How much can I do with a 550K6-2 w/160MB of RAM?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Godsguitarist
  • Start date Start date
G

Godsguitarist

New member
Hello!! I just picked up a new comp for $75... I think I got a pretty darn good deal, here's what I got...

A small, annoying, case that I have to take the powersupply out to reach anything (The only downside thus far besides only 3 PCI slots)

550Mghz K6-2 Processor
160 MB of RAM (2x64 sticks and 1x32)
a DVD Player
Regular CD-ROM
20GB HDD (although this WILL be replaced if I decide to make this my sole recording machine)

I was wondering, provided I put in around a 30 GB 7200 RPM HDD, how much could I do with this? The main thing I would like to do is just write songs... maybe 8 tracks at the absolute max... from my understanding, I could do that, just not run many plug ins. Also, would I be able to record mono vocals for about 45 minu tes? I am looking into recording my youth pastors sermons and selling them on CD to make money for the youth group. If I couldn't do it on this comp, I have an Athlon XP 1600+ machine w/ 256MB of DDR coming in on Tuesday (scheduled, at least... got some snow so it may be delayed... ) that I'm just about positive would do the trick. :) Also, what kind of card would I want to get for this? My budget would be at the most $400, so I've been looking at STAudio's C-port and M Audio's Omni Studio because they both have preamps. If anyone could give me some info, I'd be very grateful. Thanks in advance!!

In CHRIST JESUS,

Brandon
 
The K6-2 is a bad bad processor for DSP, but you should be able to do 8 tracks or maybe even a little better if you stick in a 7200RPM hard drive. Just don't expect to run a lot of effects.

Why not just use the Athlon you've got coming?

Yes you can record 45 minute mono tracks no problem. Pretty simple math:

Assuming 16bit/44.1khz recording...
16bits = 2 bytes
44,100hz (sample rate) * 2 bytes = 88,200 bytes per second
88,200 * 60 = 5,292,000 bytes per minute
5,292,000 * 45 minutes = 238,140,000 bytes

So you're looking at 238MB per 45 minute sermon. That's nothing these days. If you get a 24bit soundcard then you're still just looking at 357MB.

The Lynx One supposedly has some pretty mean converters and starts in the 400 dollar range. It's just a two channel card though. If you need lots of inputs and outputs, then in the $400 range you're probably looking at something from m-Audio or Hoontek.

Without the assitance of CHRIST JESUS,

Slackmaster 2000
 
if you throw on ANY plugins, you better call Jesus......
 
I had an Celeron 400mhz w 128mb ram before. And i could record and playback 24 tracks of 24bit audio with no problems. I could run some plugins aswell, but not enough for a mix (unless i used the waves audiotrack plug, which i could run 16 instances of), so either do offline processing wich pretty much demands that you know what youre doing if you want to get good results. Or you can get a dsp card. Me myself was using a Dsp factory with good results. Otherwise get a faster Cpu and Mb, you can get those relatively cheap.
Jonas H
 
I'm puzzled. I've got a pentium 150, 32 MB of RAM, a 2 GB hard disk which runs at 5400RPM, plus the smaller, slower hard disk which came with the machine, soundcard is DMAN 2004, yet I get 8 tracks, one of which is stereo, plus reverb on one of the tracks. Why is the performance of Godsguitarist's machine barely better than my antiquated pigmy of a PC?
 
it's all got to do with the CPU.

Intel makes the Pentium, whilst AMD make the k6-2.

The motherboard sees the chips as 'the same' - but under the hood, the chips are different beasts. The pentium range can do some commands faster than the K6-2, but in some cases it's the other way round.

In this case, chip speed isn't the case, the main problem is the speed of actual processing.

Effects on Audio require A LOT of processing. The number crunching required with reverbs etc is phenominal, especially when you consider that a computer has a lot more to do than just do effects.

Anyway, Slackmeister was right, the AMD isn't quite as good at DSP (Digital Signal Processing) as the Pentium. Mind, both are GPP's (General Purpose Processors) anyway, i wouldn't expect much from either of them.

Given half a chance I'd get one of the new PCI cards that does all the effects for you. It takes the burden off the Pentium/AMD and lets it do what it was designed for, shifting data around your computer.

just an opinion,

d
 
Atwork,
I was recording one stereo 24/96 track on P-233 with 256 RAM and older HDD with no problems. But when I tried to do two tracks the system crashed.
When I reduced the rate down to 16/44.1, two tracks went through flawlessly.
I guess the answer to your question is the bit rate. You are probably recording much less than 24 bit audio.
 
my old pc was a k6-400, i got 24 tracks with it, it almost maxed out the cpu but it didn't crash. i also had 512mb or ram on that computer.
 
You were lucky. The K6 and K6-2 especially are notorious for being extremely poor audio performers. However, the AMD Athlon kicks Intel's butt...
 
I discovered this board trying to deal with a K6-200....that was the only good that came out of that situation.....thank Dog for Celeron......
 
Hey guys!! Thanks for the replies. Ok, here is my plan. I just got the Athlon XP 1600 in today. YAY!!! And I'm out of school for snow!!! YAY!! Anyways, here is my plan. I take my computer (the 550 K6-2) and record the sermon. I bring it home and do the rest on the athlon machine. This would seem the best thing to me, what do you all think? Seems like it would work in theory. I would be transfering it from one comp to the other by Ethernet. Any comments on this? Thanks again everyone.

In CHRIST JESUS,

Brandon
 
Oh, and to answer your question, slackmaster, about why I can't use the XP to record with is it's the "family" pc while the k6-2 is solely mine, although I'm thinking about cutting a deal with my parents to where I will let them run AOL off of my comp through the network and then bring it downhere for them to use when I use the XP to record. I'm going to wait until the hype over the XP being new wears off first, and then I'll probably ask. I may not need to, though, but we'll see. What do you all think of the above idea if I'm not able by any means to record with the XP??

In CHRIST JESUS,

Brandon
 
If you're just recording the sermons, it should do just fine. Connecting via ethernet is great too. I had a K6-2 500, replaced the CPU with the K63+ 450. It was a nice little boost. The 3+ has onboard L2 cache, MMX instructions, and you can boost the multiplier via software! I ran mine @550 no problemo. I just got a new box with an AMD XP 1700+. It rocks! The two machines are linked together via ethernet, currently the XP is recording/mixing only, and the old box is for 'net use, general use, and CD burning...

Queue
 
Hey Queue! I'm really anticpating using the XP, but right now it is giving me a fit. It's not exactly being cooperative. First, it wouldn 't load windows right (still trying to figure out if that was due to the HDD, the MB, or something else) and now I can't even get it to turn on. I'm about to go nuts!!!! Anyways, thanks for the input. Do you have your computers hooked up via a crossover cable or do you have them hooked into a hub? I'm thinking I'm probably going to have to do the crossove r cable first due to money restrictions. Anyways, thanks again for your input and if you can help me with my comp, I BEG!! Please share your wisdom!! Anyone!! Thanks again to all.

In CHRIST JESUS,

Brandon
 
Brandon,
Linked via a Linksys BEFSR41 Etherfast Cable/DSL Router. (Although I'm still waiting for the F#$#$$%^ing cable company to activate my service.)

What MOBO is your XP box? (mine is ECS K7S5A)

Queue
 
I've got an Abit KG7... pretty nice board... if it would stinking work!!!! Anyways... any ideas??

In CHRIST JESUS,

Brandon
 
Hmmm hmmmmm...

If I understand what you guys are saying, Intel and AMD are General Purpose Processors... If I take it a little further (:)), I understand that there are brands of processors done specially to deal with audio processing, am I right? If yes, which brands does this?

Thanks in advance
Beathoven
 
Beathoven,
Hold on there!!!

What was said was the Pentium 1 and AMD K62 were pretty general purpose processors.

Later generations of both started to include multimedia specific enhancements. MMX, SSE, 3DNow, etc.

The new AMD XP processors re-integrated the SSE instructions. If your soundcard will play friendly with a MOBO that supports one of these processors, they rock!!!

Brandon,
Each MOBO seems to have its own set of quirks...

What is your power supply's rating? Is it AMD approved for the XP 1600+? Also, have you tried some of the hardware related BBS's? I found tons of support for my board at OCWorkbench.com. There are really good BBS's at TomsHardware.com and AnandTech.com. Also some really active usenet newsgroups for the abit MOBOs, do a Google search.

Queue
 
Hey queue!! Thanks a lot for the links. I had all ready done a search on Google and found "Paul's unofficial FAQ" (of which I had also seen on Abit's site, but the link was bad) and followed some links from that site to various places. I'm about to post another thread on hardwarecentral.com. The first one was about my Windows problem. Thanks a lot for the links again. I'm gonna ch eck them out now. C-ya!!

In CHRIST JESUS,

Brandon
 
Queue:

I said that the pentium and k6-2 were General Purpose Processors, but this also extends up to the newer x86 based processors (pentium 3 and Athalon)

Although they may have been given an extended instruction set, they have still been designed with general data work in mind. My point was that by using DSP's (Digital Signal Processors) (Shark [motorola], TMS320c6x[Texas Instruments]) -- the CPU in your computer would be given half the workload.

Dedicated DSP is the way forward, and is FAAAAAAAAAAR more efficient than any Intel or Athalon Processor.

it's a fact that you can run more Reverbs on a 600Mhz DSP (TI) than on a 1.5Ghz Intel P3 --- And to top it off, with a fraction of the memory requirements, and a fraction of the power dissipation. Most DSP's don't require a cooling fan or a grill!

The advent of the newer DSP based PCI cards, such as the new TC-Electronics card (can't remember the name) is a blessing in disguise. The fact that they seamlessly integrate into cubase is even better (although i'm a hardcore Logic user).

This is the way we should be going, forget trying to do everything on one big power hungry inefficient chip. By cutting the job down and giving each specific job to a specific chip, the amount of control and power shoots through the roof.

The people at Pro Tools(digidesign) and Paris(EMU) realised this a long time ago. Let the CPU in your machine deal with the streaming of the data back and forth to the hard disk and soundcard - thats what it's best at. But then let DSP do all the number crunching for you.

So, whats the cost of all this stuff, well, thats the problem, Pro Tools and Paris are both pretty expensive (although prices on paris are tumbling), but, for about £280 you can buy a Creamware luna II, packed with 5 DSP's on board, which can be put to any use, from Reverb's and compression through to a sampler or a synth, which puts zero work on the CPU.

So, my point is... There is no way that you can classify something thats based on the x86 architecture as anything but a General Purpose Processor, even with the code extentions. Look under the hood of a DSP and a GPP and you will see that there is a BIIIIIG difference in design.

rant over. go back to your wives.

d
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top