Is quad core worth it?

theBaldfather · Post by **theBaldfather** » Tue May 13, 2008 7:13 am

I'm looking at a new computer for a second rig and I want to get something that won't go out of date immediately, but I realize the disposable nature of computers anymore... That being said.

1. Is it worth it to spend the extra bucks on an intel quad core (the q6600) as opposed to a respectable intel dual core? Will my cubase 4 even be able to utilize the extra cores well?

2. is it worth it to upgrade from 2g to 4g of ram, and secondary question. is there an appreciable difference between sdram at 667mhz and sdram at 800mhz?

3. Is going with windows xp still my wisest move?

Thanks guys!
Grant

p.s. I should mention that I will be tracking and mixing on this computer. I tend to have 25-35 tracks going on finished projects...

thesimulacre · Post by **thesimulacre** » Tue May 13, 2008 9:40 am

1. Unless you are using an additional DSP card for FX, there is plenty of use for a quad-core. The only problem might be whether you ever use all of that power, honestly.
2. It is worth it to have 4 gigs of RAM, but (see #3) that depends on other things. I thought that RAM at 800Mhz was DDRAM. I don't even know any more. Just get 4 gigs of Dual-channel... more efficient.
3. You will need XP pro in order to address more than 3 gigs of RAM. Avoid Vista at this point, for compatibility reasons.

getreel · Post by **getreel** » Tue May 13, 2008 10:03 am

XP Pro will only see up to 3.5 Gigs of RAM for me. I think that's the limit for XP 32 bit and Vista 32 bit as well. You have to move up to XP or Vista 64 to use all of 4 Gigs. I'm using a single core AMD Athlon 64 and I run tons of plugs and quite a few tracks as well(24-30 at least) with no trouble. My CPU is a 3500+ at 2.2 GHz.

joninc · Post by **joninc** » Tue May 13, 2008 10:22 am

i recently switched to quad from a single AMD 3500 set up and it smokes - renders mixes much faster. not running out of headroom on mixes with plug ins anymore. XP!!

rwc · Post by **rwc** » Tue May 13, 2008 12:01 pm

cubase is a memory hog compared to reaper which I use on PC.

I've used it with 1 GB and ssl/urs plugins on every track, and lots of reverbs. I use like 15% CPU with a quad core tops..

it's awesome. it's 2008, don't bother with a dual core unless it's a laptop, IMO.and 9000 GB of RAM isn't necessary unless you've got tons of soft synths going; and even then, merely knowing how to keep a session that isn't a total clusterfuck will keep you from needing over 2 gigs of ram.

also, the thing about needing xp pro to address more than 3 gigs of ram is nonsense. vista can't either; rather, the 64 bit versions of both can. the 64 bit version of vista and XP are both terrible.

theBaldfather · Post by **theBaldfather** » Tue May 13, 2008 12:40 pm

I love reaper except it nearly exploded on the biggest project I've ever done. After 16 or so tracks it just started cutting out random parts of audio when rendering or consolidating. I was sweating unprecedented amounts of blood untill I managed to export each file and reimport them into cubase to finish up. Thanks for the advice on the computer though! It looks like quad core with xp!

Grant

tomberdude · Post by **tomberdude** » Thu May 15, 2008 5:18 am

theBaldfather wrote:I'm looking at a new computer for a second rig and I want to get something that won't go out of date immediately, but I realize the disposable nature of computers anymore... That being said.

1. Is it worth it to spend the extra bucks on an intel quad core (the q6600) as opposed to a respectable intel dual core? Will my cubase 4 even be able to utilize the extra cores well?

2. is it worth it to upgrade from 2g to 4g of ram, and secondary question. is there an appreciable difference between sdram at 667mhz and sdram at 800mhz?

3. Is going with windows xp still my wisest move?

p.s. I should mention that I will be tracking and mixing on this computer. I tend to have 25-35 tracks going on finished projects...

1. Yes it's worth it for a few serious reasons. OS's and DAW's will have updates, for cheap, if not free. I'm not a cubase user, so I don't care to learn about it, but even if it's not coded to properly access and process with the extra cores (which can cause instability and blue screens), there is a great work around called AFFINITY settings. Set your DAW/Audio programs affinities to the core(s) that will only run those on the list you define. ALL other programs and process should have their affinities assigned to the core(s) NOT being accessed by the DAW/Audio programs.

2. PT1:Yes. Some have already touched base on the XP/Vista RAM cap of 3 gigs, but its not what it accesses, its what it will RECOGNIZE. Only certain programs are coded to actually access the 3rd GB of ram, and roughly a quarter of it is used for BIOS info and a few other things. This is a descendant of an addressing reserve WAAAAAAY back in the day. When IBM first reached 1MB of RAM, only 640kb was accessible because 384kb was reserved for expansion cards. Again, your DAW may not be coded to run all 3 gigs, but this cap is only limited by bits. Any 32-bit O/S has that cap. The only way to access and utilize more is through a 64-bit O/S or higher.

PT2: Yes, there is a major difference. 667mhz and 800 mhz are BUS speeds, as in FRONT SIDE BUS (FSB). Your front side bus is the communication highway between your ram and cpu. To properly get the most out of your PC, you must know what size your FSB is. For example, the Athlon 64 X2 lines have a FSB speed of 1.6gHz (1600mHz). Your best off getting 2 2GB chips @ 800mhz (800mhz x 2= 1.6gHz), or 4 1GB chips @ 400mHz. Why is this important? Picture your FSB as a four lane expressway. everybody is leaving work and trying to get to home. If you match your ram Bus speed totals to your FSB speed, each lane has their own dedicated exit ramp, which means steady flow of traffic from point a to point b. If your ram falls short you start taking away exit ramps for every lane. An extreme example, you now have 4 lanes of traffic all trying to take the same 1 lane off ramp. This is call Bottlenecking. However, there is a whole other can of worms when dealing with bus speeds and dual-channel configurations, that i'm not even gonna touch. I'd rather start an arguement supporting Abiogenesis with Jesus or that fucking loon Pat Robertson.

3. Yes. XP is the smartest move. Vista is FUCKED. When not wearing my audio engineer hat, teaching music theory and classical guitar/bass, or offering sinners absolution with my face-melting guitar solos, I'm a computer tech and programmer.

:ar15: Vista is FUCKED. Vista is FUCKED. Vista is FUCKED. Vista is FUCKED. Vista is FUCKED. Vista is FUCKED. Vista is FUCKED. Vista is FUCKED.

My favorite example. My girlfriend just bought an AWESOME laptop. Straight power. After she had me eliminate the kinks in the O/S and strip it down to an equivalent of XP with a few bonus features, this fucking O/S IDLES, i repeat IDLES @ 53% RAM usage, with PAGE FILING optimized. That's WITH NOTHING ON OR RUNNING THAT ISN'T ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!!!! Hahaha, fuck me, I'm crafty. Let's do a dual boot situation. I'm like a fucking ninja right? Boot up XP on a BLANK hard drive, again nothing on that isn't necessary. Just guess the idle speed... Yep, FORMAT.

Mikd Dell and Kevin Rollins needed a industry pick me up, so he asked Bill Gates to make a resource hog that will incite and guarantee a boost in hardware sales. Fuck you.

Anyways, XP is on a compatibility list by MicroSuck till 2009, and the major software conglomerates should continue to code support and update their products for XP till 2012, when support will start dropping like flys.

Ahhhhhh, whatever. I digress. Vista is FUCKED.

-RL

Message Board

Is quad core worth it?

Is quad core worth it?

Who is online