CPU Advice

[loafman3]

I have Pro Tools 8. Do not want to get a MAC, and am not interested in building my own.

Here are my Finalists, any thoughts?

1) ADK - AM3 with AMD Quad Phenom X4 - 3.4 GHZ , 4 G Ram
Motherboard AMD 75 X

2)Reyniers Quad Intel 2.83 Ghzm 4 G Ram
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R

3)PC AUdio Labs ROK Box
Processor: 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Core2 Quad Q9400
Motherboard: Intel Core2 Duo/Quad Microboard
4GB DDR2-800 (4 x 1GB)

 

[wheelema]

I have Pro Tools 8. Do not want to get a MAC, and am not interested in building my own.

Here are my Finalists, any thoughts?

1) ADK - AM3 with AMD Quad Phenom X4 - 3.4 GHZ , 4 G Ram
Motherboard AMD 75 X

2)Reyniers Quad Intel 2.83 Ghzm 4 G Ram
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R

3)PC AUdio Labs ROK Box
Processor: 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Core2 Quad Q9400
Motherboard: Intel Core2 Duo/Quad Microboard
4GB DDR2-800 (4 x 1GB)

Specs don't tell everything. I don't know what the respective costs of the boxes are, I don't know what the warranty support is, and I don't know what additional components (i.e., Blu-Ray, HDD, video) are included.

Everything you mentioned is fine as far as it goes, it just doesn't go far enough.

 

[michaelSHK]

I think you're better off going with a dual core. Quad core processor utilization isn't developed enough yet. You can get a faster dual core cheaper than a midrange quad core, and get better performance.

I would also go with Intel vs. AMD. Overnight advanced replacement in the event of failure, and the Intel chips outperform the AMD's in terms of speed.

Even if you go for a quad, I would say without ANY hesitation that you should go for the Intel chip.

 

[michaelSHK]

Sorry, didn't read that you were buying a pre-made system.

I would still try to find something with an Intel dual core, and only 2 gigs of ram, UNLESS it has Vista 64 bit. Don't let a big ram amount suck you in. Ram is cheap, and it's not even really worth putting more than 2 gigs into a 32 bit system. Get something with a faster Intel dual core. That should be the selling point to you, NOT the fact that it has 4 gigs of ram.

 

[loafman3]

Thanks for the info Michael. I will look hard at the Intel Dual Core.

I am not gonna build my own though. Have been reading alot about those who build for Audio. Service appears to be the factor that seperates these guys.

 

[Steve Henningsgard]

Do you know *why* you don't want an Apple? Not to be a zealot or anything, but Pro Tools and Macs generally go together like bread and butter. The thing about any PC of any sort, is that your likelihood for hardware/software, and even hardware/hardware incompatibilities is much, MUCH higher. Windows is made to work with a near-infinite number of hardware configurations, which all rely on standards to ensure compatibility. Unfortunately, "compatible" doesn't always mean "plays together nicely", and even less often means "stable as a rock". The real advantage of an Apple is that the software is built for a very small number of very specific hardware combinations, and is thus inherently much more stable than 95% of Windows installations.

On the flip side, the general advantages of Windows-based PC's are price, availability and variety of software and hardware, and upgradeability/expandability. You'll generally get more mileage out of a good custom-built Windows-based PC than out of an Apple, as you can do things like upgrade the processor, memory, hard drive, video card, etc. much more easily and inexpensively. With enough research into compatibility and reliability, you could conceivably build a rock-solid, super-fast Windows-based PC for significantly less than the price of a comparable mac.

That said, I've never seen a Pro Tools rig of any sort that could really be considered "stable as a rock". Be sure you're using Pro Tools for the right reasons as well. The advantage of getting a PC is that there are several really good (some would argue much better) software DAW options, such as Sonar, Cubase, Reaper, Digital Performer, etc.

If you always make sure you're making your decisions based on non-biased, rationally debated information, you'll be considerably more likely to end up with solutions that you really enjoy!

 

[TeyshaBlue]

.......................

If you always make sure you're making your decisions based on non-biased, rationally debated information, you'll be considerably more likely to end up with solutions that you really enjoy!

That's a great post and brings to mind some observations I've had over the years in PC land.

I've never owned a particularly well built computer. Most have been bottom line e-machines or if I'm feeling particularly flush, maybe a HP Pavillion. On my last comp, a 64bit AMD, single core running at 2 ghz with 2 gigs of fairly speedy ram and a so-so mobo, I could run up to 24 tracks in Sonar with absolutely no problems. Mixdowns were fairly quick, but would trend to slower the more plugs I used. Now, that comp is no longer functional, because, well, it was damn near disposable at the price point...and it had a habit of eating hard drives (3 drive failures in 4 years). So, it's probably not an example of reliability, but it worked beautifully, and cost about $225.
Fast forward to today. I'm running SONAR6 still, on a Compaq laptop running a cheapo AMD Sempron SI-42, 2100 Mhz single core processor with 3 gigs of quality RAM installed and running Vista.
It is performing flawlessly. Aside for some initial problems with latency settings, the installation was a snap. I did add an external drive, for back up purposes. The lap top cost $285 when it was on sale.
So tell me this, guys. Am I just getting lucky with these machines? I'm not using any soft-synth plugs yet, but I will soon. I guess then I'll see what limitations, if any, I run into.

 

[johnnymegabyte]

I have a 1.5Ghz Dual Core Intel with 2MB RAM in my 2 Y-O Sony laptop with Vista Home Premium and it works quite well , if you're looking at track-at-a-time recording. I've done a lot of tracks, no probs + MIDI VST drums & pads ... eveything around 30% CPU in total
Today, there are faster versions of the processor, and cheaper.

My wife has a HP laptop 2Ghz Semprom 2GB Ram Vista Home Basic, and mine is still faster, but hers has nicer graphics

 

[wheelema]

That's a great post and brings to mind some observations I've had over the years in PC land.

I've never owned a particularly well built computer. Most have been bottom line e-machines or if I'm feeling particularly flush, maybe a HP Pavillion. On my last comp, a 64bit AMD, single core running at 2 ghz with 2 gigs of fairly speedy ram and a so-so mobo, I could run up to 24 tracks in Sonar with absolutely no problems. Mixdowns were fairly quick, but would trend to slower the more plugs I used. Now, that comp is no longer functional, because, well, it was damn near disposable at the price point...and it had a habit of eating hard drives (3 drive failures in 4 years). So, it's probably not an example of reliability, but it worked beautifully, and cost about $225.
Fast forward to today. I'm running SONAR6 still, on a Compaq laptop running a cheapo AMD Sempron SI-42, 2100 Mhz single core processor with 3 gigs of quality RAM installed and running Vista.
It is performing flawlessly. Aside for some initial problems with latency settings, the installation was a snap. I did add an external drive, for back up purposes. The lap top cost $285 when it was on sale.
So tell me this, guys. Am I just getting lucky with these machines? I'm not using any soft-synth plugs yet, but I will soon. I guess then I'll see what limitations, if any, I run into.

There were... and I daresay still are... guys running DAWs based on Pentium 2 and Pentium 3 processors with no problems. The truth is that audio processing isn't all that demanding of CPUs. If you are running a single core P4 box with a decent amount of memory and with moderate expectations 14 inches behind the keyboard then you will always be pretty happy.

Mind you, this is not to say that you can't buy into a manufacturer's B.S. marketing stream that would require you to pop for an 8 core Xeon box with 16GB of RAM, I'm just saying that with a little research and little patience a $800 budget box can make all of your dreams come true.

Talent permitting.

 

[Bristol Posse]

Specs by them selves aren't really a full story. Any one of those machines could be great or terrible depending on what you need to do

Generally speaking:
CPU allow for more simultaneous instances of higly complex VST/VSTi synths/effects
Virtually all DAWs, in their most recent incarnations are well executed to take advantage of multiple cores Dual, quad octo etc (reason generally performs better with a good dual core than a quad)

Faster drives allows for higher track counts

RAM capacity, speed and bandwidth is important for samples playback.

CPU speed/power in of itself is not particularly relevant. Compatability and stability are more important.

Solid Motherboard, good power supply, reliable components and Texas Instrument Firewire (if your using a FW interface) are Key These are the foundation of the system. If you have a glitchy, un reliable, incompatible system the fastest most powerful CPU on earth is complete waste