Core™2 quad-core processors

  • Thread starter Thread starter NYMorningstar
  • Start date Start date
I can't have more than 10 tracks at 24-bit if I use plugins. Without plugins I can do about 20 or more, never tried anymore than that.

But I can never run more than a few plugins at one time. It sucks. :(
 
terrabyte is worse thana terraflop , terrabyte is when your computer gets pissed off and bytes back . ohh the terra :D
 
altitude909 said:
Yeah, that is the drawback. The new quad xeon (X5355) will have 8 mb shared across the 4 cores and have the faster 1333 mHz FSB
Click to expand...

I think the consumer's versions are going to stay at 1066mhz fsb, 45nm when they come out. AMD is still stuck on 90nm i think... They say that even though they upped the FSB for the processors, the new quad cores, AMD gots a good avantage because of the integrated memory controllers on their chips. Then again, I think Intel has finally answered back to the AMD storm in the last couple years. Those Xeons gotta be fast though.... You think that would call for faster memory? Honestly I think at 8 cores, or even just 4 cores, nobody will notice THAT much of a difference because of the major bottle neck that computers have still (hard drive speeds).
 
We just put up our new Sonar6 tests involving the Core2 Quad and Xeon Quad machines. The Cubase/Nuendo quad tests will be up in the next day or two. We created new tests for the quads and going forward because they blew away all the old tests so badly. These are real world recording tests, not just random benchmark test numbers.

http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm

There is something strange going on, because on everything we've tested the Core2 quad beats the Xeon dual Quad at low latency buffer settings. This applies to all recording software and video software we do testing with in house. I'm guessing that with the 64bit Vista environment around the corner, that XP and 32bit is not taking advantage of some of the architecture in the Xeon setup. We will be redoing tests on Vista once it is actually supported and there are proper drivers available for it.

H2H

*if you choose to d/l and run the sonar6 test, keep in mind it will only work with Sonar6 Producer as it uses Session Drummer2 and other VSTi's that come with it. Also, the minimum system that will run it (so far) is an AMD X2 or Intel PentiumD.
 
wheelema said:
Yowza! :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...

Yea. I could build a whole new computer for that much, and still have money left over for a new mic/pre/whatever.
 
Hard2Hear said:
We just put up our new Sonar6 tests involving the Core2 Quad and Xeon Quad machines. The Cubase/Nuendo quad tests will be up in the next day or two. We created new tests for the quads and going forward because they blew away all the old tests so badly. These are real world recording tests, not just random benchmark test numbers.

http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm

There is something strange going on, because on everything we've tested the Core2 quad beats the Xeon dual Quad at low latency buffer settings. This applies to all recording software and video software we do testing with in house. I'm guessing that with the 64bit Vista environment around the corner, that XP and 32bit is not taking advantage of some of the architecture in the Xeon setup. We will be redoing tests on Vista once it is actually supported and there are proper drivers available for it.

H2H

*if you choose to d/l and run the sonar6 test, keep in mind it will only work with Sonar6 Producer as it uses Session Drummer2 and other VSTi's that come with it. Also, the minimum system that will run it (so far) is an AMD X2 or Intel PentiumD.
Click to expand...

I bet an OS like Windows 2003 server would take advantage of the Xeon over Core2Q. If that's the case, I also think that the XP didnt' allow the Xeon to run at it's full potential. What kind & how much memory did they each have? I also know that the Core 2 Quad uses an advance pattern detection and reorganizes the memory access to get rid of latencies totally.
 
There is something strange going on, because on everything we've tested the Core2 quad beats the Xeon dual Quad at low latency buffer settings.
Click to expand...

That maybe due to having 4 cores on one die instead of 2 cores on 2 separate dies that talk the FSB while the 4 cores on one die talk via the die interconnects that run much faster
 
Cough, cough... Guess I'm not the only one thinking about this stuff... Been developing this dream configuration for the past couple days...


Processor: 2 x Intel Xeon X5355 2.66GHZ QUAD-XEON X5355 S-771 1333MHZ FSB - 8MB L2-CACHE (BX80563X5355A) (1 = $1280) (Total = $2560)

Motherboard: 1 x Supermicro X7DB3 Dual Socket 771 Intel 5000P Extended ATX Server Motherboard (X7DB3-O) (1 = $550) (Total = $550)

Memory: 2 x Kingston 2GB 240-Pin DDR2 FB-DIMM ECC Fully Buffered DDR2 667 (KVR667D2D4F5/2G) (1 = $350) (Total = $700)

Case:

Power Supply: 1 x PC Power and Cooling Turbo-Cool 1000 Watt QUAD CPU & QUAD SLI Ready (1KW-SR) (1 = $550) (Total = $550)

Operating System: 1 x Microsoft Windows XP Professional with SP2 - Retail (E85-02665) (1 = $270) (Total = $270)

Hard Drive 1 (Operating System): 1 x Seagate Cheetah 15K.4 37GB 3.5" 15K.4 SAS 3Gb/s (ST336754SS) (1 = $200) (Total = $200)

Hard Drive 2 (Page File): 1 x Seagate Cheetah 15K.4 37GB 3.5" 15K.4 SAS 3Gb/s (ST336754SS) (1 = $200) (Total = $200)

Hard Drive 3 (Applications): 1 x Seagate Cheetah 15K.4 37GB 3.5" 15K.4 SAS 3Gb/s (ST336754SS) (1 = $200) (Total = $200)

Hard Drive 4 (Samples): 1 x Cheetah 15K.4 146GB 3.5" 15K.4 SAS 3Gb/s (ST3146854SS) (1 = $700) (Total = $700)

Hard Drive 5 (Audio): 1 x Cheetah 15K.4 146GB 3.5" 15K.4 SAS 3Gb/s (ST3146854SS) (1 = $700) (Total = $700)

Hard Drive 6 (Storage): 1 x Seagate Barracuda ES 750GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s (ST3750640NS) (1 = $550) (Total = $550)

FireWire 1 (Recording Interface): 1 x ADS Technologies PYRO PCI 64 Card (API311) (1 = $35) (Total = $35)

FireWire 2 (External I/O): 1 x ADS Technologies PYRO PCI 64 Card (API311) (1 = $35) (Total = $35)

Mouse: 1 x Logitech G5 Laser 2-Tone 6 Buttons 1x Wheel USB Laser Mouse (931376-0403) (1 = $50) (Total = $50)

Keyboard:


Total so far: $7300

Keep in mind..
1. Pro Tools doesn't run on Win x64..:(
2. Windows XP pro doesn't address more than 4gb total memory....
3. I'm not done yet.. lol
4. I really don't have enough money to buy this.. It's fun to dream though...
 
Mindset said:
I bet an OS like Windows 2003 server would take advantage of the Xeon over Core2Q. If that's the case, I also think that the XP didnt' allow the Xeon to run at it's full potential. What kind & how much memory did they each have? I also know that the Core 2 Quad uses an advance pattern detection and reorganizes the memory access to get rid of latencies totally.
Click to expand...

Memory is listed on each of the test configs. Basicly, 2G on everything but the Xeons, which got 4G (and is of course fully buffered they require). I agree that a 32bit XP is not taking advantage fully of the 8 cores. We have XP64 and Vista testing to do yet over the next several weeks (when we get the time, as its busy this time of year).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top