Thinking about upgrading the CPU, which one should I get?

K

KingDiamond

New member
Currently I have a Intel Core2 Duo E6550 (2.33Ghz) overclocked to 3.4Ghz and I'm still hitting the max CPU level when running Cubase 3SX with some plug-ins and a couple of instances of EZ Drummer (I use parts from different kits). I'm thinking about upgrading the CPU to something faster and I just read about the E8400 and it's getting really good reviews. I can buy one for $180 and I'm hoping to overclock it to at least 4Ghz. My question is, for a DAW am I better off with a 2 core CPU or a quad core like the Q6600? A local store has the Q6600 for $199 and it has four cores running at 2.4Ghz each. Does software like Cubase take advantage of a quad core processor or not?
 
KingDiamond said:
Does software like Cubase take advantage of a quad core processor or not?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. I am surprised you are hitting the ceiling with it though. I have benchmarked my E6600 with 3g of ram and I can hit 50-60 tracks with mad plugins before I max it out. I would try running it stock and see what you get, overclocking is not what you want for stability. How much memory do you have? A sampler like ezdrummer will be more dependant on your ram than CPU
 
Yea that is really odd, i'm using pro tools with a large assortment of hungry plugins and get nowhere near maxing out my e6650.

What motherboard are you using? What ram [what speed, how much, brand]?


I've got a gigabyte p35-ds3 and 4gb (2x2gb sticks) of ddr2 800 corsair ram
 
I have 2GB of DDR2 PC2-6400 Wintech AmpX memory. I know it's pretty good memory. I run WindowsXP 32-bit though so if I upgrade to 4GB I will only see about 3.4GB from what I've heard.

Just one instance of Amplitube2 uses 8% of my CPU, some projects I have 4 instances of Amplitube2 so that's 32% right there.

Also I thought EZDrummer does disk caching so it runs the samples off of the disk drive instead of loading it all into memory. I might be wrong though. I know that EZDrummer runs fast on 44.1Khz but I'm doing my projects at 96Khz so it has to resample it to 96Khz and it says it's 518MB in the EZDrummer window.

My projects in Cubase usually consist of about 30 tracks if you include all of the EZDrummer tracks.

I have no problem running new games and my computer scores really high on benchmark tests so I don't think it's a hardware issue.
 
[not to be a smart ass] If you don't think its a hardware issue, why are you thinking of upgrading your hardware?

You're right about win xp only addressing 3gb of ram, but to me that is 33% over using 2gb, so that seems a significant improvement..no?

Also, I agree ^^ go 24/44.1 and see if it makes a difference, and if you can hear the difference [not trying to start a 65 page 44.1 VS 96 thread]
 
wreckd504 said:
[not to be a smart ass] If you don't think its a hardware issue, why are you thinking of upgrading your hardware?

You're right about win xp only addressing 3gb of ram, but to me that is 33% over using 2gb, so that seems a significant improvement..no?

Also, I agree ^^ go 24/44.1 and see if it makes a difference, and if you can hear the difference [not trying to start a 65 page 44.1 VS 96 thread]
Click to expand...

I just thought people here were trying to imply that something might be wrong with my computer and that's why it runs slowly.
 
if you are maxing out the cpu try bouncing the drums to one stereo audio track mute the others so cubase is not using them , do the same with the amplitube tracks and work on one piece of the song at a time, (if you dont like how is sounds delete the copy track and alter the original and do the same again)this should free up plenty of cpu power,its abit time consuming but will take the strain of the cpu

failing that track the drum track with the shitty cubase sounds whilst you record the other tracks once there all complete do the ezdrummer track
 
He means use the LM-7 VSTi while you're tracking to save RAM/CPU power, and then when you're done tracking, add in ezdrummer.
Or at least, that's how I understood it.
 
Yeah, I have the exact CPU you have with the 4gigs of ram at 32 bit. I'm definately gonna check out a 64 bit version of xp soon, so I can get use of 8 gigs of ram. I use a hell of a lot of plugs. Mostly Wave stuff. Sometimes DFHS, but not more than 1 instance of a cpu hog like EZ. I can get around 60 tracks before dropout. Try the 44.1. You'll have to strart from scratch. When you want to work on you 96k stuff you just have to switch it back in you daw to open up the file. But, yeah try the 44.1.
 
i think really all you have to do is adjust your workflow a bit and freeze some tracks while you are not actively using them. The point about running everything at 96 may be the cause since you are effectively doubling the amount of data that has to be processed
 
Two of the options already mentioned would DOUBLE solve your problem....

44/24 & Q6600 and you're in business

I was in your same situation not long ago. (similar setup. I use Cubase4, Core2Duo e6600, 3gb PC8500) With a 96k session, I just couldn't do a mix the way I wanted unless bouncing tracks, but that can get be a hassle when you just want to fly through the session and load, load, load all you need to get a good mix up and running in a flash.

I changed everything from there on out to 44.1kHz and gained LOTS more performance since it's only half the data needed to be processed.

To answer your original post, I would go with the Q6600 since Cubase does a good job balancing the work load with all 4 cores, essentially doubling your mix capacity. (I'm about to do the same upgrade, I've been looking into it for awhile now)

You probably already know, but in case you not, Cubase.net is a great info base along with Nuendo.com

Lots of guys on there using the Q6600 to pile on the mega audio workload.....
 
P.S.

$199 is a good price for the Q6600

But if it's the "B3 Stepping" CPU, then you will have trouble overclocking it.
Make sure it's the "G0 Stepping" (SLACR) if you plan to overclock.

(Big difference between the chip, the latter is just Intel's more recent batch of Q6600's
B3 was the first release of that chip)

Take care my friend.
 
Are you sure it's CPU and not disk I/O?

I'm running an AMD X2 5200+ with 2gb ram and a WD raptor 150 drive. Working on a project in cubase now with 30 tracks 96k with mad amounts of plugins and am only at about half cpu.
 
Are you running lots of processes in the background?
You really shouldn't be able to max out your current CPU with what you're doing!

Running a virus scan might not be a bad idea either.

Check out process explorer and see what's really running (task manager gives you only half the story):
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx

You can also save on power by using sends for reverbs instead of putting a seperate reverb on each channel - although you may already be doing this.
 
I converted one of my projects that was at 96K/24bit to 44.1K/24Bit and now the CPU meter is only at 10% when it was 95% before. I think the sample rate was bogging down my computer. I think Amplitube doesn't work too well at high sample rates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top