Should I go dual- or single-core if my DAW app isn't multithreaded?

Whoopysnorp

Whoopysnorp

New member
I'm considering building a new computer, as my current mixing machine is an Athlon 2400-based system that I built in 2005. From what I understand things have changed since I last built a computer, and the Intel Core Duo processors are now the leaders of the pack for audio. I've heard great things about the results of upgrading to a dual-core system. However, I'm still using n-Track 3.x, which is not a multithreaded application (to my knowledge anyway). Would I see much of the advantage of dual-core processing? I'm considering the Intel E6300 and the Abit IL9 Pro. I know it's not the fanciest setup but I'm interested in keeping the price at or near $500 with $600 as the absolute maximum. The clock speed of each core in that chip is only 1.85 GHz, which is slower than the 1.93 GHz clock speed of my current Athlon 2400+. I don't want to shell out a bunch of money only to find out that I have to spend even more on the right software to use my fancy new hardware. In my situation, would you go for a dual-core Intel or something like an Athlon 4000+?
 
I would always recommend you get the fastest and the most expandable computer your budget allows. This will allow it to have more than a year's worth of life and will cover some of the future.

So, I'd recommend you get the dual-core if you can afford. You may not see as much improvement as you'd have seen if your app supported multiple processors, but you still will see more than you'd get from a single-core chip mainly due to their memory architecture. Plus you wouldn't be hamstrung when upgrading in the future. Another consideration of this would be that you'd also be getting more modern secondary components such as RAM if you went with the dual-core setup.
 
You do not need a dual core cpu to take advantage of a multi-thread operating system (which Windows NT, 2000, XP, Vista are!).

If t-racks is not multi-thread on a single cpu, it will not be on a dual cpu either. This does NOT mean though that you cannot get benefit from a dual core cpu. Simply, as the OPERATING SYSTEM multi-threads, it is distributed between two cpu's. Yes, applications can be optimized to take advantage of this too, but don't HAVE to.

Your DAW software is not the only thing running on the computer at one time, thus, you can certainly STILL benefit from more available cpu cycles no matter what software you are running.

Remember that on that dual core cpu, you have 2 cpu's running at 1.85ghz. Compare that 3.7ghz of cpu cycles available to your 1.9ghz single core chip. ;)

Get rid of N-Tracks. It is shit!!! REAPER is more reliable, has more/better features, and is just as easy to learn. It is also optimized for dual CPU's. :)
 
Thanks guys--in light of what you're saying I think I probably will lean towards a Core 2 Duo-based system. This is the second time I've heard about Reaper in as many days...looks like I'll have to take a look. Too bad I have loads and loads of n-Track sessions. I have been getting fed up with n-Track 3.whatever's tendency to crash on my system and do certain other unpredictable and annoying things lately.
 
Well, REAPER is not perfect, YET. But from the people that have converted over to it from N-Tracks, it is FAR more stable and feature rich! REAPER is being developed by the guy that developed WinAmp. So you KNOW it is going to work well! He updates the software almost daily!
 
Whoopysnorp said:
I'm considering building a new computer, as my current mixing machine is an Athlon 2400-based system that I built in 2005. From what I understand things have changed since I last built a computer, and the Intel Core Duo processors are now the leaders of the pack for audio. I've heard great things about the results of upgrading to a dual-core system. However, I'm still using n-Track 3.x, which is not a multithreaded application (to my knowledge anyway).
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's multithreaded. It would be very, very difficult to write a single-threaded audio app of any kind. As for whether it runs each plug-in on a separate thread, I can't answer that... but at minimum, it has to have at least a handful of threads. The minimum I'd expect would be a UI thread, a disk I/O thread, an audio processing thread, and an audio I/O thread, and I really doubt that it would be that few....

I'd definitely recommend the C2D. You'll like it.
 
Well I guess I won't be building a computer for a little while because it turns out that instead of getting a tax refund this year I owe the bastards money. Oh well, I guess that means by the time I can build it the C2D prices will have dropped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top