Need a new Motherboard/CPU

  • Thread starter Thread starter jamtheguitarman
  • Start date Start date
jamtheguitarman

jamtheguitarman

New member
Im currently using an Asus K8ve Deluxe 754 socket Motherboard and an AMD64 2400 CPU.


I built this system like 4 years ago or something and its still running great, im just running out of processing power too quickly when i fire up Reaktor and some other synths/effects.


Any suggestions on what to get at the moment?


Is it worth waiting for anything as at the moment as im in no real hurry really?


Cheers
 
If you like AMD, check out the new quad processors. I don't know if they have more boards out for these procs, but if they do, it's definitely worth looking into. Very competitive pricing for a quad.
 
If you like AMD, check out the new quad processors. I don't know if they have more boards out for these procs, but if they do, it's definitely worth looking into. Very competitive pricing for a quad.

I was under the impression that they were waiting to release the "barcelona" quad core, which would be their first foray into that market.

Have i missed something?
 
I can reccomend the ASUS P5K deluxe.
It's based on the Intel P35 chipset - which you should be able to shove new CPUs in for some time.
It also has a decent firewire chipset. I put a MOTU UltraLite in it last night and all is working nicely :)

The Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 looks to be good bang for buck, if your DAW software supports multi-threading.
If it doesn't, then the Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 would be a good bet (it's still good to have more than one core).

The new AMD chips look to be rather underwhelming unfortunatly.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-out-of-the-gate-to-a-lukewarm-reception.html
 
I can reccomend the ASUS P5K deluxe.
It's based on the Intel P35 chipset - which you should be able to shove new CPUs in for some time.
It also has a decent firewire chipset. I put a MOTU UltraLite in it last night and all is working nicely :)

The Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 looks to be good bang for buck, if your DAW software supports multi-threading.
If it doesn't, then the Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 would be a good bet (it's still good to have more than one core).

The new AMD chips look to be rather underwhelming unfortunatly.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...-out-of-the-gate-to-a-lukewarm-reception.html


I second the Asus P5K deluxwe. Just set up a computer with that and a Core duo 6550. So far it's rock solid stable and plenty fast for me. And, as Codmate said, it should be upgradeable fo a long time....


BTW - this is coming from a long time AMD fan.
 
AMD Barcelona and Phenom are both flops, once again, for AMD. Barcelona was the competition for Xeon and Phenom was to me the competition for Core2. Problem is current Core2 still smokes it in everything except for a couple tests designed "just" for the AMD architecture, even on those its a dead heat. But the AMD is more money per ghz, and this doesn't even include the Penryn chips, which are now shipping from Intel. We're talking a stock chip (QX9650) that is 1333mhz, 3ghz quad on a low voltage and low heat 45nm die that overclocks with the stock cooling to 4Ghz without breaking a sweat. And the 1600 fsb models will ship in Q1. On a side note, Intel has finally developing with nvidia for a SLI capable Intel mobo. So AMD is pretty much dead.

I'd go with the Intel DP35DP or the Intel DX38BT, both which we've tested and have passed with flying colors for Pro Audio. Ship of your choice, the two best values at the moment being the E6850 dualcore and the Q6600 Quad, which can be easily OCd to 3Ghz to match the performance of the QX6850 at way less money. Either of these intel mobos will accept the upcoming Penryn chips, so you're good to go. X38 uses DDR3 ($$), which shows some awesome performance for CPU-memory throughput on the latest chips we have tested out. X38 also provides some very good overclocking while keeping Intel stability that no other mobo manufacturer can touch, hands down.

And so you know, I build more recording computers in 2 days time than most people will in their lifetime.
 
Damn, i liked AMD. :(

The new AMD chips look to be rather underwhelming unfortunatly.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...reception.html

Thanks, interesting read.

I'd go with the Intel DP35DP or the Intel DX38BT......X38 uses DDR3 ($$)

I take it all my DDR2 ram would be rendered useless with the X38?


I dont actually see the Intel DP35DP on Ebuyer who are maybe the biggest components site in the uk, wonder why they dont have it. Still, it seems like the better option price wise for me i think.



Seeing as the Core duo and Quad Core are about the same price, what kind of difference would i expect?



Thanks for the help, very much appreciated.
 
Second on the DDR2/DDR3 thing, unless you have to future proof your machine and dont need to get to using it right away, stick with DDR2. The performance difference is marginal at best right now and saving money on both the mainboard and memory will give you a lot more to spend on processor. Besides, all the big features of the x38 have very little to do with audio work anyway (SLI? What for, RAID? Whatever) and you would be better served having more usable expansion slots than some monster video subsystem.

If you MUST go latest/greatest there are boards that will take both DDR2/DDR3 like this thing:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813186134

but again, I would much rather save the $ on the mobo and what you were going to pay for the memory, use what you have, and get a beast of a processor. The performance increase there will FAR exceed the difference between using DDR2 and DDR3 (right now anyway)
 
Actually, shared memory boards have always been problematic. And there are some great benefits for pro audio from X38, including the enhanced PCIe architecture. Ive been testing the board from Intel since Alpha production and its my favorite board for Pro Audio Ive ever used.
 
Actually, shared memory boards have always been problematic. And there are some great benefits for pro audio from X38, including the enhanced PCIe architecture. Ive been testing the board from Intel since Alpha production and its my favorite board for Pro Audio Ive ever used.

Um, what specifically makes it better? I can find maybe 3 audio cards based on PCI-E1 and 0 for PCI-E2 so more PCI-E lanes is not a reason. Same southbridge (basically), same amount of USB, same FSB
 
RME, MOTU, and UAD all use PCIe and those are our 3 main cards. PTHD PCIe, though not supported on PC, work well (slot config limits HD1-2). The Lynx will be out to the public early next year, and that will be all of the serious Pro Audio cards that we regularly use. A typical setup for us is 3 MADI cards, or 2 HDSP cards with multiple UADs, often using Magma chassis for expansion.

The board gives a reduction in latency compared to previous generation, as well as helping with tighter midi timing. Projects running at 64 buffer and hitting cpu loads of 70-80% could run on the X38 at a 48 buffer with slightly lower load, though same setup everywhere else, minus memory.
 
RME, MOTU, and UAD all use PCIe and those are our 3 main cards. PTHD PCIe, though not supported on PC, work well (slot config limits HD1-2). The Lynx will be out to the public early next year, and that will be all of the serious Pro Audio cards that we regularly use. A typical setup for us is 3 MADI cards, or 2 HDSP cards with multiple UADs, often using Magma chassis for expansion.


First off, there is ONE motu card that is PCI-E, ONE RME card, and ONE UAD product. Those are ALL PCI-E x1 cards (including the PTHD accels) they will perform identically under both P35 and X38, in fact P35 based boards usually have more 1x slots since they rarely have 2 16x slots. There are no PCI-E 2.0 based anythings, so why pay for something that wont be on the market for 2-3 years. The VAST majority of audio hardware is firewire with a sprinkle of PCI-E

The board gives a reduction in latency compared to previous generation, as well as helping with tighter midi timing. Projects running at 64 buffer and hitting cpu loads of 70-80% could run on the X38 at a 48 buffer with slightly lower load, though same setup everywhere else, minus memory.

What? Midi timings? Got a source for this theory of yours? The differences in the northbridge are limited to the new PCI-E bandwidth and have NOTHING to do with audio, its all video improvements. Midi runs at 31 Kbps, a modern FSB runs 30,000 times faster, PCI-E bandwidth has absolutely nothing to do with it

Maybe you should read this:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=689&p=6

www.legionhardware.com said:
For now we have determined that for those of you like us that prefer to use a single graphics card, there is little to no difference between the X38 and the P35 chipsets. In terms of performance they are very much the same, overclocking performance appears to be the same and both offer the same list of features. The key difference here is that the P35 has been around for quite some time now and high-end motherboards supporting this chipset can be had for between $150-$200 US. On the other hand we have the new X38 chipset which will be featured on boards priced between $250-$300 US initially, while pricing is expected to fall to around $200 US eventually.
 
Im thinking of building a new setup now and using my current one as a slave.


That could be fun :)
 
hey altitude, you can read all the internet articles you want. I actually test motherboards and build Pro Audio recording systems, about 3-4 per day. I get my experience first hand, not by reading other people opinions.

FYI, ALL the MOTU PCI based devices can be run off PCIe, and RME has 2 PCIe cards out, and 3 others we've tested for them, soon to hit the market.
 
anyone makes ridiculous claims like PCI-E 2.0 improves midi timing is suspect in my book. Got proof? Post it. I would love to see a A/B of a P35 and X38 in a DAW enviromnent and a technical reason other than "I test motherboards and build pro audio systems". I base my views on solid test results, not opinions
 
www.adkproaudio.com

just go to the benchmarks page.

We haven't posted all the X38 tests yet, as we've seen some significant changes with a different type of DDR3 1600 memory we're going to use. I test every chipset on the market, and build for Yamaha, Digico, Studer, Soundcraft, UA, IK, NI, RME, and many others. And you?
 
www.adkproaudio.com

just go to the benchmarks page.

We haven't posted all the X38 tests yet, as we've seen some significant changes with a different type of DDR3 1600 memory we're going to use. I test every chipset on the market, and build for Yamaha, Digico, Studer, Soundcraft, UA, IK, NI, RME, and many others. And you?

Listen, I dont care if your mandated by God to make DAWs for heaven. I am still waiting for a reasonable technical reason why a) midi latency would be better on different chipsets b) why increased PCI-E bandwidth has any impact on PCI-E 1x devices; both reasons you gave as to why ppl should shell out the extra $150 for a X38 chipset. All you seem to do is remind everybody that your work for ADK and cant answer a simple technical question.

And FYI, my qualifications include a degree in EECS from Umich and my current "real" job includes programing 8 bit micro controllers so be as technical as you want.
 
So what you're saying is that you don't actually build computers for Pro Audio and you don't actually listen to what every combination of components do to the audio. Specs can say whatever they want on paper, but what happens on a built Pro Audio system is very often completely different. Memory, Chipset,or a CPU can "benchmark" at a certian number on any given test, that really doesn't mean anything to me when it comes to Pro Audio. Me and the guys here have Pro Audio and audio engineering backgrounds, so we use the numbers and OUR EARS. Hey, in theory and on paper, the bandwidth of USB2 should let you record 24 tracks of audio, but I have yet to find a single device that will do even 4 very well.

When you're syncing devices, console automation, lighting, triggering synths, etc., there is definately a hearable quality change in MIDI timing. Tighter triggering compared to audio at given latencies, it definately changes. You do have to be able to know what to listen for. Some boards do it better than others, and sometimes they have the same processors and chipsets...one will just be better across the board. If its reproducable, thats what we go with.

I use an Intel P35 board in my own studio system. It works great for me, and I highly recommend it to almost anyone. If I was using a PCIe expansion chassis for a HD system, or for lots of UAD cards I'd personally want the X38 because when I tested it, they worked more consistantly on it. Audio systems are very finniky, especially when you are adding more and more PCI cards, as more people are doing these days, at least our clients.

Here's a good specific example of something I found in testing. When using a combination of UADs and MADI cards (all slots full on any given board), they will often totally change performance depending on which slots they are installed in. Sometimes the UAD in the wrong slot will cause the system to completely not post at all. Sometimes the card will load to a lower percentage before it starts having sound issues. One of the things I liked about the Intel X38 is that it performed more consistant moving the cards around to any slots.

Benchmarking sites, gamer info, super geek nerd talk, none of it matters to me. When I put components together and it sounds good, and works consistantly..THAT matters.

And your job sounds really boring.
 
So what you're saying is that you don't actually build computers for Pro Audio and you don't actually listen to what every combination of components do to the audio.

I build about a dozen machines a year with about 3-4 being DAWs, the rest are mid range machines for industrial DAQ/ Motion control use. I am not new to this.

When you're syncing devices, console automation, lighting, triggering synths, etc., there is definately a hearable quality change in MIDI timing. Tighter triggering compared to audio at given latencies, it definately changes. You do have to be able to know what to listen for. Some boards do it better than others, and sometimes they have the same processors and chipsets...one will just be better across the board. If its reproducable, thats what we go with.

I use an Intel P35 board in my own studio system. It works great for me, and I highly recommend it to almost anyone. If I was using a PCIe expansion chassis for a HD system, or for lots of UAD cards I'd personally want the X38 because when I tested it, they worked more consistantly on it. Audio systems are very finniky, especially when you are adding more and more PCI cards, as more people are doing these days, at least our clients.

Here's a good specific example of something I found in testing. When using a combination of UADs and MADI cards (all slots full on any given board), they will often totally change performance depending on which slots they are installed in. Sometimes the UAD in the wrong slot will cause the system to completely not post at all. Sometimes the card will load to a lower percentage before it starts having sound issues. One of the things I liked about the Intel X38 is that it performed more consistant moving the cards around to any slots.

Benchmarking sites, gamer info, super geek nerd talk, none of it matters to me. When I put components together and it sounds good, and works consistantly..THAT matters.

And all of that is completely irrelevant. My point was that for the original poster, who is running reactor, a P35 would be well suited for what he is doing and spending the extra $100 on a bigger processor would be a better solution than getting an x38 . I asked you a simple question as to why you though x38 was so superior, you gave a BS diluted answer, I called you on it, and your response was that "I build more DAWs in one day than most people their whole lives" so I dont know what I am talking about and then some long ass rant about stuff that 99% of people on Home recording.com will never see or use. Very useful.

And your job sounds really boring.
It's not. If you want to make this personal we can start on your grammar and spelling and go from there
 
Back
Top