WHich computer should I use

[Ptownkid]

Hey all,

I've been doing the whole home studio thing for a while now and we recently aquired a new computer. I'm trying to figure out which of the two would be better suited for multitrack recording. I'm running two m-audio delta 44 cards, so I have a total of 8 simultaneous ins and outs.

Computer #1 is a P4 1.8ghz with a 512mb cache and a gig of memory

Computer #2 is a celeron 2.66ghz with a 256 cache and 760 mb of memory

Which one is better for a studio computer.

I realize that at first glance one might say the faster processor is the better choice, but I wonder if being a celeron makes a difference and if the added cache and memory of computer #1 makes it better.

Those who respond to this, please state why you chose either one.

Thanks

[jatougas]

Computer #1, hands down.

The cache size of 258KB (not megabytes) on the celeron *really* slows things down.

Think of the cache on the cpu as being how big of a data chunk the processor can take in at one time. The bigger the cache, the bigger the throughput.

Plus, you have a full gigabyte of RAM in system #1, which will also help your system stability, and how many applications and plugins you can have active at any given point in time.

The next important factor is what kind of hard drives you intend to put in.

My suggestion : 3 SATA drives. 1 for the OS and apps, 1 for holding samples (if you're using them), and 1 for the audio to be recorded to.

[cfuehrer]

http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php? ... =2&fpart=1

[jatougas]

If you go with an AMD chip, make sure you get a 64-bit processor, instead of a 32-bit processor. The floating point processor on the 32-bit AMD's isn't as good as the P4's.

There was a 'mother of all chip testings' over on Tom's Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.com/) a few weeks back, gives all the grisly details you could want (even some you wouldn't want).

The P4 fpu won out, hands down. AMD had the upper hand on the price-to-performance range, easily.

But fpu is what makes the biggest difference when you're dealing with audio plugins and processing.

[cfuehrer]

floating point processor on the 32-bit AMD's isn't as good as the P4's.

Where did you hear that? Actually AMD's FPP is better than the P4, that's why an AMD chip is rated compaired to a P4 but runs at a lesser speed. Such as, my AMD XP 3000 runs at 2.17GHz but is eqaul to a 3GHz P4.

I have been building audio workstations for a number of years now and I am going to be releasing a line of DAW solutions. This is the guidelines you want to follow.

For external device audio workstations (such as a firewire converter box using PT LE, Sonar, Cubase etc) AMD based processors are the best choice. Their processing power blows away and Intel system. If you card going with a PCI card bases system (like Pro Tools TDM/HD) Intel is the only way to go. Do not use anything less than a P4 processor, Celrons and such don't have all the processing you need.

[Guest]

Thanks for the info.

Cheers

[jatougas]

Where did you hear that? Actually AMD's FPP is better than the P4, that's why an AMD chip is rated compaired to a P4 but runs at a lesser speed. Such as, my AMD XP 3000 runs at 2.17GHz but is eqaul to a 3GHz P4.

I have been building audio workstations for a number of years now and I am going to be releasing a line of DAW solutions. This is the guidelines you want to follow.

My understanding is that that's a difference of architecture, not the floating point unit.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200412 ... ts-23.html

I've built all of my own systems for several years now (I haven't bought a ready built system since... '95), and have been working for a major University in the US (hint, check my location ), where I'm the lead computer tech for a department.

Don't get me wrong, AMD makes a splendid product which I wouldn't hesitate to use for several applications, including servers & desktops. For the money, they're a steal.

But for audio work, the G5's and the P4's (particularly the Xeon's, with the larger cache) have an edge.

But we should probably leave the Macs out of it.

[jatougas]

Oop, I take back part of my post : I bought a laptop two years ago, a Toshiba.

If I were buying now, I'd take a strong look at the eMachines laptop built around the 64bit AMD chip. A friend of mine bought it, and has been extremely happy with it.

Cheers -

jatougas

[cfuehrer]

Gaming websites reviews don't match up for audio stuff. It's like saying a computer runs internet very fast so it would be better for audio. Just like video cards, why would you choose a card cause it's 3D performace rules when it's only going to be use for 2D apps. PCs give you allot more horsepower for audio over Macs, and I came from a diehard Apple background. There's no need to play the "Intel's Bigger and Better" game here. We can debate for days on specs and shit, spec are only worth the paper you can wipe your butt with. How are the tests performed, who's testing it, was the test done in a red painted room on Tuesday or a green colored room on Saturday? In my observation from working in may studios and running and building DAWs I know what I am talking about. It's much like saying tubes sound better than transistors. I digress and I will not waste any more bandwidth here trying to prove my points.

[jatougas]

Gaming websites reviews don't match up for audio stuff.

I think dismissing Tom's Hardware as strictly a gaming site is a tad... narrow.

There's no need to play the "Intel's Bigger and Better" game here.

I'm not. I *am* advocating using the best tool for the job.

My own DAW is built around a Barton Core Athlon XP 2800+ 233fsb, and I can honestly say that it's a great machine, very fast, very stable (I don't overclock, to a friend's eternal dismay ), but for it's intended purpose, it doesn't work as well as an equivalent P4.

When I can afford to pay Intel's bloated prices, I'll be using the system for 3D rendering and animation, for which it will be an extremely good machine.

Besides, the original poster asked which of two machines was better. Out of A or B, I suggested A, not C.

[jatougas]

If you card going with a PCI card bases system (like Pro Tools TDM/HD) Intel is the only way to go. Do not use anything less than a P4 processor, Celerons and such don't have all the processing you need.

Besides, Ptownkid also mentioned he's using two Delta 44s, which are PCI cards.

So, in a way, I guess we agree.

[Jon Best]

A different perspective- first and foremost, the one that crashes less. They'll both be fine.

If the celeron has shared video memory, however, don't even think about using it.

That said, I'd go with the p4 myself.

Hey all,

I've been doing the whole home studio thing for a while now and we recently aquired a new computer. I'm trying to figure out which of the two would be better suited for multitrack recording. I'm running two m-audio delta 44 cards, so I have a total of 8 simultaneous ins and outs.

Computer #1 is a P4 1.8ghz with a 512mb cache and a gig of memory

Computer #2 is a celeron 2.66ghz with a 256 cache and 760 mb of memory

Which one is better for a studio computer.

I realize that at first glance one might say the faster processor is the better choice, but I wonder if being a celeron makes a difference and if the added cache and memory of computer #1 makes it better.

Those who respond to this, please state why you chose either one.

Thanks

[Aaronw]

Buy a MAC!

[jatougas]

Buy a MAC!

I certainly wouldn't complain if someone handed me a dual G5 and two 20" flat panel monitors... but they'd also have to hand me all the software I'd need to replace... Otherwise, I'd end up using the thing for a server...

[jatougas]

If the celeron has shared video memory, however, don't even think about using it.

Huh. If *either* of them share the RAM with video, pass on them. It's almost as big a drain of system resources as the half-pint cache on a Celeron.