time for a new PC...help me out

[MoreSpaceEcho]

so yeah, i'm an American and i want More Faster Now. problem is, i haven't paid any attention to computers since getting my current one back in 2005, so i don't know what's what but i figure one of you smarties will. primarily i need to know:

1. what the hell is "PCI express" and how is this different from regular old PCI? i need like 4 PCI slots, the motherboards i was looking at all seemed to have 2, plus a couple more of the express slots. can i use those, or...?

2. i've no idea what's current as far as processor speeds. all this dual/quad core business makes my tiny brain hurt. someone hold my hand and tell me what to buy. right now i have a P4, 3.0ghz, so what'd be a nice step up from that? like to stay with intel...

anybody?

thanks!

[RodC]

PCI express is cool, but not backwards compatable.

I just bought a Gigabyte M61P-S3, it has 4 PCI slots. PCI express is taking over, but a lot of the hardware we use is still PCI.


From this thread
http://messageboard.tapeop.com/viewtopi ... hlight=pci

[darjama]

PCI Express is basically a faster form of PCI. Unfortunately, your PCI cards won't fit or work in a PCI-E slot.

4 PCI slots might be hard to find on a motherboard that takes the latest processors. The ASUS P5K is pretty well regarded, but it only has 3 standard PCI slots. Maybe you can replace one of the PCI components with a PCI-E one?

What software are you using? If it's something that will benefit well from multiple cores, go for a Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600. I've heard stories of UAD cards not playing well with Quad Core processors. Hmmm, maybe that's why you need all those PCI slots? Check here:
http://www.chrismilne.com/uadforums/viewforum.php?f=2

If that's the case, you'll probably want the meanest Core2Duo you can find, like the e6850.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

that's a bummer about the pci express, but that's what i figured. i guess i really only need 2 for the lynx AES cards...

i'm running sonar and wavelab...they could both use some more horsepower methinks...

thanks guys

[Mradyfist]

Yeah, keep in mind that a lot of stuff you might have had on PCI cards before is integrated into the motherboard, so see if you drop some PCI cards.

As far as processors go, it's a great time to stay with Intel right now (as much as it pains me to say it, being an AMD fanboy). For anything other than the bargain box market it's the best choice at the moment. The entry level Quads are probably one of your best bets for audio right now, but if you want a dual-core to avoid issues with UAD cards, the E8xxx series (Wolfdale) is out now and fast, for a reasonable price.

I would say that any Core 2 series processor is going to be a major step up from a P4, as they've made a TON of improvements to the architecture. Don't look back, my friend..

[GooberNumber9]

I would say that any Core 2 series processor is going to be a major step up from a P4, as they've made a TON of improvements to the architecture. Don't look back, my friend..

Having stepped up from a 2.4 GHz P4 to a 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo, I can confirm that it is a pretty major step up. The best example of architecture trumping clock speed I've seen in my lifetime.

Todd Wilcox

[MoreSpaceEcho]

ok yeah, this is the stuff i need to know. i was looking at processors and was confused by the seemingly low speeds....

[Mradyfist]

Perfectly understandable. The P4 series was notorious for having a "deep execution pipeline", which means that it's easy to reach high clock speeds, but the instructions per clock are lacking. Ironically the P4 was considerably slower than top of the line P3s when it came out for this exact reason. Generally, a 1ghz Coppermine P3 beats out the original 1.4ghz and 1.6ghz P4s.

AMD's processors were also much faster per clock cycle, which was why they started using performance ratings instead.. they claimed it was intended to be compared to an Athlon 1ghz Thunderbird, but from what I recall it generally told you what P4 ghz it was a competitor to.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

so if i get something like:
Core 2 Duo E8400 3.00GHz 1333FSB 6MB Cache
that should be plenty fast enough, no?

[Mradyfist]

It'll scream.

[LeedyGuy]

Aren't there Quad Cores out now and 8-Core machines are on the way, right?

I'm in the same boat. I use Sonar and and I have an old dual P3 that was great for a long time, but it's really starting to limit me so I need to upgrade for stability's sake. I hear that the new Sonar 7 can support up to a 8core processor. That's pretty serious!

-Ken

[Mradyfist]

Keep in mind though, that supporting multiple cores and using them efficiently are two different things. I can't speak to Sonar because I haven't used it before, but I know that with my Athlon X2 rig and Cubase 3 SX the load balancing is definitely NOT optimal. It seems to be related to how you group things and whether or not your plugins are on different tracks, but I've had projects where one core was at 95% usage and the other was at 15%. If a single core hits 100%, you'll get audio dropouts, although the beauty of multiple cores/processors is that this won't take down your whole system.

However, Sonar might be better, and I know for a fact that Reaper is very efficient at using multiple cores. It depends a lot on your software. I don't really know if 8-core systems make all that much sense for audio right now, but I don't have an 8-core system to play around with.

[kronosonic]

However, Sonar might be better, and I know for a fact that Reaper is very efficient at using multiple cores. It depends a lot on your software. I don't really know if 8-core systems make all that much sense for audio right now, but I don't have an 8-core system to play around with.

Yeah, reap is great with my quad core. nice, even spreading of the load across the multiple cores

BTW, I just bought a new machine from Sonica

Great PC, good price, excellent service and communication. highly recommended

[Smitty]

speaking as someone that just got a new recording-only PC that i'm happy with (or as happy as i ever will be with a PC), i can say:

a) RAM is dirt cheap. stuff that bad boy full.

b) if you're running XP, it makes sense to strip it down to it's bare essentials and keep all the fancypants graphics crap and useless background programs from ever running.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

yeah i was thinking 4 gigs of RAM, you think i should get more still?

and yeah it'll be XP Pro, and i'll spend half a day turning all the stupid shit off...