M
-=MYK=-
Active member
Why?
OneArmedScissor
New member
Those processors BARELY cost less than the cheapest Core 2 Duo. Look it up on Newegg.
redrol
Active member
>|<>QBB<
Just trust me when I say that you run a major risk of headaches using anything other then an Intel chipset. The reason for this is ALL the recording cards and equipment are tested and verified on Intel stuff.
Keep in mind the CPU's sucked before the Core Duo but then again, that makes absolutely no difference if you are experiencing pops, clicks, blue screens, or other garbage.
When you are dealing win a pro-quality recording rig, the CPU actually is not very important compared to a quality motherboard, intel chipset, and good quality recording card with good drivers.
I am a computer consultant and have had to deal with plenty of chipset issues. Trust me they do happen and when you spend more on your recording equipment than the processor... yeah you get the point.
Bottom line, Intel has the best Q/A checking in the industry PERIOD.
degenaro":4e6d4 said:
Just trust me when I say that you run a major risk of headaches using anything other then an Intel chipset. The reason for this is ALL the recording cards and equipment are tested and verified on Intel stuff.
Keep in mind the CPU's sucked before the Core Duo but then again, that makes absolutely no difference if you are experiencing pops, clicks, blue screens, or other garbage.
When you are dealing win a pro-quality recording rig, the CPU actually is not very important compared to a quality motherboard, intel chipset, and good quality recording card with good drivers.
I am a computer consultant and have had to deal with plenty of chipset issues. Trust me they do happen and when you spend more on your recording equipment than the processor... yeah you get the point.
Bottom line, Intel has the best Q/A checking in the industry PERIOD.
OneArmedScissor
New member
>|<>QBB<
I think this is true. I've used plenty of not-so-great computers to do psychotic things with bazillions of tracks and plug-ins, but I've never actually had any problems with a computer just not being able to handle it.
Stability issues, on the other hand, can be quite common, and can happen no matter how good your computer is.
redrol":5b3af said:
I think this is true. I've used plenty of not-so-great computers to do psychotic things with bazillions of tracks and plug-ins, but I've never actually had any problems with a computer just not being able to handle it.
Stability issues, on the other hand, can be quite common, and can happen no matter how good your computer is.
CoachZ
New member
Yeah, generally you want a really stable platform. The one thing Intel has done right consistently is good chipsets. Stability issues can come from other things too which are generally not considered like skimping on a good power supply. First off, whatever hardware you use should be fed from a good supply providing not just enough wattage but amps too. A lot of people overlook this and go with the cheaper stuff. I've seen computers go to waste due to bad power supplies.
M
mrbobo
New member
I run a AMD 4400 x2 dual core CPU with 2 GBs ram.
That system is a dedicated DAW - no antivius, office etc. It is stable as hell.
I usually have about 40 audio tracks, and BFD drums running in ultimate mode (another 20 tracks), software synths, and as many eq and compressor plug ins as I want. I use Cubase Sx, and run:
IDE C: for winXP and other aps.
SATA Raptor D: Audio project files
IDE E: samples and backup
I know my AMD dual core is no longer top dog (nothing is for very long) but I haven't needed anything more than this beast delivers.
Like others have said, the motherboard and it's chipset is important. Some chipsets won't run UAD or Powercore cards. Keep that in mind when shopping (I run a TC Powercore Card- for reverbs mostly). Like I said, my AMD DAW is awesome.
That system is a dedicated DAW - no antivius, office etc. It is stable as hell.
I usually have about 40 audio tracks, and BFD drums running in ultimate mode (another 20 tracks), software synths, and as many eq and compressor plug ins as I want. I use Cubase Sx, and run:
IDE C: for winXP and other aps.
SATA Raptor D: Audio project files
IDE E: samples and backup
I know my AMD dual core is no longer top dog (nothing is for very long) but I haven't needed anything more than this beast delivers.
Like others have said, the motherboard and it's chipset is important. Some chipsets won't run UAD or Powercore cards. Keep that in mind when shopping (I run a TC Powercore Card- for reverbs mostly). Like I said, my AMD DAW is awesome.
CoachZ
New member
Nvidia has the best linux video drivers though, sucks for me and my ATI card when I try to use Wine to run System Shock 2 
gravfed
Member
CoachZ
New member
>|<>QBB<
It's a little more than that. A lot of it has to do with how well you clean up the laptops too. A friend of mine got an HP, my family has an HP desktop from 3 years ago. The thing is slow as fuck. I pretty much wiped it clean and it works. The laptop's performance goes to waste when you have a shitload of threads bogging down the system. Also, it's definite that the Pentium M architecture is far MORE superior than NetBurst (Pentium 4), much more so that Intel based the Core architecture on the Pentium M because it was more efficient, had less thermal output and a higher IPC (Instructions Per Clock, same reason why a 1.8ghz AthlonXP could perform with a 2.2ghz P4). Two gigs of RAM does make a difference and also the crap that runs.gravfed":da921 said:
