Dell Dimension 3000?

  • Thread starter Thread starter plingativator
  • Start date Start date
P

plingativator

New member
Hello,

I am looking at getting this computer to start my recording studio. http://www1.ca.dell.com/content/pro...ured_desktop_3000c2?c=ca&cs=CADHS1&l=en&s=dhs

I know that it is obviously not super professional, but I think it would work. I am planning on upgrading the RAM to 512, but everything else in that offer I would keep the same.

My main concern is to do with the integrated audio that it features. I have an EMU 0404 soundcard at home already, and I need to know if this computer would be able to use it. I have heard that integrated audio can make it impossible to use other sound cards, but I don't know if this is true.

If someone could let me know about the integrated audio, and maybe let me know what I can and can't do with this computer's capabilities, I would be very appreciative.

Thanks.
 
After reading the very first line of the specs...Id say pass on this one...I wouldnt even consider a celeron processor for recording. I would take a pentium 1.6 ghz processor over a celeron even with a 3 ghz processor (just throwing numbers out there...nothing specific...just making a point). Celeron processors are not a good choice for recording...go with pentium...or even better...AMD. Whatever you get...I would recommend going past the 512 and up it to a gig on the RAM. Also, If you dont have another harddrive of your own, consider getting a second one in it. The integrated soundcard shouldnt be a problem. most computers come with them unless they are custom PC's. They are easy to disable so dont worry about that...
 
Yes, it will work just fine unless you want to do extreme things with it.

The onboard audio can be disabled in the BIOS. No problem.
 
Hmm...

Thanks for the input. What exactly about the celeron is inferior to the pentium?

I could always go for the next model up, which is a pentium. It also has a dvd burner, which would be useful for backing up tracks. http://www1.ca.dell.com/content/pro...atured_desktop_3000?c=ca&cs=CADHS1&l=en&s=dhs

If you think this one would be a big improvement over the other one, please let me know. It costs me a fair amount more, but if the processor is really that important I would consider the change.

Thanks.
 
A pentium processor is much more efficient than the celeron. 2 computers with identical specs, with one having a pentium and one haveing a celeron...lets say they are both 2.4 ghz...the pentium will be faster. I would go for the pentium even if it doubled the price. I wouldnt even consider a celeron...period.
 
While they may run at the same clock speed, the Celeron has quite a bit less L2 cache. This cache is an area where recently-executed instructions and data hang around in case you might need them again soon.

I still maintain that the Celeron will do fine for most applications. It will only become inadequate if you are running a very high track count with lots of plugins.

Remember that lots of people were (and still are, for that matter) with Pentium IIs and IIIs, and AMD K6s. It really boils down to what you're willing to spend to have whatever is currently best. If you want to get started on a budget, you can get by quite nicely with a cheaper system.
 
I bought a Dell 2400, disabled the integrated soundcard and use a Layla. I upgraded to a Pentium 4, 512 megs, and ditched the monitor when ordering. Got it for under $400. I use Adobe Audion and have NO problems at all. Even use an external Maxtor drive without problems either. This kicks over the "souped up" computer I built a couple years back and spent about $2500 on with the SCSI drives and and that do-da.

People may diss Dell and the cheapie computers, but compared to what was available just a few short years ago, they work great.

Infact, I bought a 2nd one for my wife since they were so cheap to upgrade her Gateway that was having a couple of birthdays.

Never again to spend the serious bucks on a computer. This has convinced me.
 
AGCurry said:
While they may run at the same clock speed, the Celeron has quite a bit less L2 cache. This cache is an area where recently-executed instructions and data hang around in case you might need them again soon.

I still maintain that the Celeron will do fine for most applications. It will only become inadequate if you are running a very high track count with lots of plugins.

Remember that lots of people were (and still are, for that matter) with Pentium IIs and IIIs, and AMD K6s. It really boils down to what you're willing to spend to have whatever is currently best. If you want to get started on a budget, you can get by quite nicely with a cheaper system.
Click to expand...
The L2 cache was designed to improve database performance, not too sure if it would have any benefit to audio applications. No issue that the Celeron would do the job.

While I am not a big fan of Dell, and feel (strongly) that they suck you in with a low advertised price and nuke you on the upgrades, if you can keep the extras off and stay on task they may suit the needs of most home recorders. If you are going to move into a more professional arena I would, however, get a more professional computer.

Luck.
 
Dell Biz - Dim 3000 w/ P4, free 15in LCD for $359

Dell Biz has some great pricing !!!

Exp 6/29. Dell Dimension 3000 Desktop w/ P4 2.8GHz, free 15in E153FP LCD, 256MB, 40GB, CD-ROM, NIC, XP Home for $658 - $199 instant off - $100 rebate = $359 w/ free shipping.

choose the $359 Dimension 3000 system, add to cart.

Recommended upgrades: P4 3GHz HT [+$30], 512MB [+$50], 80GB[+$30], 17in LCD +$70

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/outrageous_desktops?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd

For business name and address, use your own name and address, - Dell dosn't care! Goodluck.

/mcmd
 
thajeremy said:
After reading the very first line of the specs...Id say pass on this one...I wouldnt even consider a celeron processor for recording. I would take a pentium 1.6 ghz processor over a celeron even with a 3 ghz processor (just throwing numbers out there...nothing specific...just making a point). Celeron processors are not a good choice for recording...go with pentium...or even better...AMD.
Click to expand...

The problem is that your observations are extremely inaccurate. My 1.33Ghz Celeron stomps a 1.6Ghz P4 in every benchmark available. Why? 1.33Ghz is more efficient, as it is based on a PIII, not P4.

The new Celeron D chips are some of the best Celerons ever produced, and have been getting excellent ratings. The Celeron M chips are pretty much just last year's Pentium M's.

If I can record 24bit on my Celeron laptop, I think he'll be fine with a 2.66Ghz.

I would go for the pentium even if it doubled the price. I wouldnt even consider a celeron...period.
Click to expand...

That would be pretty silly, don't you think? My friend has an AMD Athlon 2200+, which is nearly identical to a Sempron 2400+. He records with it as well, and uses soft synths and plug-ins at 24bit. I suppose Semprons suck too, right?

I think you might read into the marketing more than you do the actual numbers.
 
hey man..chill...he asked for opinions...i gave him mine...i have no interest in purchasing any computer with a celeron processor. maybe he will do fine...i hope he does.
 
running a 1.33 amd thunderbird (can you say old?), 768 mb pc2100, 2 80 gb hd's, delta 1010LT, sonar 4, bfd drums, and reason 3.

I did a track count test in sonar and recorded 7 stereo audio tracks before my system started glitching up on me. but, at the same time, i was running bfd drums with 12 stereo tracks and 1 midi track, reason with a 1 stereo track and 1 midi track, and the pantheon reverb plugin on the output bus. the test song came in at 3 minutes 20 seconds and all tracks were filled from beginning to end.

so that comes to 20 stereo audio tracks and 2 midi tracks, 24 bit 48khz, 10 ms latencey. i think the old bird did pretty good for what it is. i originally built it as a low budget pc just about a year ago.

I'm doubting that the cpu type is gonna make or break your system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top