Upgrading to XP and Dual Core

[Lauren the Ravishing]

Hello,

It's past time for me to upgrade my computer. I'm going to invest in
all the parts a new Dual Core PC and I would like to know what
obstacles I'll run into. I haven't found many useful posts in this
regard, which I'm surprised to say, otherwise I wouldn't bother you by
posting these questions here.

I will be building a Dual Core PC and upgrading from Windows 2000 to
Windows XP. I use Sonar 3, GigaStudio 2.5, a Creamware Luna PCI audio
card, and many VST plug ins for effects and virtual instruments.

What kinds of issues might I face by moving to a new platform? How
backwards compatible is XP and Dual Core for the above audio apps? Will
I run into problems (audio glitches, crashing software) or will I
simply not get the most out of the hardware without upgrading to all
the most recent versions of the software?

Any guidance in this process is appreciated.

~ Lori

[Neil Rutman]

You should cross post these questions to cakewalk.audio ng where all your
questions will be answered.

Neil R

"Lauren the Ravishing" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hello,
>
> It's past time for me to upgrade my computer. I'm going to invest in
> all the parts a new Dual Core PC and I would like to know what
> obstacles I'll run into. I haven't found many useful posts in this
> regard, which I'm surprised to say, otherwise I wouldn't bother you by
> posting these questions here.
>
> I will be building a Dual Core PC and upgrading from Windows 2000 to
> Windows XP. I use Sonar 3, GigaStudio 2.5, a Creamware Luna PCI audio
> card, and many VST plug ins for effects and virtual instruments.
>
> What kinds of issues might I face by moving to a new platform? How
> backwards compatible is XP and Dual Core for the above audio apps? Will
> I run into problems (audio glitches, crashing software) or will I
> simply not get the most out of the hardware without upgrading to all
> the most recent versions of the software?
>
> Any guidance in this process is appreciated.
>
> ~ Lori
>

[jeffreydesign]

If (and this is a BIG if) your new computer is properly configured
(with dual core or dual single processors) you should have no problem
with the software you listed. I don't think the versions you listed
will make use of more than one processor however Windows XP will, so
you will see a little system performance improvement over a single
processor. Unless your software specifically makes use of
multi-processors (and the ones that don't do a great job at it - yet) I
would recommend putting all your hard earned money into the fastest
single core proc (64bit) you can afford. Now some programs can make use
of 64bit processing however it's a similar story to dual processing -
it's not great... YET. There aren't too many good 64 bit audio drivers
or outboard hardware drivers yet either, but it is coming, soon.

Any dual core (Intel or AMD) CPU should be fine. It's the motherboard
you should be careful with as different chipsets can make a big
difference with regard to total system performance and reliability.
Research your choices carefully. The same goes with what RAM you
choose. Don't skimp here - get RAM that is over-rated (faster) than
what the motherboard/CPU combination requires. Intel, ASUS and MSI make
decent consumer motherboards.

Finally make sure you have a REALLY good power supply. Believe it or
not, problems with multi-threaded apps can be sourced to power supply
problems. Don't skimp here either. Cheap Power Supply = problems.

FWIW- Jeff



Lauren the Ravishing wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It's past time for me to upgrade my computer. I'm going to invest in
> all the parts a new Dual Core PC and I would like to know what
> obstacles I'll run into. I haven't found many useful posts in this
> regard, which I'm surprised to say, otherwise I wouldn't bother you by
> posting these questions here.
>
> I will be building a Dual Core PC and upgrading from Windows 2000 to
> Windows XP. I use Sonar 3, GigaStudio 2.5, a Creamware Luna PCI audio
> card, and many VST plug ins for effects and virtual instruments.
>
> What kinds of issues might I face by moving to a new platform? How
> backwards compatible is XP and Dual Core for the above audio apps? Will
> I run into problems (audio glitches, crashing software) or will I
> simply not get the most out of the hardware without upgrading to all
> the most recent versions of the software?
>
> Any guidance in this process is appreciated.
>
> ~ Lori

[Nil]

On 18 Jan 2007, "Lauren the Ravishing"
> wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> I will be building a Dual Core PC and upgrading from Windows 2000
> to Windows XP. I use Sonar 3, GigaStudio 2.5, a Creamware Luna PCI
> audio card, and many VST plug ins for effects and virtual
> instruments.

I can't answer the general question, but Sonar versions 2, 4, and 5,
and all my plugins run beautifully on my 2-month old Core 2 Duo system.

[Meindert Sprang]

"Markus Mietling" > wrote in message
...
> Lauren the Ravishing wrote in
> om>:
>
> >I will be building a Dual Core PC and upgrading from Windows 2000 to
> >Windows XP.
>
> I'm not sure why you would consider this an upgrade? What advantage do
> you expect?

Because the support for W2K is or will be stopped by M$. Because some DAW
software only runs on XP (Cubase). Becasue XP is constantly upgraded and
fixed by M$ while W2K is not.

Meindert

[Daniel Mandic]

Lauren the Ravishing wrote:

> Any guidance in this process is appreciated.
>
> ~ Lori


hmmmm, a real 64bit might help. The Software also in 64bit.

I would take the Itanium Intel, if you can get that kind of CPU. It is
out, since 2000, but nowhere to buy. Maybe in USA!?



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

P.S.: Otherwise, the 'Sossamon' Chipset, with 2 dual-core Intel IA32
CPU's. Energy consumption as ONE 64bit Athlon, near as fast AND faster.
Then take thread-oriented multi-CPU drive with NT and you can still use
your old Audio Software. The other cores/CPU are doing meanwhile other
threads.
The machine will respond much faster (lower latency) with
thread-optimized multi CPU drive.

P.P.S.: I am too lazy wo watch/read the exact definition of the thread
driven standard for NT (Inside Windows2000, MS Press, Mark Russinovich
and David Solomon). But I can look in, if you wish!
I would take thread-oriented.... if I would have a multi-cpu machine...
in any case!!! Also for computing, surfing etc.
Task-oriented, is e.g. 2 windows, in one an anim and in the other
window an other anim, which is processed individually by one CPU.
BUT!!! The Software have to be MULTI CPU compatible, AFAIK, to result
in real faster performance. Mainly expensive CAD/CAM software, PRO,
Industry etc. !!!

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:39:24 +0100, Markus Mietling
> wrote:

>>> I'm not sure why you would consider this an upgrade? What advantage do
>>> you expect?
>>
>>Because the support for W2K is or will be stopped by M$.
>
>Why would I need "support" if everything works fine?
>
>>Because some DAW
>>software only runs on XP (Cubase).
>
>That's a reason not to buy Cubase, right? Did you notice the OP runs
>Sonar 3?

As he's building a new computer, it seems perverse to install an
obsolete operating system?

[Joseph Ashwood]

"Daniel Mandic" > wrote in message
y.telekom.at...
> Lauren the Ravishing wrote:
>
>> Any guidance in this process is appreciated.
>>
>> ~ Lori
>
>
> hmmmm, a real 64bit might help. The Software also in 64bit.
>
> I would take the Itanium Intel, if you can get that kind of CPU. It is
> out, since 2000, but nowhere to buy. Maybe in USA!?

The Itanium/Itanic is really not of that much use for almost anything. It is
good for science simulations, and other excessively compute intensive tasks,
but it really isn't superior at moving bits around, which is what most of
sound really is. Also in terms of bang for the buck it's actually very low
on the list. For getting maximum audio compute power the Xeons and Opertons
are pretty much the way to go, but the Athlons and Core 2s offer better bang
for the buck. If you want truly stupendous compute power then actually the
PowerPC chips are pretty much where you want to be (IBMs newest members of
the Power series and actually the Cell processor currently not available
much outside the PS3). Even looking at the Spec2006 Base results supports
this, the Core 2 Extreme (X6800) clocked in at up to 16.8 on the CFP2006,
the highest Itanium score I see for that is 17.3, there were no results
available on the Core 2 Quads (still hate the name). You can get a Core 2
Extreme system for for less than $3500 (this was an Alienware rig since I
knew they'd have it), it took me a bit of effort to find anything that
actually runs a Itanium, as for pricing, let's just say that HP doesn't want
to tell anyone. Basically Itanium is dying in much the same way the 900
series did (eventually ended up on network processing cards).

> P.P.S.: I am too lazy wo watch/read the exact definition of the thread
> driven standard for NT (Inside Windows2000, MS Press, Mark Russinovich
> and David Solomon).

For this purpose it is enough to say that threads may move between CPUs
without forcing the movement of other threads from the process. All threads
(except the main thread) have to be started through a specific call to the
operating system.

> Mainly expensive CAD/CAM software, PRO,
> Industry etc. !!!

Actually this started breaking down about a decade ago when they started
teaching about threading colleges. As a result more programs started
breaking out conceptual blocks into threads even if they were run
sequentially. At this point in time even many audio and video codecs are
starting to become multi-threaded, and I am personally leading a push in
cryptography to research methods that are inherently multi-threaded. Yes it
is better if forethought is put into how to balance the threads, and how to
move tasks between them, but I actually think that as OSs become more
adjusted to the concept of consumer level threading and multi-cores we'll
see the OS actually take over a great deal of the heavy lifting there.
Joe

[Jim Gilliland]

Lauren the Ravishing wrote:

> It's past time for me to upgrade my computer. I'm going to invest in
> all the parts a new Dual Core PC and I would like to know what
> obstacles I'll run into. I haven't found many useful posts in this
> regard, which I'm surprised to say, otherwise I wouldn't bother you by
> posting these questions here.
>
> I will be building a Dual Core PC and upgrading from Windows 2000 to
> Windows XP. I use Sonar 3, GigaStudio 2.5, a Creamware Luna PCI audio
> card, and many VST plug ins for effects and virtual instruments.
>
> What kinds of issues might I face by moving to a new platform? How
> backwards compatible is XP and Dual Core for the above audio apps? Will
> I run into problems (audio glitches, crashing software) or will I
> simply not get the most out of the hardware without upgrading to all
> the most recent versions of the software?

I built a new system a few weeks ago using a Core 2 Duo, Asus motherboard, new
RAID drives, ATI graphics, new memory, pretty much new everything. I installed
XP (and current fixes), installed my apps (which don't overlap your apps at
all), and everything just worked. No problems at all. I don't know whether
you'll have the same experience, but it's possible.

You may want to ask on the PC-DAW mailing list. It's probably a more
appropriate place for this question, and it's been really quiet there lately anyway.

BTW, my new system is MUCH faster than the old. It can render a complete mix,
with effects, of a 24 track two-hour concert to stereo in about 30 minutes.
Most of that improvement is due to the RAID array of SATA2 drives, since the mix
process is mostly I/O bound. Neither CPU is maxed out during the process.
(Which means, I suppose, that I could make it faster still by adding more drives
to the array.)

It's also much quieter than the old system. I used a quiet motherboard, quiet
drives, and a quiet case. The power supply fan and graphics board fan are still
an issue, though.

[Lauren the Ravishing]

Jim Gilliland wrote:
>
> You may want to ask on the PC-DAW mailing list. It's probably a more
> appropriate place for this question, and it's been really quiet there lately anyway.

Hi Jim,

Can you please tell me where I can find the PC-DAW mailing list?

[Richard Crowley]

"Markus Mietling" wrote ...
> Meindert Sprang wrote :
>
>>> I'm not sure why you would consider this an upgrade? What advantage
>>> do
>>> you expect?
>>
>>Because the support for W2K is or will be stopped by M$.
>
> Why would I need "support" if everything works fine?

That is a very good argument and one which I use for
several of my own compters. As long as you never add
*or upgrade* any of the layered applications, or any of
the hardware, shouldn't matter how old, out-of-date,
unsupported or ancient the operating system is. I still
have an audio workstation running Win95. And my
video workstations have NEVER been upgraded,
updated, or patched. Of course, NONE of the audio
or video workstations are connected to the internet
and do not run any kind of virus protection (none
being needed).

However, when building a NEW machine (which is
essentially what you are doing when replacing the MB
& CPU) you are better off putting a software stake in
the ground somewhere in the same generation as your
hardware.

[Lauren the Ravishing]

Nil wrote:
> I can't answer the general question, but Sonar versions 2, 4, and 5,
> and all my plugins run beautifully on my 2-month old Core 2 Duo system.

Nil, what operating system are you using? I assume Widows XP 32 bit and
not 64 bit?

[Lauren the Ravishing]

Jim Gilliland wrote:
> I built a new system a few weeks ago using a Core 2 Duo, Asus motherboard, new
> RAID drives, ATI graphics, new memory, pretty much new everything. I installed
> XP (and current fixes), installed my apps (which don't overlap your apps at
> all), and everything just worked. No problems at all.

Thanks Jim,

What version of Windows did you use? 64 bit or 32 bit?

~ L

[Nil]

On 19 Jan 2007, "Lauren the Ravishing"
> wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> Nil, what operating system are you using? I assume Widows XP 32
> bit and not 64 bit?

Yes, XP, 32-bit. I had been running Windows 2000 on my old 450 mHz PIII
with 384 MB RAM since 1998. The old gal finally outlived it's
usefulness and I built this new system last November. I never
considered running a 64-bit OS. I'm not sure what the advantage for me
would be.

[Nil]

On 19 Jan 2007, "Lauren the Ravishing"
> wrote in rec.audio.pro:

> Can you please tell me where I can find the PC-DAW mailing list?

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/PCDAW/

[jeffreydesign]

MM wrote:

"I'd like to give this a slightly different twist: As long as you don't
run into problems with the software you use, there's no incentive to
upgrade to a newer OS.

And *IF* you run into problems, there's still the need to verify that
it's still your OS which is to blame: Otherwise you obviously run the
risk of jumping out of the frying pan right into the fire. "

----

With respect, allow me to untwist this twisted logic. Markus would be
correct *IF* OS 'upgrades' were more or less static upgrades - there
would be no real reason to upgrade. This is not true. The real reason
for upgrading is threefold: First, as newer, faster, more efficient
hardware is produced, new software (including Operating Systems) need
to be written to leverage that new hardware. Second, it depends on how
much your time is worth. I work on computers every day and I dread
having to work on older systems even if they're perfectly functional
because it takes SO LONG to get anything done. It's like I tell my
customers who ask if they need to upgrade, "Not if your time isn't
worth much - but if you value your time, by all means, upgrade." Third,
manufacturers of hardware (old and new) often cannot afford to both
write/support new drivers and drivers for obsolete operating systems.
So what happens is they stop supplying the older drivers and you're out
of gas.

Now all this assumes that upgrading is not just a minor 'tic' - but
going from Windows 2000 to XP is what I would consider a major tic. W2k
is no longer supported (and you can't blame Microsoft for that - while
they are a profitable company they can't support everything at the rate
of change consumers expect) which is also true of 95, 98 and ME. XP is
far more stable than any of the above and outperforms them all too.
Vista, for example, may appear to just be XP with 'window dressing'
however looking deeper will reveal major changes that provide new
functionality, efficiency, features and performance.

One thing MM says is true - you should determine if your problem is the
OS or not before making an upgrade. Upgrading is not a panacea in and
of itself. But in this case, XP is a mature OS and is stable. We're not
yet advising users to upgrade to Vista, not just because you can't buy
it yet but because it's neither mature nor entirely stable - and there
aren't drivers for everything yet. There will be and Vista will be a
functional, mature operating system faster than XP did and Vista will
make better use of your new hardware, making your overall DAW
'experience' better. But that may take a year or two.

In truth, I would probably make more money as a business if no one
upgraded. I make more money (since we charge by the hour) on slower,
older systems and since these systems (in general) are less stable they
offer more repair opportunities. Often when presented with a particular
issue, I advise customers to upgrade since in the end it will cost them
less money and they will come out with a [much] faster machine, which
will pay for itself over time. In a business environment (studios bill
by the hour too) time is money. For the average consumer (home user)
time may not be as critical, however there is a frustration factor. How
much is that worth to you? Well I suppose that depends on you.

FWIW - Jeff




Markus Mietling wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote in >:
>
> >As long as you never add
> >*or upgrade* any of the layered applications, or any of
> >the hardware, shouldn't matter how old, out-of-date,
> >unsupported or ancient the operating system is.
>
> I'd like to give this a slightly different twist: As long as you don't
> run into problems with the software you use, there's no incentive to
> upgrade to a newer OS.
>
> And *IF* you run into problems, there's still the need to verify that
> it's still your OS which is to blame: Otherwise you obviously run the
> risk of jumping out of the frying pan right into the fire.
>
> >However, when building a NEW machine (which is
> >essentially what you are doing when replacing the MB
> >& CPU) you are better off putting a software stake in
> >the ground somewhere in the same generation as your
> >hardware.
>
> No, I don't think so: Being the blanket statement that it is, it's
> simply not true. Release dates don't matter per se, features do.
>
> --MM

[Bob Cain]

Jim Gilliland wrote:

> I built a new system a few weeks ago using a Core 2 Duo, Asus
> motherboard,

Which model motherboard, Jim?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Richard Crowley]

Markus Mietling wrote:
> Richard Crowley wrote...
>
> >However, when building a NEW machine (which is
> >essentially what you are doing when replacing the MB
> >& CPU) you are better off putting a software stake in
> >the ground somewhere in the same generation as your
> >hardware.
>
> No, I don't think so: Being the blanket statement that it is, it's
> simply not true. Release dates don't matter per se, features do.

It is very much also a matter of capabilities
(if not simple compatibility). Do you think that
either MS or Intel even thought of testing Win3.1
on the Core 2 Duo?

[Jim Gilliland]

I must apologize for failing to see and respond to the messages below. I just
discovered that my news server has been losing hundreds of r.a.p messages. I've
switched to a different server.

Bob Cain wrote:
> Jim Gilliland wrote:
>
>> I built a new system a few weeks ago using a Core 2 Duo, Asus
>> motherboard,
>
> Which model motherboard, Jim?

I bought the Asus P5B Deluxe. It has SATA II RAID, Firewire, Gb-Ethernet,
S/PDIF output, and many other features. It's designed for quiet operation.

I still get some noise from the power supply fan and the video board fan, but
this new unit is MUCH quieter than my last one.

> Lauren the Ravishing wrote:
>>
>> What version of Windows did you use? 64 bit or 32 bit?

I used 32-bit Windows XP. I don't have any software that would benefit from 64
bit operation. And I'm in _no_ hurry to go to Vista.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jim Gilliland" > wrote in
message
> I must apologize for failing to see and respond to the
> messages below. I just discovered that my news server
> has been losing hundreds of r.a.p messages. I've
> switched to a different server.
> Bob Cain wrote:
>> Jim Gilliland wrote:
>>
>>> I built a new system a few weeks ago using a Core 2
>>> Duo, Asus motherboard,
>>
>> Which model motherboard, Jim?
>
> I bought the Asus P5B Deluxe. It has SATA II RAID,
> Firewire, Gb-Ethernet, S/PDIF output, and many other
> features. It's designed for quiet operation.

Only 3 PCI slots. Not a multitracker's dream.

Does the chipset support SATA RAID-5?

[Jim Gilliland]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jim Gilliland" > wrote in
> message

>> I bought the Asus P5B Deluxe. It has SATA II RAID,
>> Firewire, Gb-Ethernet, S/PDIF output, and many other
>> features. It's designed for quiet operation.
>
> Only 3 PCI slots. Not a multitracker's dream.

Actually I selected this one because it had that _many_. Most current boards
seem to have fewer than that.

How many PCI slots would you need? I've got my RME card in one, my HDTV card in
another, and the third remains empty. The RME card gives me 24 channels of
lightpipe I/O, plus S/PDIF and MIDI. My HDTV card also has S/PDIF outputs, as
does the motherboard, so I've got more of those than I know what to do with.

I rarely track with this machine anyway. All my tracks get transferred in from
my HD24XR (via HD24Connect software).

> Does the chipset support SATA RAID-5?

Yes. RAID 0, 1, 5, and 10.

I'm using RAID 0 with just two drives. I suppose I could add two more and get
more storage, better performance, and much better reliability with RAID 5. But
I haven't gone that route yet.

[Jim Gilliland]

Markus Mietling wrote:
> Jim Gilliland wrote in >:
>
>>>> I bought the Asus P5B Deluxe.
>> I'm using RAID 0 with just two drives.
>
> Which means you're ****ed if even one of them goes south. Yuck.

Right. Yuck.

>> I suppose I could add two more and get
>> more storage, better performance, and much better reliability with RAID 5.
>
> No, you couldn't. Onboard controllers being what they are, RAID 5 with
> an would be sure to slow your machine down: RAID 5 is computing
> intensive, and these computations would be carried out by your CPU.
> They don't call it "fakeraid" for nothing, you know?

Perhaps I have a misconception then. I thought that RAID 5 used one extra drive
as "parity". If so, then four drives would let me use three for storage
(improving performance and capacity) and one for parity (improving reliability).
As I remarked earlier, I'm already finding that my processing is largely I/O
bound, so some additional CPU load won't hurt anything.

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:04:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> I bought the Asus P5B Deluxe. It has SATA II RAID,
>> Firewire, Gb-Ethernet, S/PDIF output, and many other
>> features. It's designed for quiet operation.
>
>Only 3 PCI slots. Not a multitracker's dream.

How many PCI slots does a multi-tracker need?

[andrewunix]

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:44:38 +0100, suggested:
: Jim Gilliland wrote in >:
:
:>I thought that RAID 5 used one extra drive
:>as "parity".
:
: Right, although I think there are some RAID 5 implementations using
: *all* drives for parity information to avoid bottleneck effects.

Actually, that's *all* RAID 5 implementations, AFAIK. RAID 3 uses a parity
drive; RAID 5 uses a parity stripe across all drives.

--
agreenbu @ nyx . net andrew michael greenburg

[Jim Gilliland]

Markus Mietling wrote:
> Jim Gilliland wrote in >:
>
>> I thought that RAID 5 used one extra drive
>> as "parity".
>
> Right, although I think there are some RAID 5 implementations using
> *all* drives for parity information to avoid bottleneck effects.
>
>> If so, then four drives would let me use three for storage
>> (improving performance and capacity) and one for parity (improving reliability).

And I probably oversimplified it. I think you're right - it does spread the
parity across all the drives. But the net effect is the same - if I give it
four drives, I get three drives worth of storage and one drive worth of parity.

>> As I remarked earlier, I'm already finding that my processing is largely I/O
>> bound, so some additional CPU load won't hurt anything.
>
> It's not so much the CPU load, but whether you can live with, say, only
> 10 [1] or 20 MB/s [2] write performance when you've grown accustomed to
> five or ten times that throughput with your RAID 0 array.

If it's THAT much overhead, then I might not want to bother. Still, the system
reads a lot more data than it writes.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in
message
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:04:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>> I bought the Asus P5B Deluxe. It has SATA II RAID,
>>> Firewire, Gb-Ethernet, S/PDIF output, and many other
>>> features. It's designed for quiet operation.
>>
>> Only 3 PCI slots. Not a multitracker's dream.
>
> How many PCI slots does a multi-tracker need?

I'd say 4 - 4 8-channel audio interface cards.