• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

dual or quad core?

#2
Depends. If you're doing audio work then quad. Most tracking can be done with a single core CPU but once you add plugins DSP is nice to have (more cores = more DSP power) but for normal stuff the 6850 will be more powerful. What I would do however is just get the quad and overclock it. I'm running a Core Duo 2ghz at 2.9 without a peep on a crappy 50 dollar motherboard. The Intel stuff has so much headroom it's not funny. Just get yourself a board that can do 1333mhz and has a PCI lock and I'd bet you you could hit that 3ghz without any tweaking.

For instance: Invalid Link Removed - they're hitting 3.48 ghz on that CPU on air. P35 boards are cheap and of high quality, and when you're ready for Penryn (45nm) then you don't have to upgrade.
 
#3
yes, i'll be using it for audio, but i'm afraid you got a bit too technical for me there in your response. i dont know what you mean by "overclock" is that a setting you had to adjust? anyway, i'm looking at this one:


http://cgi.ebay.com/QUAD-Core-2-Duo...ryZ41784QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

or this:

Link Removed

to me they look similar, but i dont know anything... there's a fair sized price difference for being so similar...
 
As an eBay Associate, TalkBass may earn a commission from qualifying purchases.
#5
Hello,

Save yourself some cash and go with the Dual cores. Home PC's don't really utilze most of the potential of multiple core chips. I would spend more money on RAM, because that will give you a more noticeable performance increase.

Just my $.02 :hiding:
 
#6
derrellvis69 said:
Hello,

Save yourself some cash and go with the Dual cores. Home PC's don't really utilze most of the potential of multiple core chips. I would spend more money on RAM, because that will give you a more noticeable performance increase.

Just my $.02 :hiding:
Click to expand...

i have 8 gigs, and notice no real difference up from 2. i found that having "taller" (powerful) cpus for non multi threaded apps really does the trick. the dual core for now would be cool, so yeah, unless your software is designed for parallel processing...(oh, by the way, i'm building a dual quad xeon penryn rig for less than that horrid price on the single consumer quad systems you posted. i can't believe they can ask those prices. and the home system in the 4u rack...ghey :scowl: ). those are both rip-offs.
 
#7
m.oreilly said:
i have 8 gigs, and notice no real difference up from 2. i found that having "taller" (powerful) cpus for non multi threaded apps really does the trick. the dual core for now would be cool, so yeah, unless your software is designed for parallel processing...(oh, by the way, i'm building a dual quad xeon penryn rig for less than that horrid price on the single consumer quad systems you posted. i can't believe they can ask those prices. and the home system in the 4u rack...ghey :scowl: ). those are both rip-offs.
Click to expand...

wow, thanks for letting me know about that! i have nothing against building my own system, the only thing that worries me is that the operating systems on those 2 have been tweaked by professionals. i know there's alot of info out there on the net, but if i buy my own os i'm worried i wont get all the tweaks. any advice?
 
#8
I've gotten fine results from a 2.8GHz P4 800FSB with 2Gb of memory running in Win2000Pro for stability reasons. However, it is a dedicated system used only for audio purposes. No other programs to junk up the hard drive and registry. It's been solid up to about 16 tracks with NTrack. It's been pushed to 21 tracks but performance really starts to take a noticable hit after 16.
 
#9
i_got_a_mohawk said:
Ive pushed alot of plugins, and im using a CPU thats about 3 or 4 years old :) , its not even a proper dual core, it just has HT (P4 3.2Ghz)
Click to expand...
+1
derrellvis69 said:
Hello,
Save yourself some cash and go with the Dual cores. Home PC's don't really utilze most of the potential of multiple core chips. I would spend more money on RAM, because that will give you a more noticeable performance increase.
Just my $.02 :hiding:
Click to expand...
+2

17 yr. old son is playing EVERY NEW, machine-pushing game on a Gateway HyperThread refurb, 1st gen PCI. The ONLY things we did to "help": replace the generic PCI video card with a $150 one and add 1GB memory(giving it 2 GB total).
 
#12
Steep learning curve to learn to write and debug multi-threaded app's so mainly just high-end app's are multi-threaded. So unless running lots of app's at once and the OS is doing the scheduling quad-core CPU is going to be sitting idle a lot. Hyper-threading I'm not fond of and can slow you down. On servers we turn hyper-threading off. Hyper-threading is CPU guessing what you are up to and trying to split code into threads, trouble is they don't guess very well.

So the general answer is dual core for home use is fine. Cramming in as much RAM as you can will by you more speed for less money. More RAM means less slow virtual memory being used and less context switching overhead.
 
#13
locolobo85 said:
I've gotten fine results from a 2.8GHz P4 800FSB with 2Gb of memory running in Win2000Pro for stability reasons. However, it is a dedicated system used only for audio purposes. No other programs to junk up the hard drive and registry. It's been solid up to about 16 tracks with NTrack. It's been pushed to 21 tracks but performance really starts to take a noticable hit after 16.
Click to expand...

You can always setup the computer to have multiple hardware profiles. Thats what i did, when it first starts up i have two options to select between before windows boots. One has games and all the regular crud on it, the other is setup to run barebones, and have things like wireless, anti virus etc turned off.

Ive managed to run alot of tracks, using Cubase SX3 and my firepod, each track often having 2-3 VST plugins on the go. So you could probably get use of that PC as a normal one, and not have to have it limited to audio only :) .

Oh, and re the Ram thing, 2 Gb should be more than enough, hell, ive only got 1 Gb, and its never caused any noticable problems to my recordings :)
 
#18
shwashwa said:
wow, thanks for letting me know about that! i have nothing against building my own system, the only thing that worries me is that the operating systems on those 2 have been tweaked by professionals. i know there's alot of info out there on the net, but if i buy my own os i'm worried i wont get all the tweaks. any advice?
Click to expand...
"...have been tweaked by professionals". well, dunno how tweaky they get, but i'm sure everyone here would be able to give you whatever pointers you would need. great bunch of peeps here :)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back