C
c9-2001
New member
not to mention the 3.4 and 4 gig amd hammers are the first 64bit CPU's...
X
xalien
New member
What's the fastest computer out there?
I work at Sun Microsystems, and we make some very fast computers. The Sun Fire 15k can hold up to 106 processors.
http://www.sun.com/servers/highend/sunfire15k/
However, with a fully loaded price of $4 million it might be out of your price range.
Also, I'm not sure if there are good sound cards available?
I work at Sun Microsystems, and we make some very fast computers. The Sun Fire 15k can hold up to 106 processors.
http://www.sun.com/servers/highend/sunfire15k/
However, with a fully loaded price of $4 million it might be out of your price range.
Also, I'm not sure if there are good sound cards available?
S
SirRiff
New member
OH man,
Greetings,
xalien get out of here with your 2nd rate systems. HALF a terabyte of memory? that won't even get me 10,000 tracks of 32/192 audio! How the hell do you expect me to work with that.
172.8 GBps peak bandwidth??? uh hello, if its not 10,000 rpm scsi its crap.
Get back to me when you got some power
Tounge firmly planted in cheek,
SirRiff
Greetings,
xalien get out of here with your 2nd rate systems. HALF a terabyte of memory? that won't even get me 10,000 tracks of 32/192 audio! How the hell do you expect me to work with that.
172.8 GBps peak bandwidth??? uh hello, if its not 10,000 rpm scsi its crap.
Get back to me when you got some power
Tounge firmly planted in cheek,
SirRiff
elevate
New member
Over at AnandTech they seem to think that ClawHammers will not debut until quarter four of this year and will only be at 2Ghz. Sledgehammer won't be out till sometime in 2003. I also don't see how it is THE fastest chip, it's not like it's gonna be the last cpu ever made.
I'm not sure why you think this. You've never heard of Itanium, Alpha, MIPS, PA-RISC, SPARC, or Power4? Regardless, I'm not sure how much 64-bit will affect audio work, if at all.
gbondo9
p3n
I agree this could be a never ending thread, so hopefully this will be my last thread on it, but theres also the mac G4 option. Dual processor(Im not sure how they benchmark next to the AMD's and Intel's, but I know they are alot faster than you would think). 128bit bus, yadda yadda yadda. It would be worth checking out.
Todd
Todd
elevate
New member
Actually, based on the benchmarks I've seen, they're a lot slower than I expected. Whether this is due to the SMP implementation in X or a chipset issue I don't know, but the dual 1Ghz has been rather underwhelming.
gbondo9
p3n
mabey its just a sales pitch by the company iteslf, but I was going off the apple website for the benchmarks:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
This links also lists all the specs and options you have for the g4's.
Ive used the dual G4 several times and found it to plow though the stuff I had it doing (Graphics editing, Cd Burning, DVD's), but Ive never recorded audio on it. I have been in a studio that had the full Pro tools on a G4 and we had 16 tracks with effects running on it. Sounded great. That just my experience though.
Todd
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
This links also lists all the specs and options you have for the g4's.
Ive used the dual G4 several times and found it to plow though the stuff I had it doing (Graphics editing, Cd Burning, DVD's), but Ive never recorded audio on it. I have been in a studio that had the full Pro tools on a G4 and we had 16 tracks with effects running on it. Sounded great. That just my experience though.
Todd
elevate
New member
Never trust benchmarks from the manufacturer's website. They all lie, and Apple happens to be the worst I've seen. They don't tell you anything about the computers they allegedly "tested". For all we know, the P4 rig could have 64MB of RAM and a 4000 RPM hard drive, while the Macs could have a gig of RAM and 15,000 RPM SCSI drives. They also don't tell you what part of Photoshop they tested, never mind the fact that based on other cross-platform application benchmarks, Photoshop performs exceedingly well on Macs, yet a Mac is still not the fastest platform for Photoshop work. Both Intel and AMD offer faster solutions, and for less money.
Check this site for details.
Check this site for details.
gbondo9
p3n
Cool site.
Maybe Im pulling something different out of it than others though cause what I see is that an 867MHz G4 CPU is outperforming the 1400 MHz Athlon. As far a a benchmark performance, I consider that damn impressive, the AMD is almost twice its "speed". Espically when Ive seen benchmarks that are saying that AMD's outperform Intel's. The Athlon XP Performance in this test is impressive, but Id like to see one more up to date with the 1GHz G4's vs the Athlon XP Series (which I will begin looking for as soon as Im done posting.). I wouldnt be supprised if Athlon wins that race, as their R&D has obviosly been working their asses of recently.
Your right about the Apple site not listing their competitions specs, but I didnt see any specs on this page either.
I geuss not many of these tests are comprehesive though because so many things are not tested, and there are to many other factors.
Todd
Maybe Im pulling something different out of it than others though cause what I see is that an 867MHz G4 CPU is outperforming the 1400 MHz Athlon. As far a a benchmark performance, I consider that damn impressive, the AMD is almost twice its "speed". Espically when Ive seen benchmarks that are saying that AMD's outperform Intel's. The Athlon XP Performance in this test is impressive, but Id like to see one more up to date with the 1GHz G4's vs the Athlon XP Series (which I will begin looking for as soon as Im done posting.). I wouldnt be supprised if Athlon wins that race, as their R&D has obviosly been working their asses of recently.
Your right about the Apple site not listing their competitions specs, but I didnt see any specs on this page either.
I geuss not many of these tests are comprehesive though because so many things are not tested, and there are to many other factors.
Todd
elevate
New member
That site I listed doesn't have any config data listed, but if you follow the links at the bottom of the page, you'll find all the info you need. All the results posted there are from completely documented machines. What's interesting to note is that the 1.4Ghz Athlon gets thumped by the 1533 XP (a slower cpu) and absolutely trampled by the 1700 XP, which is only .07Ghz faster. The dual Ghz Mac might be at the top of that list, but you have to consider the fact that there are 2100 XP's out that would outperform the Mac easily...not to mention a dual Athlon 2000.
That site's results are a bit dated (unless you use a Mac
), but the links at the bottom should take you to some more recent results, though you'll have to do some digging.
That site's results are a bit dated (unless you use a Mac
), but the links at the bottom should take you to some more recent results, though you'll have to do some digging.
C
c9-2001
New member
that test is full of shit, i just saw some benchmarks the other day and the G4 wasn't anywhere near any of the other setups with photoshop and other programs, that test is on apple's site, of corse they are gonna say its the best. same thing goes for amd and intel, on a intel site it will show the benchmarks higher on the P4 chips over athlon and atlonXP's... look for a different benchmark. i'll see if i can find the links i was at.
elevate
New member
What test are you referring to?
E
engineear
New member
fastest computer out there.................the grey matter betwixt your ears, however the ears probably ring like a bastard from years of ear abuse, like most of us, so increased track counts,word lengths and resolution ain't gonna matter. God I love this board. If you listen long and hard enough those little yellow smiley faces emit a Franuhaufer sodium d line that you can hear...........wait.......wait they said................Pokemon is gay!!!!! You heard it here first!
Hard2Hear
New member
CJ-
I think you know me and my experience with computers ans recording to understand what I'm about to say. So this story is individually for you, and not for any other opinions that may try to contradict me.
I worked network and PC support for Federated Department Stores before going into the music industry, and I purchased around 1000-1500 PC's per year, always near the top of the line. I have worked on PC's since a tape drive was a casette tape on an old AT clone. I use a PC myself in my HOME studio. When I got it, it was the fastest thing around...it's a P3 1ghz, 512mb ram..etc. I was happy doing my projects at home and fir a few people with light demands.
Then I started working in REAL studios, where they charge $15,000 and UP per day to record..and they're booked solid. Every one of these places use Macs. I didn't like Macs, I was unfamiliar with the hardware and software...I mean, I'm a PC guy, right? Well, after experiencing the difference, let's just say that my next computer is 100% going to be a Mac.
I still can't explain the exact differences, but the Macs are tailored for audio recording. Forget any benchmarks people have out there. I think benchmark nuts should go to a studio using Pro Tools or Digital Performer and SEE the difference. We were just using Digital Performer in the B studio and had 26 tracks, compressions on most, active eq on all, and delays AND reverbs...no problem, no pops, clicks, slowdowns, glitches, hitches, or anything else. The Mac there is a Dual 1Ghz G4, so it's not cheap, but it blows away any PC I have ever seen trying to run audio.
Not to mention, the configuration is just so easy. It's easy to see how far the inventors of plug and play have come. Things just work, no meddlng with settings, or trying to MAKE things work, like I have gotten used to on PC's. Oh, at the mixing studio, they had a similar Mac, but running Pro Tools cards, I think it had 2 mix and 2 farm cards in it......woah, talk about power!
Anyways, my point is that if yuo get relly serious about audio recording, you need to step up to the real pro medium, which right now are Macs. And this is coming from an Anti-Mac PC warrior in the past. If you have any specific questions you want to know, feel free to email me and we'll talk!
H2H
I think you know me and my experience with computers ans recording to understand what I'm about to say. So this story is individually for you, and not for any other opinions that may try to contradict me.
I worked network and PC support for Federated Department Stores before going into the music industry, and I purchased around 1000-1500 PC's per year, always near the top of the line. I have worked on PC's since a tape drive was a casette tape on an old AT clone. I use a PC myself in my HOME studio. When I got it, it was the fastest thing around...it's a P3 1ghz, 512mb ram..etc. I was happy doing my projects at home and fir a few people with light demands.
Then I started working in REAL studios, where they charge $15,000 and UP per day to record..and they're booked solid. Every one of these places use Macs. I didn't like Macs, I was unfamiliar with the hardware and software...I mean, I'm a PC guy, right? Well, after experiencing the difference, let's just say that my next computer is 100% going to be a Mac.
I still can't explain the exact differences, but the Macs are tailored for audio recording. Forget any benchmarks people have out there. I think benchmark nuts should go to a studio using Pro Tools or Digital Performer and SEE the difference. We were just using Digital Performer in the B studio and had 26 tracks, compressions on most, active eq on all, and delays AND reverbs...no problem, no pops, clicks, slowdowns, glitches, hitches, or anything else. The Mac there is a Dual 1Ghz G4, so it's not cheap, but it blows away any PC I have ever seen trying to run audio.
Not to mention, the configuration is just so easy. It's easy to see how far the inventors of plug and play have come. Things just work, no meddlng with settings, or trying to MAKE things work, like I have gotten used to on PC's. Oh, at the mixing studio, they had a similar Mac, but running Pro Tools cards, I think it had 2 mix and 2 farm cards in it......woah, talk about power!
Anyways, my point is that if yuo get relly serious about audio recording, you need to step up to the real pro medium, which right now are Macs. And this is coming from an Anti-Mac PC warrior in the past. If you have any specific questions you want to know, feel free to email me and we'll talk!
H2H
elevate
New member
Hard2Hear
New member
Why the eyes, elevate? Just because of your opinion. Lets see...whose using Pro Tools right now? Hmmm, it's easier to list whose NOT using Pro Tools. And guess what? They're using Macs to run it on. I even saw an Aerosmith special the other night, where they were talking about Pro Tools. The old school has joined the new.
What is your studio background anyways? How many large studios have YOU seen running a PC for digital audio recording? I'm just curious. I can give studio and artist lists that I have seen and heard with my own ears.
As I said, CJ and I have had alot of back and forth and helped each other out during our stay here at hr.com. I'm just giving a friend my advise. If you don't like it..I really don't care.
H2H
oh, sorry for the typo, i know how to spell *you*, I really do
What is your studio background anyways? How many large studios have YOU seen running a PC for digital audio recording? I'm just curious. I can give studio and artist lists that I have seen and heard with my own ears.
As I said, CJ and I have had alot of back and forth and helped each other out during our stay here at hr.com. I'm just giving a friend my advise. If you don't like it..I really don't care.
H2H
oh, sorry for the typo, i know how to spell *you*, I really do
elevate
New member
One (and they had a Mac too). All the others I've been in have had Macs, and I always inquire as to what was the compelling reason for choosing a Mac. They all responded with something like: "Well, that's what this other guy said was best." As far as I could tell, nobody had done any research, they just got a Mac because somebody else has a Mac. I'm not saying this is how it is for every studio, but it's the case in every one I've been in. The one studio that had a PC had the Mac first. The engineer did some research and got himself a PC and it now gets more use than the Mac.
I realize this is all anecdotal evidence and should be taken with a grain of salt. An analogy would be Photoshop. Used to be if you were using Photoshop, you were using a Mac. For a while a Windows version didn't even exist, and then when it did, it was abysmal. Now Adobe sells more copies of Photoshop for Windows than it does for Mac, and the primary reason is probably because it works just as good on a PC as it does on a Mac (except it'll run faster on a cheaper PC). Now look at Pro Tools. Pro Tools for Windows is kinda like those early versions of Photoshop for Windows - slow, painful UI, unstable, etc... Until Pro Tools is solid on Windows, why would anyone risk their $20,000+ investment on a possibly unstable solution?
Also, I really couldn't care less who uses Pro Tools. You talk as if Pro Tools is some magical recording solution of the gods. Aerosmith uses Pro Tools, whoopee!
Anyway, your post and mine are besides the point of this thread, which has nothing to do with Pro Tools whatsoever.