Why do I need a dual-core system when my 80486 works just fine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wheelema
  • Start date Start date
wheelema

wheelema

Boner-obo
Just asking.

I need a blazing hot processor to run the goddamn OS and other bloatware, not to record. Needless to say this pisses me off. Once upon a time code was tight, right, and efficient. But now we're so caught up in snazzy graphics and new-releases-so-we-can-rake-in-more-money-more-money-more-money that operating systems and applications are the software equivalents of thousand pound people.

There are lots of people who are perfectly happy with the i486 PCs. Wish I still had mine. The crap I have now... sigh.
 
How much was that 486 system when it was new?
How much was your current system?
Are you starting to see the trend here?
 
I bought a new comp a month or two ago. It came with dual core standard.
I've noticed that running just 4 VSTs in a cakewalk 9.3 project uses up 19-20% of the processor. I think the p4 I was using, before it carked it, was about the same.
No great shakes there eh?
I'm happier with the RAM - I bought with XP rather than Visblah but still received the free (?) upgrade to 2 gig of RAM. That side of things goes pretty smoothly.
 
I'm still using a 1ghz P3 w/ 512 RAM. And I will continue to do so until it won't go anymore.
Most "upgrades" just seem to foul up things.
 
i486? 80486? wow... are you serious?

I recently built a 2.8ghz dual core AMD X2 5600+ based computer with 2 gb's of Corsair RAM and installed a Delta 1010 24/96 sound card and have no complaints whatsoever. In fact I've never used a computer at school or anywhere else that even compares to it in speed and usefulness. I couldn't be happier with mine!

Custom build PC is the only way to go, in my humble opinion.
 
wheelema said:
Once upon a time code was tight, right, and efficient. But now we're so caught up in snazzy graphics and new-releases-so-we-can-rake-in-more-money-more-money-more-money that operating systems and applications are the software equivalents of thousand pound people.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this utopia of efficient code you refer to was something that would inevitably disappear. It's easy to write tight, efficient code when it doesn't need to do much and when the only people writing it are both very smart and very dedicated.

Modern code needs to do so much more in order to be useful: interface with a huge variety of hardwares and their standards, interface with network users and their lack of standards, do all this securely, and do this all in a simple and user-friendly manner because not everyone who uses computers is a nerd/genius anymore.

If you could get old software to work on new hardware, you'd be set! :D
 
I've got a 68040 25Mhz MacIIci somewhere in storage that I started out with; was able to run 4 and 5 tracks with no problem.

My first PC daw was a PentiumII 450mhz with 400Mb Ram and 2 drives -- I got up to playing back 31 16bit/44.1khz tracks with no effects. Still runs but I havent used it in awhile...

I still use a single-core 2.8Ghz laptop, but with Reaper I can offload my vst's to 2 other 3Ghz PCs on my home network and will run 35 24bit/44.1khz tracks at only 15% CPU capacity.


...... If you're running out of CPU, you're just doing it wrong......
 
Last edited:
I did a recent track - Sewer/Night Out on an old P3 with 512 ram and a Santa Cruz soundcard. The results were really very good. I only updated because the HDD in the p3 is 3 or 4 Gig & I couldn't find an upgrade that suited the m/board.
I moved to a PIV that I had been using for the net but the m/board died in taht so I bit the bullet & bought a new comp for recording - a first for me. believe me I'd rather be back with the PIV with a gig of ram.
 
A little OT but might I add - Code nowadays doesnt NEED to be ultra efficient anymore. This routine can run in .000325 milliseconds, or I can sit around and optimize for an hour and make it work in .000258 ms. Even if you loop thru it 100,000x you're only saving a few seconds, so it's not worth the effort. I'm a coder, been a coder since the C64 days. Depends on the app of course, but a lot of times it really isn't worth it.. In a DAW it certainly would be worth it..

What do you mean by offload vst's?
Click to expand...

It means he has 1 computer doing the recording and playback, and another computer running the VST's - the fx. With Reaper you can distribute the workload across multiple PC's so you don't reach the limit of what one PC can keep up with.
 
I didn't give up on my C64 until id died and I couldn't get it repaired.
Man, Speedscript, wizball, the databases and money programs - it was soo cool and ahead of it's time for quite some time.
 
Just upgraded to a dual core with 3 gig of ram, when I finish a mixdown and add effects, etc then bounce it to a stereo file, the processing that used to take 3-4 min now takes about 40 sec.
 
Once upon a time code was tight, right, and efficient. But now we're so caught up in snazzy graphics and new-releases-so-we-can-rake-in-more-money-more-money-more-money that operating systems and applications are the software equivalents of thousand pound people.
Click to expand...

Maybe in Microsoft land...

Apple released details for the upcoming version of OS X - 10.6 aka "Snow Leopard". They are trimming all the "fat" across the board:

http://theappleblog.com/2008/07/01/slimmer-snow-leopard/
 
I think (sloppy code writing and other 'buldging s/w' issues aside) that the actual build quality of peripherals and motherboards has generally gone down the sink-hole...ok..ok..they're cheaper, and that's why.

Our 486 of 'way-back-when' was an expensive unit, but geesh, they were built and layed out very well....(great in one way, bad in others I feel. ($$$$$$$$)).

It amazes me that in such a short amout of time that the performance of the old $4000 80486 PC can be overtaken by many a HP scientific calc...lol.
 
Thanks to Hard2Hear, I couldn't be happier with my dual core, and magma full of UAD's!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top