| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Will this computer do?
Looking to upgrade system - currently on a P4 1.6ghz 712meg Ram. Will
this computer be a much faster computer. (link below) I am more concerned with it being AMD rather than Intel - I've never owned an AMD and don't know much about its performance. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...70906&CatId=31 |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
"Black Tortoise" wrote in
message Looking to upgrade system - currently on a P4 1.GHz 712meg Ram. Will this computer be a much faster computer. (link below) I am more concerned with it being AMD rather than Intel - I've never owned an AMD and don't know much about its performance. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...70906&CatId=31 You haven't fully described your existing system, particularly its hard drive which is a significant performance-related component. For example, a system with a nearly full 40 GB hard drive will probably be a lot slower than an otherwise identical system with a nearly empty 500 GB hard drive. Also, you haven't described which programs you want to see run faster. But, some friendly advice. An Athlon 5000+ dual core processor is a lot faster than a 1.6 GHz single core processor, but processor speed above a certain point isn't that significant for general use. OTOH, if you are editing video, then there is no such thing as too fast of a processor. ;-) I would not build a new computer with less than 2 GB of RAM, preferably 4. The system board shown is a bottom-buck product from a good vendor. For about $20 more you can get a what is IME a much better board, the M2A-VM. The package shown is pretty heavily compromised to achieve a low price point. I've built several machines with the same system board and a similar processor. But, I'd never use a single piece of 533 MHz RAM because 2 pieces of 800 MHz RAM are really needed to exploit the processor speed in many situations, the extra bucks aren't that much. The system board supports Dual Channel RAM which is a performance boost, but only if you use two identical pieces of RAM. I'd never use a 160 GB hard drive because 500 GB hard drives are so cheap. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
I have an external 80 gig usb drive I use for recording. However, if
I do purchase this barebone system, I will probably put the 80 gig in the computer and use the 160 gig serial for recording. I generally use 16 to 20 tracks with 3 to 4 plugins on each and a couple softsynths. I am using Sonar as my main program. I don't do much video editing, mainly digital audio recording. So there really is know difference between intel and and AMD processor of equal processing speed? On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:32:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Black Tortoise" wrote in message Looking to upgrade system - currently on a P4 1.GHz 712meg Ram. Will this computer be a much faster computer. (link below) I am more concerned with it being AMD rather than Intel - I've never owned an AMD and don't know much about its performance. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...70906&CatId=31 You haven't fully described your existing system, particularly its hard drive which is a significant performance-related component. For example, a system with a nearly full 40 GB hard drive will probably be a lot slower than an otherwise identical system with a nearly empty 500 GB hard drive. Also, you haven't described which programs you want to see run faster. But, some friendly advice. An Athlon 5000+ dual core processor is a lot faster than a 1.6 GHz single core processor, but processor speed above a certain point isn't that significant for general use. OTOH, if you are editing video, then there is no such thing as too fast of a processor. ;-) I would not build a new computer with less than 2 GB of RAM, preferably 4. The system board shown is a bottom-buck product from a good vendor. For about $20 more you can get a what is IME a much better board, the M2A-VM. The package shown is pretty heavily compromised to achieve a low price point. I've built several machines with the same system board and a similar processor. But, I'd never use a single piece of 533 MHz RAM because 2 pieces of 800 MHz RAM are really needed to exploit the processor speed in many situations, the extra bucks aren't that much. The system board supports Dual Channel RAM which is a performance boost, but only if you use two identical pieces of RAM. I'd never use a 160 GB hard drive because 500 GB hard drives are so cheap. |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
On Jul 22, 10:46*am, Black Tortoise
wrote: I have an external 80 gig usb drive I use for recording. *However, if I do purchase this barebone system, I will probably put the 80 gig in the computer and use the 160 gig serial for recording. *I generally use 16 to 20 tracks with 3 to 4 plugins on each and a couple softsynths. *I am using Sonar as my main program. *I don't do much video editing, mainly digital audio recording. So there really is know difference between intel and and AMD processor of equal processing speed? On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:32:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Black Tortoise" wrote in messagenews:mgnb84pkuu9hr12413ol98qjde17o8fln0@4a x.com Looking to upgrade system - currently on a P4 1.GHz 712meg Ram. *Will this computer be a much faster computer. (link below) I am more concerned with it being AMD rather than Intel - I've never owned an AMD and don't know much about its performance. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...m-details.asp?.... You haven't fully described your existing system, particularly its hard drive which is a significant performance-related component. *For example, a system with a nearly full 40 GB hard drive will probably be a lot slower than an otherwise identical system with a nearly empty 500 GB hard drive.. Also, you haven't described which programs you want to see run faster. But, some friendly advice. *An Athlon 5000+ dual core processor is a lot faster than a 1.6 GHz single core processor, but processor speed above a certain point isn't that significant for general use. OTOH, if you are editing video, then there is no such thing as too fast of a processor. ;-) I would not build a new computer with less than 2 GB of RAM, preferably 4. The system board shown is a bottom-buck product from a good vendor. For about $20 more you can get a what is IME a much better board, the M2A-VM.. The package shown is pretty heavily compromised to achieve a low price point. I've built several machines with the same system board and a similar processor. But, I'd never use a single piece of 533 MHz RAM because 2 pieces of 800 MHz RAM are really needed to exploit the processor speed in many situations, the extra bucks aren't that much. The system board supports Dual Channel RAM which is a performance boost, but only if you use two identical pieces of RAM. I'd never use a 160 GB hard drive because 500 GB hard drives are so cheap. Generally, the intel is always faster. Not night and day faster, but faster, like 10 to 20% AMDs can still compete when you factor in price, and that's when AMD often comes out on top. CD |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
"Black Tortoise" wrote in
message So there really is know difference between intel and and AMD processor of equal processing speed? I presume that what you mean by "equal processing speed" would be a comparison between a 1000 MHz Intel chip and a 1000 MHz AMD chip. Problem is that we don't buy processors based on MHz, we buy them based on what they cost. If a 1000 MHz Intel chip costs the same as a 1200 MHz AMD chip, then that is what we should compare, no? I believe that for processors costing under say $150, you get similar bang for the buck. I believe that if price is less of an object, and you're talking $600 processing chips, that Intel might be ahead. At this point in time, the idea of "equal processing speed" is pretty much obsolete because the differences need to be compared in many dimensions. For example, the equal cost Intel chip might be better for encoding MP3s or video, while the equal cost AMD chip might be better for playing games. Or vice-versa. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
"Black Tortoise" wrote in message ... Looking to upgrade system - currently on a P4 1.6ghz 712meg Ram. Will this computer be a much faster computer. (link below) I am more concerned with it being AMD rather than Intel - I've never owned an AMD and don't know much about its performance. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...70906&CatId=31 **IME, Intel is faster. Here's a few observations I've made: * Stay away from the top end of the processor area. Buy something which is a few price points below. The Dollar savings will be significant, whilst the performance hit will be minimal. * Video processing and games are the most hungry commonly used applications. I switched from a 3GHz PIV to a 2.1GHz Core 2 Duo. Ripping a DVD went from around 2 hours 20 minutes to around 20 minutes. A dramatic and most significant time difference. * Newer processors are significantly cooler running (Intel ones, anyway). The fan on my Core 2 Duo often switches off and the heat sink is cool. * Stay away from Celerons. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Black Tortoise" wrote in message So there really is know difference between intel and and AMD processor of equal processing speed? I presume that what you mean by "equal processing speed" would be a comparison between a 1000 MHz Intel chip and a 1000 MHz AMD chip. Problem is that we don't buy processors based on MHz, we buy them based on what they cost. If a 1000 MHz Intel chip costs the same as a 1200 MHz AMD chip, then that is what we should compare, no? I believe that for processors costing under say $150, you get similar bang for the buck. I believe that if price is less of an object, and you're talking $600 processing chips, that Intel might be ahead. At this point in time, the idea of "equal processing speed" is pretty much obsolete because the differences need to be compared in many dimensions. For example, the equal cost Intel chip might be better for encoding MP3s or video, while the equal cost AMD chip might be better for playing games. Or vice-versa. If you really care about an extra 10% increase in speed then you are probably going to pay a disproportionate amount of money for it. The machine described above is what might now be termed mid-range in CPU processing power. Throw in an extra gig of DRAM and add a cheap video card and it will make your old one look like a snail. I would guess the raw difference in processing power is about a factor of 5 or more. For me, that's always the point where I get a new machine. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
good info! thanks a bunch
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:40:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Black Tortoise" wrote in message So there really is know difference between intel and and AMD processor of equal processing speed? I presume that what you mean by "equal processing speed" would be a comparison between a 1000 MHz Intel chip and a 1000 MHz AMD chip. Problem is that we don't buy processors based on MHz, we buy them based on what they cost. If a 1000 MHz Intel chip costs the same as a 1200 MHz AMD chip, then that is what we should compare, no? I believe that for processors costing under say $150, you get similar bang for the buck. I believe that if price is less of an object, and you're talking $600 processing chips, that Intel might be ahead. At this point in time, the idea of "equal processing speed" is pretty much obsolete because the differences need to be compared in many dimensions. For example, the equal cost Intel chip might be better for encoding MP3s or video, while the equal cost AMD chip might be better for playing games. Or vice-versa. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in
message Arny Krueger wrote: "Black Tortoise" wrote in message So there really is know difference between intel and and AMD processor of equal processing speed? I presume that what you mean by "equal processing speed" would be a comparison between a 1000 MHz Intel chip and a 1000 MHz AMD chip. Problem is that we don't buy processors based on MHz, we buy them based on what they cost. If a 1000 MHz Intel chip costs the same as a 1200 MHz AMD chip, then that is what we should compare, no? I believe that for processors costing under say $150, you get similar bang for the buck. I believe that if price is less of an object, and you're talking $600 processing chips, that Intel might be ahead. At this point in time, the idea of "equal processing speed" is pretty much obsolete because the differences need to be compared in many dimensions. For example, the equal cost Intel chip might be better for encoding MP3s or video, while the equal cost AMD chip might be better for playing games. Or vice-versa. If you really care about an extra 10% increase in speed then you are probably going to pay a disproportionate amount of money for it. Agreed. The machine described above is what might now be termed mid-range in CPU processing power. Throw in an extra gig of DRAM and add a cheap video card and it will make your old one look like a snail. Agreed, except that based on lots of experience, video cards aren't that important for a/v editing. I would guess the raw difference in processing power is about a factor of 5 or more. For me, that's always the point where I get a new machine. There's been some hidden growth in XP. When it came out, it ran pretty well in 256 megs, but right now life starts at 1 GB. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Black Tortoise" wrote in message So there really is know difference between intel and and AMD processor of equal processing speed? I presume that what you mean by "equal processing speed" would be a comparison between a 1000 MHz Intel chip and a 1000 MHz AMD chip. Problem is that we don't buy processors based on MHz, we buy them based on what they cost. If a 1000 MHz Intel chip costs the same as a 1200 MHz AMD chip, then that is what we should compare, no? I believe that for processors costing under say $150, you get similar bang for the buck. I believe that if price is less of an object, and you're talking $600 processing chips, that Intel might be ahead. At this point in time, the idea of "equal processing speed" is pretty much obsolete because the differences need to be compared in many dimensions. For example, the equal cost Intel chip might be better for encoding MP3s or video, while the equal cost AMD chip might be better for playing games. Or vice-versa. If you really care about an extra 10% increase in speed then you are probably going to pay a disproportionate amount of money for it. Agreed. The machine described above is what might now be termed mid-range in CPU processing power. Throw in an extra gig of DRAM and add a cheap video card and it will make your old one look like a snail. Agreed, except that based on lots of experience, video cards aren't that important for a/v editing. I would guess the raw difference in processing power is about a factor of 5 or more. For me, that's always the point where I get a new machine. There's been some hidden growth in XP. When it came out, it ran pretty well in 256 megs, but right now life starts at 1 GB. After 4 years my computer has slowed down quite a bit with all the crap being piled on it. Not just XP but loads of little things like fragmented disc etc. Plus s/w tends to be designed by people with top of the range machines so when it hits the market it will run at an OK speed on mid-range ones. But not too well on my now sub-bottom-of-the-range PC. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
On Jul 25, 12:21 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in Arny Krueger wrote: "Black Tortoise" wrote in messagenews:edsb841kbfc21qub1jfljbf076qmq0l47k@4ax .com So there really is know difference between intel and and AMD processor of equal processing speed? I presume that what you mean by "equal processing speed" would be a comparison between a 1000 MHz Intel chip and a 1000 MHz AMD chip. Problem is that we don't buy processors based on MHz, we buy them based on what they cost. If a 1000 MHz Intel chip costs the same as a 1200 MHz AMD chip, then that is what we should compare, no? I believe that for processors costing under say $150, you get similar bang for the buck. I believe that if price is less of an object, and you're talking $600 processing chips, that Intel might be ahead. At this point in time, the idea of "equal processing speed" is pretty much obsolete because the differences need to be compared in many dimensions. For example, the equal cost Intel chip might be better for encoding MP3s or video, while the equal cost AMD chip might be better for playing games. Or vice-versa. If you really care about an extra 10% increase in speed then you are probably going to pay a disproportionate amount of money for it. Agreed. The machine described above is what might now be termed mid-range in CPU processing power. Throw in an extra gig of DRAM and add a cheap video card and it will make your old one look like a snail. Agreed, except that based on lots of experience, video cards aren't that important for a/v editing. I would guess the raw difference in processing power is about a factor of 5 or more. For me, that's always the point where I get a new machine. There's been some hidden growth in XP. When it came out, it ran pretty well in 256 megs, but right now life starts at 1 GB. After 4 years my computer has slowed down quite a bit with all the crap being piled on it. Not just XP but loads of little things like fragmented disc etc. Plus s/w tends to be designed by people with top of the range machines so when it hits the market it will run at an OK speed on mid-range ones. But not too well on my now sub-bottom-of-the-range PC. Well, phht! The main machine in my office right now is a 1 GHz Pentium? based IBM Intellistation running WIn2K Pro. It's internally all 10KRPM SCSI drives with 1 GB of memory. Peroformance-wise, it beats the pants off of machines with 2 GHz+ processors running win XP, and completely trashes similar machines running Vista. Why, because once a week, I spend an hour getting rid of stuff that doesn't belong on it. I do not have all sorts of crap running on it. I do not allow people with Win2K or XP machines to connect to my network unless their machines are first thoroughly examined, and I absolutely refuse ANY Vista-based machines in the building. I know what every process and every DLL running on my machine does and I know when something new has been added and check it out thoroughly before anything goes any further. I do not open any emails with attachments from anyone that I don't know, and if I get an attachment from someone I know, if it was not so arranged beforehand, I make arrangements to go get it. I do NOT run MS Outlook or any derivatives thereof. So and and so forth. In otherwiords, I maintain a high level of performance, relaibility and integrity of the machine because of the high level of system hygene I maintain on the machine. I regularily see machines of alledgedly FAR higher raw performance absolutely CRAWL by comaprison because the owner has SO MUCH CRAP running on it, 90% of which is unneccessary. I have seen people running multiple anti-virus, anti-spam, anti-pop-up programs when they're not even connected to the web, and I have all of these running multiple malware programs under the hood. A quick look at task manager shows 60, 70 or 80 processes running with the system idle process getting, maybe, 5% of the CPU (BTW Systinternal's Process Explorer is MUCH better). The HDD is thrashing about, and the paging and page fault statistics are appalling. statistics It's always amazine how a little diligent hygene can keep a machine running in top form, and it's always apalling how badly most system are maintained. It's also appalling what a total pig Vista is. |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
On Jul 25, 11:05 am, wrote:
[SNIP] QFT. I've been able to run a stable system with 40 gigs and 1.5 GHz since 2001. I only keep whats worth keeping, and all my apps are the most elite bouncers one will come across. They keep everything running smooth, and allow me to configure exactly what's invited at startup, or not. But hell, most of my strategy is basic common sense which, sadly, isn't for most. It's only recently that I had to upgrade, 'cuz encoding with H.264 isn't possible in real-time with 1.5 GHz. It's also appalling what a total pig Vista is. Or the hordes of ****witted retards MS exploits with ease, and how successfully they're able to market their garbage that they think is worth something. With their budget they can build a new OS with scratch -- but their ongoing investment of supporting Vista tells something else. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
wrote ...
Why, because once a week, I spend an hour getting rid of stuff that doesn't belong on it. I do not have all sorts of crap running on it. I do not allow people with Win2K or XP machines to connect to my network unless their machines are first thoroughly examined, and I absolutely refuse ANY Vista-based machines in the building. I know what every process and every DLL running on my machine does and I know when something new has been added and check it out thoroughly before anything goes any further. I do not open any emails with attachments from anyone that I don't know, and if I get an attachment from someone I know, if it was not so arranged beforehand, I make arrangements to go get it. I do NOT run MS Outlook or any derivatives thereof. So and and so forth. In otherwiords, I maintain a high level of performance, relaibility and integrity of the machine because of the high level of system hygene I maintain on the machine. This is why people maintain dedicated workstation systems for audio and/or video NLE. Systems which NEVER connect to the public internet (and, thus have no need for any anti-virus cruft.) No browsing, no office apps, no games, etc. etc. It's also appalling what a total pig Vista is. Vista is an entertainment platform cobbled together out of a proper operating system. Perhaps why MS is reputed to be working of newer generations of Proper Operating Systems. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
Industrial One wrote:
On Jul 25, 11:05 am, wrote: [SNIP] QFT. I've been able to run a stable system with 40 gigs and 1.5 GHz since 2001. I only keep whats worth keeping, and all my apps are the most elite bouncers one will come across. They keep everything running smooth, and allow me to configure exactly what's invited at startup, or not. But hell, most of my strategy is basic common sense which, sadly, isn't for most. It's only recently that I had to upgrade, 'cuz encoding with H.264 isn't possible in real-time with 1.5 GHz. It's also appalling what a total pig Vista is. Or the hordes of ****witted retards MS exploits with ease, and how successfully they're able to market their garbage that they think is worth something. With their budget they can build a new OS with scratch -- but their ongoing investment of supporting Vista tells something else. MS is caught in a dilemma. If they did it properly none of your old progs would run on the new system. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
Richard Crowley wrote:
wrote ... Why, because once a week, I spend an hour getting rid of stuff that doesn't belong on it. I do not have all sorts of crap running on it. I do not allow people with Win2K or XP machines to connect to my network unless their machines are first thoroughly examined, and I absolutely refuse ANY Vista-based machines in the building. I know what every process and every DLL running on my machine does and I know when something new has been added and check it out thoroughly before anything goes any further. I do not open any emails with attachments from anyone that I don't know, and if I get an attachment from someone I know, if it was not so arranged beforehand, I make arrangements to go get it. I do NOT run MS Outlook or any derivatives thereof. So and and so forth. In otherwiords, I maintain a high level of performance, relaibility and integrity of the machine because of the high level of system hygene I maintain on the machine. This is why people maintain dedicated workstation systems for audio and/or video NLE. Systems which NEVER connect to the public internet (and, thus have no need for any anti-virus cruft.) No browsing, no office apps, no games, etc. etc. It's also appalling what a total pig Vista is. Vista is an entertainment platform cobbled together out of a proper operating system. Perhaps why MS is reputed to be working of newer generations of Proper Operating Systems. I'll leave it about 3 years before I consider dropping XP in favour of whatever follows Vista. If it's still a pig I'll stick with XP and dual boot Linux. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
On Jul 25, 2:53 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
Vista is an entertainment platform cobbled together out of a proper operating system. Perhaps why MS is reputed to be working of newer generations of Proper Operating Systems. Bull****. I can't play most N64 roms without lag since Vista already eats up 1 GHz even when doing nothing. When I switched back to XP, the entertainment returns. Vista ain't nothing, it's just garbage. I've yet to see what it has that XP doesn't. |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... Perhaps why MS is reputed to be working of newer generations of Proper Operating Systems. Well the acronym POS, does describe Microsoft operating systems, but it *never* stands for "Proper Operating system". Hard to imagine it ever will either. However I do seem to have FAR less trouble with Windows (95,98,ME,NT,XP) than those who don't know how to use it. My digital TV set top box OTOH needs rebooting frequently, and of course no easy way to fix it without buying a new one. MrT. |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
Will this computer do?
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in message ... I'll leave it about 3 years before I consider dropping XP in favour of whatever follows Vista. If it's still a pig I'll stick with XP and dual boot Linux. I have a simple decision on OS upgrades, when the software and hardware I choose to use no longer supports my current OS, then it's time to upgrade. Still have one computer happily running Windows 98 on the original install. None running Vista of course. MrT. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Buy a new computer | Pro Audio | |||
| Car computer | Car Audio | |||
| Computer Aux-Out for Mic Out | Tech | |||
| Guitar to Computer | Tech | |||
Linear Mode
