Dual Processors and Music Software question

Tonka · Post by **Tonka** » 13/08/2006 - 9:18

Hi all.

I want to give my ageing computer a bit of a boost to deal with some of the more CPU intensive VSTi's that I am using (namely EWQLSO).

I initially thought I would increase my memory from 1gb to 3gb and processor from an Athlon 2800 to a 3200 (which is as much as my Abit MB will accept, I think)...

As this would run into a few hundred quid, would it be better to go for a dual processor motherboard or an 64 bit processor and less memory? I guess my question is does ALL music software take advantage of a dual processor MB, or just some? Should I just max out my current MB?

I am a bit of a nonce in this area, and there doesn't seem to be much on the web about how music software may be improved by dual processors or 64 bit, so anyone who has had any experience of this is welcomed to spell it out for me (vveeerrryyyy ssslllooowwwlllyyyy)

Thanks in advance,

Tonka

gibs · Post by **gibs** » 13/08/2006 - 12:01

unless the music software you're using is not optimized for dualcore, it will not be exploited.
choose the athlon 3800 (100Ã¢â€šÂ¬) instead (even if you have to choose another motherboard for 50Ã¢â€šÂ¬) because it is highly overclockable and doesn't heat at all. you can push it over 2400Mhz (wich is the frequency of a 4600+) and win by the way 300Ã¢â€šÂ¬

Analog-X64 · Post by **Analog-X64** » 13/08/2006 - 12:30

Speed gained from Memory Upgrade is very Minimal.

The best bet is to have a faster processor.

Shop around and see how much it would cost you for a new Mother Board + Processor vs Buying a New Desktop. Somtimes its cheaper to buy a brand new desktop vs upgrading.

My example is a little extreme but I'm typing this on a Pentium III - 1Ghz Machine, one of the last Pentium III Processors before Pentium 4's.

Anyway I looked at upgrades and it was cheaper to buy a new PC.

So I bought a Compaq Persario with Athalon 64 3700+ Processor, 1GB Ram, 250GB HD, Dual DVD Burner with MiniScribe, Keyboard, Mouse etc.. for $550 U.S.

Mind you i'm not using it for making music, I have another PC for that. But you get the Idea.

PS: My Music PC is an AMD Barton 2500+ Overclocked from 1.8Ghz to 2.2GHZ running on an ASUS MotherBoard with NVIDIA Nforce SoundChip built in, and I have no Latency issues or VSTI problems. Yup I dont have a seperate sound card or sound module the built in chip does the job.

Good Luck on your purchase.

DHS · Post by **DHS** » 13/08/2006 - 16:15

Latest cubase / nuendo use exploit dual processors.
2Gb ram help.
But, talking about romplers like EWQLSO, what really does the difference is a fast, buffered hard drive.

Markus Schneider · Post by **Markus Schneider** » 14/08/2006 - 6:23

When trying to get the optimal sampling pc, I made the following experience:

To get way bigger performance use a RAID 0 stripeset on 2 identical harddisks to gain huge read/write access (100-120MB/second instead of 45/50 with one disk)

Use 4GB of memory on Windows XP Professional and open the Physical Adress Extension of Windows with the 3GB & userva switch. Find more at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/833721/en-us .
Or google for details. This is not to gain speed but to have more opened files/streaming samples/vsti's parallel.

If any money is left, use it to upgrade the CPU, when steps are not to small.

Tonka · Post by **Tonka** » 14/08/2006 - 12:37

Holy shit - I need a serious upgrade of, erm, EVERYTHING! Seems like people on the EWQL forum are recommending a 9000rpm SATA harddisk and EastWest recommend using 2 linked PC's if possible, one being reserved for running their VST (yeah, right)!!!

Well, my Dad's got a Athlon 3200 with a 512 memory stick, so I'll swap them into mine @ the weekend and see if there's any improvement at all (try the cheapo solution first, right)? If there is, I'll consider upgrading to 3GB ram and a 3800, as it might just be enough to do what I require...

Otherwise, I'll just have to wait a bit longer until the prices come down!

Thanks for all your advice guys - I'm now officially depressed though

@ Markus - do the 2 hd's have to be identical in size, or just the data on them? Anywhere on the web to show me how to do this?...

[edit] Don't worry Markus - have found loads of stuff on the net. I have a 120gb & 200gb drive, so it will just show as a 120 (but this is a small price to pay for such a performance boost)! Looks like I may need SATA though? I had a SATA cable which came with my MB - hope I didn't chuck it away! [edit]

Tonka

DHS · Post by **DHS** » 14/08/2006 - 13:05

Tonka wrote:@ Markus - do the 2 hd's have to be identical in size, or just the data on them? Anywhere on the web to show me how to do this?...

To buid up RAID arrays you need equal harddrives.

Markus Schneider · Post by **Markus Schneider** » 14/08/2006 - 16:58

@Tonka:

do the 2 hd's have to be identical in size, or just the data on them?

You need two identical harddisks and it is absolutely recommend to use hdds with even the same firmware. People often recommend Western Digital's Raptor SATA with 10000 rpm (there's no 9000 rpm hdd) and it wins in most tests of SATA hdd's. But it's a matter of your need how to read a test. The Raptor has a small seek time which is at least not needed when streaming large samples. For this application you need a good data throughput. I personally do think the Raptor is too expensive and priced near to a much better SCSI harddisk. I use common 8 MB cache, 7200rpm Samsung hardisks and get a read/write performance up to 125MB/second.

Anywhere on the web to show me how to do this?...

Ah, that's quite easy. Most mainboards have an onboard RAID controller nowadays, otherwise you need an PCI raid controller. Since you own an AMD cpu, an Intel mainboard chipset is not an option: I prefer the Intel chipset integrated controller, because it is directly bound to the cpu/memory architecure which is about 10-15% faster than integrated via PCI bus.

As mentioned the Raid mode is 0 (which at least means it is no raid - very clever

) and it is also often called striping or stripeset. Please keep in mind that you will loose all data when creating an raid array AND when using Raid 0 you will loose all data when just one harddisk is crashing.

gibs · Post by **gibs** » 15/08/2006 - 3:20

Tonka wrote:EastWest recommend using 2 linked PC's if possible

How ?

Skyy · Post by **Skyy** » 15/08/2006 - 6:47

This is a little bit off the topic, but this thread got me wondering:

Just out of pure curiosity and future possibilities, is any of the music composing / making software capable of using dualcore processors?

If so, what software ?

Romeo Knight · Post by **Romeo Knight** » 15/08/2006 - 7:25

gibs wrote:
Tonka wrote:EastWest recommend using 2 linked PC's if possible
How ?

Via FXTeleport or Wormhole maybe?!
http://www.fx-max.com/fxt/
http://plasq.com/wormhole
I always work with 2 PCs - one for the DAW and one for VSTis.

Just out of pure curiosity and future possibilities, is any of the music composing / making software capable of using dualcore processors?

As mentioned before in this thread, Nuendo does. I'm pretty unsure about
all this stuff in the "lesser professional" range (like Fruity Loops, Reason etc.) though.

moog · Post by **moog** » 15/08/2006 - 7:42

@Romeo: WOW, I've never heard before about these protocols, I think it's the most efficient solution

Tonka · Post by **Tonka** » 15/08/2006 - 8:47

moog wrote:@Romeo: WOW, I've never heard before about these protocols, I think it's the most efficient solution

Until you see Romeo's electricity bill

All good information here - thanks guys!

gibs · Post by **gibs** » 15/08/2006 - 16:48

Tonka wrote:
moog wrote:@Romeo: WOW, I've never heard before about these protocols, I think it's the most efficient solution
Until you see Romeo's electricity bill

He uses solar energy

Thanks Eike for the good tips

Skyy · Post by **Skyy** » 15/08/2006 - 22:34

Does the sun even have what it takes to power these babies trough solar power?

Anyway, sounds interesting.