is low end Pentium 4 okay for recording?

  • Thread starter Thread starter daddymac
  • Start date Start date
D

daddymac

New member
Circuit City had a great buy on a HP desktop this week. It ran a Pentium 4 with Hyper threading, but it was a low end P4, with 1meg cache - model 524 I think. Still ran at 3.0 Gig.

Is that processor going to be okay for modest multi-tracking?

thanks
 
I have a 2.66ghz 1mb cache pentium 4 w/ 1gb ddr, and it runs great. I just recently over clocked it to 2.9 and it's even better, but you should be ok. I would however, build a computer from scratch instead of buying a namebrand computer. They do usually put the cheaper parts inside their computer ie, memory, motherboard, drives etc. I also have a 3ghz dual core Pentium D w/ 2gb ddr that I'm building & a AMD x2 3800 w/ the same, building.
 
daddymac said:
Circuit City had a great buy on a HP desktop this week. It ran a Pentium 4 with Hyper threading, but it was a low end P4, with 1meg cache - model 524 I think. Still ran at 3.0 Gig.

Is that processor going to be okay for modest multi-tracking?

thanks
Click to expand...
I'm recording on a 1 ghz Duron!
You'll be OK! ;)
 
Here's an excerpt from an article written in Dec 1999 from prorec.com that I enjoy on this topic.

-----

"Black and White Movie" was cut in my studio, using Cakewalk Pro Audio v.9 and a MOTU 1224 audio interface. My primary DAW is a “Roll Your Own” computer (Celeron 300A @ 450 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 3x 20 GB EIDE hard disks, yada yada yada). Other than having a lot of online disk storage (60 GB) this is a pretty average computer by today’s standards. It is capable of performing most of my recording needs, though I can always use more CPU bandwidth. I guess the point here is that I am NOT using the latest, greatest computer hardware.

See, I do NOT consider the cost of a computer to be an “investment” in my studio. Repeat: the computer is not an investment. It is an expense, not an asset. The reason for this is that computers simply depreciate far too quickly to consider them an investment. Also, to purchase state-of-the-art computer technology you usually have to spend five to ten times what you would spend on “decent” computer technology.

I tend to stay practical in my selection of technology. In my view, whatever will get you there the cheapest is often the right choice. This may sound like heresy our world of More Bigger Better Faster NOW! I just feel that for many people, having the biggest, fastest, most powerful computer is seldom related to Getting The Work Done and usually related to some kind of Big Dick Contest.

You heard me right. The recording market - a male-dominated market for better or worse (for worse, if you ask me) preys and profits on male ego insecurity. This same biological imperative that tells me that I need a new BMW M3 and a new wardrobe and a new, extremely sleazy girlfriend also tells me that whatever new, cool hardware I don't own makes me inferior to the guy who owns it. I try hard not to listen to that imperative. It ALWAYS gets me into trouble.
 
I was running Logic Audio in the mid nineties very well on a 300hz machine. Multi-track recording was not a problem. Mixing presented some challenges, and I had to be be judicious in my use and choice of plug ins.

My current PC is substantially faster (2.8mhz) and so the process is overall much easier, but I am chronicly short of HD space (because I am too slack to get bigger hard drives). I am still using Windows ME.

The point is that it all works. When things stop working, then I get better stuff.
 
I got an old P3 and 128ram, 40 gig up and recording with help from the gang here...frkn great.
up to 6 tracks so far no problem with effects.

I went to add memory and found I can by an entire system for a mere $100 more for a brand new tower with a hell of alot more stuff....
its never ending I guess.

its all relevant, I'll probably do 3 songs a year....mostly 2 track live demo stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top