Building a new computer myself

B

Bad Disciple

New member
Hello all,

Last summer I posted questions about building a computer myself.
I received a lot of feedback. Meanwhile, a serious health problem in
the family occured and prevented me from continuing. Now that things
are gladly under control, I come back to my computer issue.

Given that some time passed, I need to check if any new ideas appeared.
To remind that my computer is to be used for home studio music recording
and production, often using effect processing with virtual machines.
I’m using software like Cubase SX3, Kontakt, Finale etc.

So, my questions:

ABOUT PROCESSORS:
1. What about AMD’s three-cores CPU with L3 cache, expected to run
20% faster than Quads?
2. What’s better, all-cores-in-a-single-die or two-cores-on-two-dies?
3. Is the advantage of Dual and Quad cores so big, given that
almost NO SOFTWARE is able to use this technology?
4. Is it wise to get a 45nm technology processor while it’s just the beginning?

I hesitate what to chose between these Intel models:
Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz
(Socket 775 - 3.0GHz - Bus 1333 MHz - 65 nm - 4MB L2 cache - Intel
Virtualization Technology)
or
Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz
(Socket 775 - 2.4GHz - Bus 1066 MHz - 65 nm - 8MB L2 cache - Intel
Virtualization Technology)?

ABOUT MOTERBOARD:
I hesitate what to chose between these:
Asus P5K
(Socket 775 - Intel® P35 chipset ICH9R - Intel® CoreT2 Quad / CoreT2 Extreme
/ CoreT2 Duo / Pentium® Extreme / Pentium® D / Pentium® 4 Processors -
Dual-channel DDR2 1066/800/667 MHz - 4*SATA/1*SATA on the Go/ 1394 - Gigabit LAN -
8-channel HD Audio)
or
Asus P5KC
(Socket 775 - Intel® P35 chipset ICH9R - Intel® CoreT2 Quad / CoreT2 Extreme
/ CoreT2 Duo / Pentium® Extreme / Pentium® D / Pentium® 4 Processors -
Dual-channel DDR2 1066/800/667 MHz or DDR3 1333/1066/800 - 2x1394 - 12xUSB 2.0 - Gigabit
LAN -8-channel HD Audio)
or
Asus P5PK-V
(Socket 775 - Support Intel® next generation 45nm Multi-core CPU - Intel® G33 chipset
- Dual-channel DDR2 1066/800/667 MHz - Heat Pipe - Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 3100 integrated - 2x1394 - 12xUSB 2.0 - Gigabit LAN - 8-channel HD Audio)
or
Gigabyte GA-P35-DQ6
or
Intel D975XBX2KR Bad Axe 2 (wich I'm not sure if it supports Quad CPUs and/or 45nm technology)

ABOUT HARD DISCS:
1. Now that S-ATA drives came, is it still worthy putting 2 HDs in a RAID 0
(for OS and programs) with a separate HD for data saving, and expect that
RAID 0 will speed operations up? (And backup the RAID 0 discs so I can
restore my OS and programs if any crash occurs?)
2. Is it helping speed wise if I use one physical drive only for my Windows OS,
a 2nd physical drive for my Program Files and a 3d physical drive for my Data saving?

ABOUT OS:
1. I know there is a separate Windows XP available for 64-bit. What do the 64
bit stand for?
2. Does the XP Pro have multi-processor capability built in?
3. I use to hear really bad opinions about Windows Vista, that it really sucks when it
comes to extended professional use. Any feedback?
2. And again and again, the eternal question, is a Mac still more reliable than a PC ?
 
For audio recording, personally, I don't think you can go wrong with a Macintosh. They are stable, fast, and reliable. However, they are pretty expensive.

Someday when I start my own studio, I will be using Macintosh.
 
If you build a mac, it's referred to as a "hackintosh"... Anything with the word hack in it is gonna bite you in the butt later.

I'm recording eight 30min+ tracks live on a three year old PC (AMD XP 3400, 1GB RAM, EIDE HDDs), you don't need a monster computer to get started.
 
why build a computer yourself??...if you are trying to save money nearly all the builders i know do it just to get the markup on the hardware and the build is next to nothing.....and if you just like building computers ...well you could be making music instead.........cant see the point of the question.:)
 
Builing a computer your self is always cheaper, and the only question any one attempted to answer was on the topic of Mac vs. PC.

so for the first round of questions you asked.

ABOUT PROCESSORS:
1. What about AMD’s three-cores CPU with L3 cache, expected to run
20% faster than Quads?
2. What’s better, all-cores-in-a-single-die or two-cores-on-two-dies?
3. Is the advantage of Dual and Quad cores so big, given that
almost NO SOFTWARE is able to use this technology?
4. Is it wise to get a 45nm technology processor while it’s just the beginning?

Answers for above are in order...

1. It's expectations, never buy on what someone says is expected to happen. Most of the time they are wrong. Plus the three core processors are going to be meant as an economic alternative to those that don't want to shell out for a quad core processor. I haven't rad a ton on the subject but I have read some. My advice is save for a quad core, amd or Intell.

2. While I have no information to back this, and it is purely speculation. My guess is it doesnt really matter, but might be cheaper to buy all cores on one die versus multiple chips.

3. When it comes to dual and quad core software side you will see a difference. Many, many , many , many years ago there were very few people who could see the benefite of multiple processors. Now days most every one can see some kind of increase in performance. There are a multitude of reasons, but lets just chuck it up to the evolution of the PC.

4. As far as things go with the 45nm chips I don't think there is much to worry about, but I could be wrong. It is the one thing I actually never payed attention to when it comes to processors. To be honest I don't think it even matters. Normally when thigns change they move to a new socket, as long as your mother baord has the proper socket you should be okay. But like i said I dont know much about this one other than it has to do with the gate size. "Gate size this is the length of the gate, as in the gate/source/drain of a transistor" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45_nanometer

When it comes to the different processors, and mother boards you are torn between I couldn't tell you much. Except a few basic things. Speed, and number of processors kind of run in tandum. The more cores you have the more threads your prcessor can handle at one time, thus leading to a more responsive machine. Then on the other side the faster it is, the faster it can crunch the numbers. Meaning the faster it can move on to the next set of numbers. This may not be noticable when dealing with processors that very only slightly in speed. I.E. a 2Ghz quad core at times my seem faster than a 2.4 dual core. In theory a quad core would hadle mor VST's at once. The more cores you have the better the multitasking, so for ausio more cores = good, but speed is also crucial.

As fas as mother boards go just make sure it can handle your processor, memory, and HDD's of choice. When it comes to your HDD's just make sure your mother board has enough of the appropriate ports. Last thing and one of the most importaint things when it comes to a mother board is the chipset running the thing. Also called the North Bridge. Make sure you buy a good name brand board with a good North Bridge. For example an Asus board with an nVidia North Bridge/chipset. This over all will determine the performance of your system as your mother board can potentially be the biggest bottle kneck of your system. It doesnt matter how fast your processor, memory, or hdd's are if your motherboard can't exchange the information between the three fast enough. Personally I stick with the Asus/nVidia combonation. Just read around and see what people are using, and using realiably.

When dealing with HDD's for audio your bigest concern is going to be amount of space. Setting up a Raid will increate the performance of you machine, but so will having a ton of RAM. With any content dreation you want more space for storage of files, and more RAM to have more things loaded into memmory at one time. Just make sure your HDD or HDD"s are fast, and big. As long as you have a good about of memory performance wise you'll be okay. When it comes to memmory it's one of the things I usually spend the most money on for a system. As far as how many drives you use it's all kind of relative, and is about to how organized you want to be. I always install my Programs on the same disk as my OS, but store every thing else on other drives. In the end it's up to you. My reccomendation though is to have a seperate drive just to store all of your projects/samples/presets/save files of any kind on. As well as a way to back it up regularly. While its rare fore a HDD's to just take a dump, and leave you crying in your pillow these days. It still does happen more offten than we think, and will leave you crying like a baby. Personally I always buy them locally so I can get it taken care of right away if some thing does go wrong.

OS's
-----
Whan it comes to what 64bit means. The quickest way to put it is that is meant you can have more ram. Usually a 32bit OS will only recognise about 3GB of ram. While a 64bit OS will be able to use mroe. The explanation is far morcomplicated than that, but kind of irellavent. Over all for you it means if you buy 4GB of memoery, you will be able to use all 4GB of that memmory.

As far as what 64bit OS to use i couldn't say. Most people who have used Vista have had problems, and/or jsut hate it. I personally have been using Vista Ultimate 64bit for over 8 months, and love it. Most people reccomend 32bit Xp, and thats not a bad Idea because it is safe. You are guarenteed to have proper working dirvers for all of your hardware. One of the problems with Vista is that some hardware vendors have faild to produce good drivers. One company that is an example of that would be E-MU. The E-MU 0404 64bit Vista drivers and mixer application are very poorly written. I know this from experiance. While it works fine most of the time. It has been prone to glitching, and as well the mixer app has a memory leak problem. But that is the fual of creative labs, not microsoft.

Last of all Mac versus PC. Years ago Mac was the best way to go, there was no faster or better performaing home computer for content creation. Now, its all relative to the user. Personally I go the PC route because it's cheaper, I have been using PC my whole life, and parts are more abundant. So far as which is more reliable. That all depends on the user alone. If the end user doesn't manage the computer, and mantain the machine properly then it is bound to have problems. So, basically if grandma is a porn freak, clicks on every spam link in her gmail in-box, doesn't belive in pop-up filters, downloads tons of pirated stuff with out knowing what's what when it comes to that, and is convinced one day she will get that free "insert popular expensive electronic device here"... Then grandma is going to be compleatly screwed no matter if she has a PC or a Mac. Performance wise it doesn't even matter any more as well. Now its all about what software you want to use, and what platforms it's available on. The Apple Cinema displays are some of the best, BUT out side of that... what ever.

Well I tied to hit on every thing, and make as much sens as possible. Some times though that doesn't always work as planed. I'm sure there are plenty of typos, and misspelling in all of the above. Not to mention I could have been wrong about any of the information I gave as well. If I am... Sorry my bad, no one can be right all the time.

Good luck, and hope I was of some kind of help.

P.s. If i fialed to explaine any thing properly, and didn't make sense then don't hesitate to ask. I'll try again.

P.p.s. And just like MidiPunk said, "You dont need a moster machine to get started." that is the truth.
 
Last edited:
ABOUT PROCESSORS:
1. What about AMD’s three-cores CPU with L3 cache, expected to run
20% faster than Quads?
Click to expand...
The Phenom has had all sorts of techincal problems and never lived up to it's hype. Head over to Toms hardware and check their charts for performance comparisons on just about every benchmark I have ever heard of. And no, they are not 20% faster (slower actually)

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html

2. What’s better, all-cores-in-a-single-die or two-cores-on-two-dies?
Click to expand...

hard to say. Intel does not yet sell their native quad ("Bloomfield") but since their hybrid already outperforms the AMD native, it does not really seem to have an impact yet

3. Is the advantage of Dual and Quad cores so big, given that
almost NO SOFTWARE is able to use this technology?
Click to expand...
Plenty of software does. Cubase happily uses all the cores as well as windows which will improve the how single thread apps are run since it can run 4 single threaded apps on 4 different cores
4. Is it wise to get a 45nm technology processor while it’s just the beginning?
Click to expand...

I would say yes. The Penryn based chips run cooler, have faster clock speeds, and have a faster FSB which all have a positive impact on a DAW.

1. Now that S-ATA drives came, is it still worthy putting 2 HDs in a RAID 0
(for OS and programs) with a separate HD for data saving, and expect that
RAID 0 will speed operations up? (And backup the RAID 0 discs so I can
restore my OS and programs if any crash occurs?)
2. Is it helping speed wise if I use one physical drive only for my Windows OS,
a 2nd physical drive for my Program Files and a 3d physical drive for my Data saving?
Click to expand...

I would pass on RAID and get 2 or 3 good disks. The performance benefit is outweighed by the hassle since consumer level RAID stuff is really pretty sketchy and I would not rely on it for anything. I have seen Promise and Highpoint controls tank and corrupt volumes loosing all the data on them as well as their mirror "backup" drives. A decent raid controller will run more than the cost of a computer. Generally, one disk for apps and windows and one for data. It really is not a question of performance, it is to ensure that you project drive is free from OS activity.

ABOUT OS:
1. I know there is a separate Windows XP available for 64-bit. What do the 64
bit stand for?
Click to expand...
It means that it is a full blown 64bit OS instead of the previous 32bit XP. The larger word length allows for more processing to be done per cycle but more importantly, a 64bit OS does not have the 4gig memory limit that a 32bit OS does. XP64 bit is pretty much dead in the water and everyone is writing for Vista64. The thing about 64bit anything is that you also have to have native 64 bit apps to see any advantages, running 32bit apps will not gain you anything.
2. Does the XP Pro have multi-processor capability built in?
Click to expand...
XP pro supports two physical processors and as many cores as there are on a those processors. All MS os's support as many cores as possible, but Home supports one physical processors, pro supports 2, servers support 4+.

3. I use to hear really bad opinions about Windows Vista, that it really sucks when it
comes to extended professional use. Any feedback?
Click to expand...
Opinions are just that, I know countless ppl that are using it for professional and well as audio use.

2. And again and again, the eternal question, is a Mac still more reliable than a PC ?
Click to expand...

They both are as reliable as the person using them is competent. Beyond that, it is OS preference. The hardware is identical. You should be looking at which DAW environment you want to use first, then choose the machine based on that.
 
Last edited:
jndietz said:
For audio recording, personally, I don't think you can go wrong with a Macintosh. They are stable, fast, and reliable. However, they are pretty expensive.

Someday when I start my own studio, I will be using Macintosh.
Click to expand...

I was leaning toward the iMAC then I just found out the idiots at Apple are no longer using a TI Chipset in the iMAC/:rolleyes:. My interface may work with it but TI is the way to go with firewire chipsets.
 
BD,

What kind of case and power supply? If I build a new box I;m going to build a quiet one.
 
Hardwire 666.
I not so sure bulding yourself is really cheaper anymore. 5 years ago yes but now? Im not so sure.
 
jmorris said:
Hardwire 666.
I not so sure bulding yourself is really cheaper anymore. 5 years ago yes but now? Im not so sure.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to look into that.

I want a quiet PC so I looked here and the system I selected is $1100. I can build a quad core with basically the same parts for $750. Are these guys expensive? And the system here was duo.
http://www.endpcnoise.com
 
September of '07 I built the rig I am using now. It over all cost me about $900 when all was said an done. Every thing in the box was new except for the Power supply, the 2 HDD"s I already owned, and my PCI E-mu 0404. I ended up with 3Ghz AMD64 athalon x2, 500gb's of HDD space, 4GB of RAM. Anything that came close to those specs was going to cost almost $3000 or more for a prebuilt, and even worse I couldn't even get close to those specs with a prebuilt.

Things may have changed over the past few months, but when I built my machine I looked at every option I could find. Nothing was cheaper than building my self. The big part is you have to know where you can make cuts. Like do you really need a mother board with all the bells and whistles. A $250 MoBo could be bloated with options you flat out just don't need, but the $90 mother board of the same brand may be exactly the same minus all the fat. OR, Do honestly think you need to pay $150 for a decent case. By decent I mean one thats not a cheap peice of crap that will cause over heating or have problems with letting parts line up properly.

Building your self is always cheaper.

and these guys -> http://www.endpcnoise.com are over priced.

I built a machine spec'ed out the same way mine is. Just the box, no perifrials (I.E. key board monitor, studio monitors, or ect.) and it came out to $2,164.90

newegg.com is your friend.
 
lttoler said:
I just got a new PC with an Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4 processor, 3GB of RAM and Windows XP Home. I currently use a Line 6 Toneport UX2 and Reaper. Was this a good or bad decision???
Click to expand...

Only you can answer that. Does it allow you to process the number of tracks you need and come out with successful recordings?

If so, it was good.

I agree with Hardwire about building too. It's always cheaper. Yes, you can get a suitable box from PC World with a decent CPU but it'll have skimped everywhere else to save on the cost. I'm in favour of ad-ware supported systems though to bring the price down...

1) Allow shitty PC maker to load it up with spyware and adware for profit from the providers
2) Buy PC at low low cost
3) Format, reinstall
4) ???
5) Profit! Well, not literally... :)
 
hardwire666 said:
That's a new one for for me. i have never heard of ad-ware supported systems.
Click to expand...

I think a few of the major manufacturers actually trialled it. They simply loaded the PC up with semi-obtrusive ad-ware and then subsidised the price cut with the income from that. Then everybody wins except the clueless joe who can't work out why popups keep coming up :)

I'm fairly sure the 'free laptop with Orange broadband' deal that PC World did here in the UK was along those lines. Could be wrong though.

If you think about it, Dell used to (they may still do, I have no idea) load up McAfee AV trial and some other bits and pieces. While not adware, I'm sure they don't do it 'out of the goodness of their hearts' and get a few quid for it.

I think these people realised it was a bust because techies like you or I would buy them at a lower cost than the actual components themselves and then format them and use them. Or even buy an OEM copy of XP and sell it on :)
 
Thanks all for the feedback and especially hardwire666 for
the detailed answer - there were quite several good hints,
everything sounds logical and true, thanks hardwire666!
Cool vibes to all!
BD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top