Multi Processor DAW; Worth it?

T

The_Raven

New member
Howyadoin,

I'm speccing a new DAW for my studio and have given some thought to going to a multiple CPU setup. This would probably use Athlon MP 1800s. The question is, is there a distinct advantage to a MP setup for programs like Sound Forge, Cakewalk, etc? Are these programs equipped to take advantage of multiple processors? I'll be using Win2KPro as the OS, and a Delta 1010 for the inputs. Anyone with any experience in this area who could enlighten me would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Mark P.
Sherbet Studios
Peabody, MA
 
I've been running dual cpu's for two to three years. First of all, you have to run Win2k or XP Pro - any Win9x OS does not support SMP and I'm almost certain XP Home leaves this feature out. Sound Forge and Vegas are multi-threaded, especially Vegas. This means the app divides its work into seperate chunks and if it's smart will divide its work between two cpu's. As far as I know, Vegas is the only multitrack app that's coded for SMP, though I could be wrong.

Don't expect double the performance though, as adding additional cpu's creates additional system overhead - it takes cpu cycles for the system to figure out what goes where and how it should come out. That said though, SMP is great. Your system will be much more responsive under load and your render times will be substantially reduced.
 
I'm using a Dual AMD 1700+ computer with my recording set up. It rocks! Not all programs take advantage of the dual processors but even if they don't, the system is still better off because the OS (Win2K, XP) does support dual processors and keeps you running creamy smooth. I'm running Win2k Advanced server with tons of services running (SMTP mail, IIS, FTP, DNS, etc), and I have yet to have my system choke on anything...This includes running Vegas Video 3.0 with 24+ tracks, and about 30-40 DirectX plugins running at the same time. (I'm still only using about 40% processor power) Programs that I'm aware of that support multi-processors are Cubase/Nuendo, Vegas Video 3.0, and I think Wavelab and possibly the newest (beta) version of Soundforge. There are probably others, but I haven't used them, so someone else may know better than me.

FWIW, I've been a dual processor advocate for about 3 years now, and will never go back to single processor machines. Once you've experienced a duallie, you just get spoiled. ;)
 
My understanding is that your money is better spent on a single faster processor. The added MOBO and CPU cost isn't really proportionate with the extra features. I would spend the money on other stuff like SCSI.

I'm not dogging dual CPU systems but are two 1.4 processors going to be faster than a single 2.2? Probably not.
 
Granted two 1.4G processors won't be faster that a 2.2G on some things. Gaming for instance is best done with just one processor, but audio processing requires a lot of multi-tasking and multi-threading which is where a dual system will blow away a single processor (even one that's faster). The cost difference is probably less than you think. You can get a dual AMD Mobo for about $180, and an extra AMD processor isn't going to break the bank either.

Like I said earlier, once you experience a dual system, single processor systems just won't seem as responsive anymore.
 
Sounds like gross overkill to me, but it depends on how big your recording projects are going to be.
 
dual processors are also good if you are going to be running two progs at the same time (for example Samplitude and Cakewalk as a sequencer)...

on a normal machine Cakewalk would take up an entire CPU leaving it very difficult to run both cakewalk and samplitude at the same time and get good results... this is where most users get a second machine.

however if you have dual CPU, both should run together with no problems.
 
I guess it should be mentioned that if you have an audio app that is not coded for SMP, you can force it to use a particular processor. For instance, you could force Cakewalk to use cpu 1 and force Samplitude to use cpu 2.
 
Well, a dual when up and running is bliss but when not they can be a real pain. They give the impression of never going under whatever you trow at them.

As Intel came up with hyperthreading (1 CPU pretends to be 2CPU's) and will introduce this in more and more cpu's, more OS's and applications will make use of multiple CPU's. So it will become mainstream the next years. (Okay, people are saying the same of optical fiber for 20 years now.......I know :)
 
What makes up the rest of your configuration (amount of RAM, hard disk size and number of, etc.). Have you considered a dual monitor setup? Very nice feature when you have many tracks in a project and you are working with multiple windows.

IF the program supports it, having the ability to display the individual tracks on one monitor and the track effects, the master section, Windows Explore (directory structure) and other stuff you might use in a project on the other monitor is a nice feature that most overlook. Its not that expensive - probably would run you the cost of the extra CPU.

Extra RAM, good quality hard drives, quiet rack mounted case and fans are just some of the other things I would consider before a dual processor setup. Heck, just buy a MOBO with dual CPU capacity and fill one slot, then add the extra CPU when and if you need it!

Good luck!
 
The idea of starting with 1 CPU and adding the other later is often seen as a good idea, but this is more complicated than it looks. W2K wants the 2 cpu's to be identical, if they are not, forget it. I did this upgrade once under NT4 and it was easy. The only things requested were that the frequency was identical and the cache size/speed. So one CPU was a Dechutes core, the other a Klamath and the PC ran years that way. When upgrading that same PC to W2K, it refused to boot after installation. This could be traced to the CPU's being not of the same stepping, looking this further up showed that Intel approved of those two stepping working together, but W2K refused to boot. With dual amd this is should not be the case, but I would not bet on it, so I ordered both CPU's at the same time.

Percevals suggestions are valid of course, no reason to go dual and then trying to save on the rest of the system. You will need a bit more RAM, a good silent case (more heat to get rid of), a good generous PSU etc. So it may seem not a big difference if you only look at the MB/CPU price, but you have to do your homework all the way. So, budget for a 400W PSU, extra case fans, nice large tower, registered DDR-RAM (for AMD) or dual RDRAM (for Intel).

And it will become a habit....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top