

Blown your budget a little. You could get away with one hard drive if cash is tight
 
I don't understand why people flock to the Intel stuff.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103773
Faster and nearly $100 less than the "cheapest" Intel dual core. That huge L2 cache isn't going to make a noticeable difference at such a speed gap, so what's the point? Plus the AM2s run cool as hell. Mine idles at around 25C per core, max of 37C under full load.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128056
I've got this board and it's extremely stable. Integrated video is pretty damn fast too. 16 gigs max memory, can't beat that with a wooden stick. Integrated firewire works like a charm.

So it's at $239.98 now. More?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231098
Grab 2 of these for a total of 4 gigs of memory. You won't be needing more for awhile. Now we're at $371.96. All from Newegg.

So why would you go to Intel again?
 
That is a good deal on the amd cpu. Performance-wise there's very little between that & the e6600. Personally I wouldn't go for a Micro atx board though
 
timthetortoise said:
I don't understand why people flock to the Intel stuff.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103773
Faster and nearly $100 less than the "cheapest" Intel dual core. That huge L2 cache isn't going to make a noticeable difference at such a speed gap, so what's the point? Plus the AM2s run cool as hell. Mine idles at around 25C per core, max of 37C under full load.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128056
I've got this board and it's extremely stable. Integrated video is pretty damn fast too. 16 gigs max memory, can't beat that with a wooden stick. Integrated firewire works like a charm.

So it's at $239.98 now. More?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231098
Grab 2 of these for a total of 4 gigs of memory. You won't be needing more for awhile. Now we're at $371.96. All from Newegg.

So why would you go to Intel again?
Click to expand...


DUDE! that L2 cache will make a HUGE difference. and talking about running cool, the core 2 duo's are so energy efficient, you can run em OVER clocked without a heatsink!! and btw, the amount of GHZ a CPU can run at does not say how fast it is. the new core 2 duo's have proved it's not just about the ghz, but about the architecture. so a core 2 duo, the cheapest one, runns at i think 1.66ghz stock. 2 cores totalling - 3.32 ghz. Now you have an AMD cpu that is dual core. it runs at 2 ghz. = 4 ghz. the core 2 duo SMOKES the amd, why? because of how Intel makes there chips. it's the way they make em, it's pretty complicated. but pretty cool. right now intel is smoking amd in pretty much every way. don't believe me? go and buy yourself a few PC world magazines and tlak to a couple of pro techs that have built a core 2 duo system.

it's not about GHZ or price anymore, it's about the making. i personally think it's a no brainer to get a core 2 duo.
 
yoyo said:
don't believe me? go and buy yourself a few PC world magazines and tlak to a couple of pro techs that have built a core 2 duo system.
Click to expand...

That's kind of like saying:

This <guitar amp> is way better because of how they make it. Don't believe me? Go buy yourself a few <recording/guitar magazines> and read the latest reviews that they write generously about their advertisers.

I've always been a big AMD fan. The CPU I'm using now is an old AMD from about 6 years ago and it still performs really well and never has any problems.

But I've used a new machine with an AMD, and an Intel. The Core2Duo seemed to run programs at about the same speed as the AMD, but when it comes to slamming it with stuff like real-time effects and processing, the Core2Duo could take a much bigger load.
 
yoyo said:
DUDE! that L2 cache will make a HUGE difference. and talking about running cool, the core 2 duo's are so energy efficient, you can run em OVER clocked without a heatsink!! and btw, the amount of GHZ a CPU can run at does not say how fast it is. the new core 2 duo's have proved it's not just about the ghz, but about the architecture. so a core 2 duo, the cheapest one, runns at i think 1.66ghz stock. 2 cores totalling - 3.32 ghz. Now you have an AMD cpu that is dual core. it runs at 2 ghz. = 4 ghz. the core 2 duo SMOKES the amd, why? because of how Intel makes there chips. it's the way they make em, it's pretty complicated. but pretty cool. right now intel is smoking amd in pretty much every way. don't believe me? go and buy yourself a few PC world magazines and tlak to a couple of pro techs that have built a core 2 duo system.

it's not about GHZ or price anymore, it's about the making. i personally think it's a no brainer to get a core 2 duo.
Click to expand...

Seeing that you believe that you actually add the clock on both cores to come up with a total, I'm not going to hold your opinions very highly.
I've used both, and every time, for my uses, AMD has been more stable, faster, and has run much cooler than Intel (yes, cooler than the Core 2 Duo). Maybe every system I tried had some flaw in it that prevented it from outperforming the AMD stuff, even though the components were well over $300 more total, but I doubt it. To each their own I guess.
As for the effects processing load, I haven't been able to push my AM2 setup past 70% on CPU utilization, even when I was stress testing it with tons of reverb, Guitar Rig, whatever I could throw at it. Maybe I got an invincible processor.

PS: The part that's bolded is ludicrous. Don't make idiotic claims if you're trying to defend an opinion.
 
timthetortoise said:
Seeing that you believe that you actually add the clock on both cores to come up with a total, I'm not going to hold your opinions very highly.
I've used both, and every time, for my uses, AMD has been more stable, faster, and has run much cooler than Intel (yes, cooler than the Core 2 Duo). Maybe every system I tried had some flaw in it that prevented it from outperforming the AMD stuff, even though the components were well over $300 more total, but I doubt it. To each their own I guess.
As for the effects processing load, I haven't been able to push my AM2 setup past 70% on CPU utilization, even when I was stress testing it with tons of reverb, Guitar Rig, whatever I could throw at it. Maybe I got an invincible processor.

PS: The part that's bolded is ludicrous. Don't make idiotic claims if you're trying to defend an opinion.
Click to expand...



don't believe me??? i can show you test RESULTS in which the CPU was run without a heatsink and overclocked. and i know that the two cores ghz added together doesn't in reality make one total core speed, but theoritcally it does. your computer breaks down the proccesses it's doing and puts one half on one core, the other on the other core. so, you're taking almost HALF the time to do the job as your noramlly would. i'm pretty sure you know what i mean, so cool off ok?
 
They'll both do the job.

The intels currently have the technological edge, so amd had to bring their prices down to remain competitive. That's the beauty of the free market and it's great for anyone building a daw right now
 
yoyo said:
don't believe me??? i can show you test RESULTS in which the CPU was run without a heatsink and overclocked. and i know that the two cores ghz added together doesn't in reality make one total core speed, but theoritcally it does. your computer breaks down the proccesses it's doing and puts one half on one core, the other on the other core. so, you're taking almost HALF the time to do the job as your noramlly would. i'm pretty sure you know what i mean, so cool off ok?
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly cooled off. Show me this proof of a core 2 duo running overclocked without a heatsink, because the closest I've seen is one running at 1.2 ghz without a sink. I'm a programmer and work on creating SMP-aware applications, and thinking that it takes half the time all the time is naive. There are a lot of factors that go into it, one being how each core is able to access memory outside of it has allocated (in a perfect world, SMP methods would know how to allocate memory for each individual core, instead of having them share the same address ranges. It's not a perfect world). In this and many other areas, the AMD dual cores have excelled in 99.9% of my experiences.
 
yoyo said:
DUDE! that L2 cache will make a HUGE difference
Click to expand...
Not really, as the performace gain is offset by the fact that the AMD processors have the memory controller on the chip itself, which improves memory I/O tremendously.

I'll give you the heat efficiency of the new Intels though.
 
yoyo said:
and btw, the amount of GHZ a CPU can run at does not say how fast it is. the new core 2 duo's have proved it's not just about the ghz, but about the architecture.
Click to expand...
A fact that Apple had been screaming about for years, but Intel was constatly pushing the GHz war. Sorry, the Core Duo's didn't prove anything. PowerPC processors did. :D
 
noisewreck said:
Hmmm. I just built a new comp for myself, pretty much ended up replacing everything other than the case, my UAD-1 card, the audio card and the SCSI card. the whole thing cost me around $1,100.
Click to expand...
I understand the advantage of not having some box-maker stuff your platform with all that crap they do, but is it worth spending more and if so, how much more?

I just got back form Fry's (Fountain Valley) and $1100 will buy a Quad Core 1.8 w/3 GB RAM, 500GB HD and dual layer DVD burner.
 
I appreciate all of the feedback and help. Hopefully my inquiry will help future DAW computer builders find some valuable opinions. After reading the posts, a few product reviews, and engaging an internal debate on my options I actually ended up going with noisewrecks intial suggestions. If the difference ,according to some, is negligible between the Intel Dual Core considered and the Athlon AMD 64X2 considered, and the AMD is almost $100 cheaper, it just seems more intelligent for me to swing this way. I suppose on a higher budget, considerations could be different. That coupled with the fact that I can be relatively sure this chipset will be compatible with my particular outdated interface and PCI card.

I ended up getting everything from zipzoomfly.com for $520 no tax and free shipping when choosing 6-9 business days delivery, or $7.99 for everything 2 day fedex which is what I decided to do. And that includes everything Noisewreck suggested plus an extra 2GB Corsair TWIN2X2048 RAM. That way maybe I can try running Cubase on vista (which I'm almost positive wont work with the outdated Aardvark drivers), but right now I'm enjoying entertaining the idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top