Speed!!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter stray411
  • Start date Start date
stray411

stray411

New member
Processor speed is a common misconceptions in PC recording and in PCs in general. Your computer is only going to be as fast as your slowest "link in the chain". There are other considerations here. Bus speed is a major factor, you don't want to deal with anything slower than 400 mhz, foget that Pc-100/133 s**t. Hard drive speed is also vital to recording to a PC. In my experience 5400 RPM is too slow unless you have just a minimal amount of tracks. If you're looking to do full blown production with 24 tracks at 24 bit you'll need a 7200 RPM drive.

I meant to comment on the chip and mb, but I'm out the door right now. I'll post recommendations later.

Stray
 
stray411 said:
Processor speed is a common misconceptions in PC recording and in PCs in general. Your computer is only going to be as fast as your slowest "link in the chain". There are other considerations here. Bus speed is a major factor, you don't want to deal with anything slower than 400 mhz, foget that Pc-100/133 s**t. Hard drive speed is also vital to recording to a PC. In my experience 5400 RPM is too slow unless you have just a minimal amount of tracks. If you're looking to do full blown production with 24 tracks at 24 bit you'll need a 7200 RPM drive.

I meant to comment on the chip and mb, but I'm out the door right now. I'll post recommendations later.

Stray
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok...

Try running a ton of DXi effects plug ins on your recorded tracks with a slower computer!

You're really missing the mark buddy.

Ditto on the 400Mhz bus thing. Where the hell did you pull that from?!?
 
Ditto on the 400Mhz bus thing. Where the hell did you pull that from?!?
Click to expand...

I can only assume he's referring to the memory clock speed on P4 motherboards that use RDRAM, which does increase performance, but it still isn't the bus speed. 400mhz memory clock equates to 100mhz bus speed, I believe.

I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. The fact that faster drives and faster bus speeds improve performance is not a mystery - and hey, guess what? Faster processors improve performace too.
 
Memory bandwidth was not the huge bottleneck everybody thought it would be.....however, I think that Intel's push for RDRAM speaks more about the future than the state of things today. (the future of course being as close as next week in computer time)

I do agree with the intial poster that CPU speed isn't everything. I'm from the new old school that would prefer a slower stable machine to an instable machine that puts up big numbers. In other words, LONG LIVE BX! :) haha

Slackmaster 2000
 
What!

Sorry, I accidentially hit new thread instead of post reply, this was a response to another thread here. That being said, I can understand why this doesn't seem to make sense. What I don't understand is why people like the above posters make uninformed comments attempting to make some else look stupid. Ego boost for wanna be brainiacs I guess.

----> I didn't know they made 400 Mhz motherboards...

Who ever said they did?? Motherboard is not spelled Bus last I checked.

----> Ditto on the 400Mhz bus thing. Where the hell did you pull that from?!?

Looks like some of you need to delve a little deeper into computer science and mechanics before you make your comments.

----> Try running a ton of DXi effects plug ins on your recorded tracks with a slower computer!

Who the hell was talking about a slower computer? Where was that even touched upon?

----> You're really missing the mark buddy.

Is this where you put the newbie in there place??

----> 400mhz memory clock equates to 100mhz bus speed, I believe.

That's somewhat accurate I guess, but as 100 mhz would send 1 bit of data a 400 mhz bus would send 4 bits or Quad Pump the data using a 100mhz bus. But how that equates I can't really see, they are similar in that they both use a 100mhz bus, but not equal in that they send different amounts of data. Does that mean if I give you a dollar you'll give me $4, hey they both are based off a dollar bill so they equate right ????

----> I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. The fact that faster drives and faster bus speeds improve performance is not a mystery - and hey, guess what? Faster processors improve performace too.

You could have ended that statement at the 1st sentence. The latter part of your comment has no bearing on my post whatsoever. I wasn't claiming to have solved any great mystery. The post I responded to was asking for suggestions on building a PC suitable for audio recording. There was plenty of suggestions as to what processor and chip set to use I was merely adding to the whole picture by stating the need for a fast system bus and hard drive as I didn't see that stated. As a PC Tech support agent I know first hand that most people buy PCs soley based on processor speed and as I've described that is not the only consideration to make. Why you people took issue with that is a matter I guess you should consider but your arguments are absolutely irrevelant and moreover incorrect.

Stray
 
I still don't get it. You tell everybody else they're dense for not believing your claims of 400mhz bus speeds, then you admit you don't really know how it works or what's what?

Why we took issue with it is because you posted a thread that seemed bearingless and had questionable content. The fact that you meant to post it as a reply is irrelevant as we didn't know that until now.
 
As I stated earlier, I understand how this was confusing as it wasn't posted in the proper place and I understand you would have had no way of knowing that. However, I'm not sure what you mean by or where you saw an admission that I don't know how a 400 mhz bus works. It's very clearly stated in my previous reply. I can't understand what you mean by questionable content as everything I stated is fact, not opinion and not biased.
 
Well, I guess we're both right, but the problem is you never clarified the 400mhz bus issue, which I did. Some people may not be aware that Intel adds a memory controller into the mix to ciphon down that 400mhz to 100mhz (or 533 to 133) once it gets to the PCI bus. It was questionable because you just said "bus". Your statement is true for the front side bus, but false for the PCI bus. I never said it was an opinion or bias (though you thinking nobody should use anything with a "bus" speed less than 400mhz smells a bit biased).
 
Re: What!

stray411 said:
Sorry, I accidentially hit new thread instead of post reply, this was a response to another thread here. That being said, I can understand why this doesn't seem to make sense. What I don't understand is why people like the above posters make uninformed comments attempting to make some else look stupid. Ego boost for wanna be brainiacs I guess.

----> I didn't know they made 400 Mhz motherboards...

Who ever said they did?? Motherboard is not spelled Bus last I checked.

----> Ditto on the 400Mhz bus thing. Where the hell did you pull that from?!?

Looks like some of you need to delve a little deeper into computer science and mechanics before you make your comments.

----> Try running a ton of DXi effects plug ins on your recorded tracks with a slower computer!

Who the hell was talking about a slower computer? Where was that even touched upon?

----> You're really missing the mark buddy.

Is this where you put the newbie in there place??

----> 400mhz memory clock equates to 100mhz bus speed, I believe.

That's somewhat accurate I guess, but as 100 mhz would send 1 bit of data a 400 mhz bus would send 4 bits or Quad Pump the data using a 100mhz bus. But how that equates I can't really see, they are similar in that they both use a 100mhz bus, but not equal in that they send different amounts of data. Does that mean if I give you a dollar you'll give me $4, hey they both are based off a dollar bill so they equate right ????

----> I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. The fact that faster drives and faster bus speeds improve performance is not a mystery - and hey, guess what? Faster processors improve performace too.

You could have ended that statement at the 1st sentence. The latter part of your comment has no bearing on my post whatsoever. I wasn't claiming to have solved any great mystery. The post I responded to was asking for suggestions on building a PC suitable for audio recording. There was plenty of suggestions as to what processor and chip set to use I was merely adding to the whole picture by stating the need for a fast system bus and hard drive as I didn't see that stated. As a PC Tech support agent I know first hand that most people buy PCs soley based on processor speed and as I've described that is not the only consideration to make. Why you people took issue with that is a matter I guess you should consider but your arguments are absolutely irrevelant and moreover incorrect.

Stray
Click to expand...

>>>>Processor speed is a common misconceptions in PC recording and in PCs in general.<<<<


>>>>----> Try running a ton of DXi effects plug ins on your recorded tracks with a slower computer!

Who the hell was talking about a slower computer? Where was that even touched upon? <<<<

Hmmm...speed is described as something being slow or fast. You brought it up in your very first words. Even though the relation of the Mhz rating of a particular chip to processing power is not a direct relation anymore, a computers performance is measured by how fast it can perform a task.

You telling me otherwise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top