Hi,

I've got a choice between a new dual-pc with a 667MHz FSB
or a Pentium4 jobbie with a 800MHz FSB. Which one is better
for multitrack audio? How critical is the front side bus?

Thanks,

Scott

wrote in message ups.com...
Hi,

I've got a choice between a new dual-pc with a 667MHz FSB
or a Pentium4 jobbie with a 800MHz FSB. Which one is better
for multitrack audio? How critical is the front side bus?


Either is within the do-ablility of software requirements and the
hardware is all relative, but Intel is the chipset for audio, IMHO.
Most P4 processors are dual core.

Most P4 processors are dual core.

No they're not.

I. Care wrote:
In article NcCfg.16106$lN5.13316@trnddc04,
says...

wrote in message ups.com...
Hi,

I've got a choice between a new dual-pc with a 667MHz FSB
or a Pentium4 jobbie with a 800MHz FSB. Which one is better
for multitrack audio? How critical is the front side bus?


Either is within the do-ablility of software requirements and the
hardware is all relative, but Intel is the chipset for audio, IMHO.
Most P4 processors are dual core.



Be careful here. It isn't Dual Core unless it says so. I have 3 Intel
chipped P4 computers a 600mhz Sony Laptop, a 2.8ghz Sony Laptop, and a
1.8ghz Intel desktop and none of them are Dual Core.
--

OK, thanks for that. Although: a) I know the difference between a
Dual-core,
a Xeon and a P4 (well, to some extent), and b) what I really need to
know is
how much the FSB speed is important and to what. Does it affect the
number of plug-ins I can run simultaneously? I know that HD speeds are
critical for number of tracks and process speed is important for
processor
loading, but how important is the FSB?

Anyone?

Scott

I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

wrote in message
oups.com...

OK, thanks for that. Although: a) I know the difference between a
Dual-core,
a Xeon and a P4 (well, to some extent), and b) what I really need to
know is
how much the FSB speed is important and to what. Does it affect the
number of plug-ins I can run simultaneously? I know that HD speeds are
critical for number of tracks and process speed is important for
processor
loading, but how important is the FSB?

Well, HD speed is a factor in simultaneous tracks, but you're going to need
a heaping buttload of tracks before a typical 7200RPM EIDE drive even begins
to get taxed. I don't know that the FSB will have any significant influence
on the number of simultaneous plugins or anything else. However, with the
ability of the software to freeze a track, that shouldn't be too much of a
concern.

wrote in message
oups.com...

I. Care wrote:
In article NcCfg.16106$lN5.13316@trnddc04,
says...

wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi,

I've got a choice between a new dual-pc with a 667MHz FSB
or a Pentium4 jobbie with a 800MHz FSB. Which one is better
for multitrack audio? How critical is the front side bus?


Either is within the do-ablility of software requirements and the
hardware is all relative, but Intel is the chipset for audio, IMHO.
Most P4 processors are dual core.



Be careful here. It isn't Dual Core unless it says so. I have 3 Intel
chipped P4 computers a 600mhz Sony Laptop, a 2.8ghz Sony Laptop, and a
1.8ghz Intel desktop and none of them are Dual Core.
--

OK, thanks for that. Although: a) I know the difference between a
Dual-core,
a Xeon and a P4 (well, to some extent), and b) what I really need to
know is
how much the FSB speed is important and to what. Does it affect the
number of plug-ins I can run simultaneously? I know that HD speeds are
critical for number of tracks and process speed is important for
processor
loading, but how important is the FSB?

Anyone?

If you are going to be doing a large number of simultaneous audio tracks
with lots of realtime effects then you want the fastest processor and FSB
you can afford. If you're a typical home studioist doing what most of us do,
either FSB will do the job handily. In fact, I ran a 1.3GHz P4 with a 400
Mhz FSB until just recently and rarely ran into problems. FSB is the highway
between the program and the processor, but with either the 667 or the 800
FSB, quantity of RAM is probably going to be more important thas FSB speed.
A 667 FSB with a couple GB of RAM is going to perform better than an 800 FSB
with half a GB.

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message ...
Most P4 processors are dual core.

No they're not.


I just built a new PC a couple of weeks ago, and if I wanted Pentium 4
at 3 Ghz or better Intel, dual core processors were all that Fry's had to
offer.

Sorry for the error in understanding... :-(

DM

Actually they are somewhat dualcore. It's not like the new dual core chips
from intel though, the regular P4s are cable of running two threads at once,
where as a new dual core is capable of running 4 threads at once.

I have a regular P4 and my computer shows 2 cpu's during boot up, one of
them is somewhat virtual, but it can run threads too.

This all started when early pentium chips came out, I forget which one, but
either the P1, P2 or P3 had something similiar to 2 80486 cpu's on one chip.
Intel finally started to market that as hyperthreading in the P4 line.

The new dualcore chips are a bit different, the cores are independent of the
others, and each core is capable of running more than one thread at a time.
If hyperthreading is turned on in the bios of a computer with a real
dualcore cpu, the bios will show 4 cpu's.

I have a dual Xeon (not dualcore, but 2 seperate cpu's on the motherboard),
and the bios and linux OS show 4 cpu's. My desktop computer with a regular
P4 shows 2 cpu's in the bios and windows OS.

Chris Blastin

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
Most P4 processors are dual core.

No they're not.

"Chris Blastin" wrote in message
...
This all started when early pentium chips came out,

Quite the contrary it started in the middle of the Pentium 4 line, early P4s
were single-core, single-thread. You are probably thinking of a multi-issue
pipeline which many reviewers got confused about leading to some very
strange statements regarding cpus.

I forget which one, but either the P1, P2 or P3 had something similiar to
2 80486 cpu's on one chip.

Far from true. The difference between the Pentium core and the 80486 core is
enormous, to be specific the 80486 core was a CISC native core (Complex
Instruction Set Code), while the Pentium actually has what's known as
microcode (in software this would be called a Just In Time compiler or JIT)
that converts CISC into RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Code). I can go into
great detail about the differences but the core difference is that RISC aims
to remove instructions from the instructions list on the basis of "You can
do it a different way", while CISC aims to increase the instructions on the
basis of "fewer instructions to process is better."
Joe

http://www.karbosguide.com/books/pca.../chapter14.htm
Fig. 102. The Pentium processor could be viewed as two 80486's built into
one chip.

Chris Blastin

"Joseph Ashwood" wrote in message
om...
"Chris Blastin" wrote in message
...
This all started when early pentium chips came out,

Quite the contrary it started in the middle of the Pentium 4 line, early
P4s were single-core, single-thread. You are probably thinking of a
multi-issue pipeline which many reviewers got confused about leading to
some very strange statements regarding cpus.

I forget which one, but either the P1, P2 or P3 had something similiar to
2 80486 cpu's on one chip.

Far from true. The difference between the Pentium core and the 80486 core
is enormous, to be specific the 80486 core was a CISC native core (Complex
Instruction Set Code), while the Pentium actually has what's known as
microcode (in software this would be called a Just In Time compiler or
JIT) that converts CISC into RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Code). I can go
into great detail about the differences but the core difference is that
RISC aims to remove instructions from the instructions list on the basis
of "You can do it a different way", while CISC aims to increase the
instructions on the basis of "fewer instructions to process is better."
Joe

wrote:
Hi,

I've got a choice between a new dual-pc with a 667MHz FSB
or a Pentium4 jobbie with a 800MHz FSB. Which one is better
for multitrack audio? How critical is the front side bus?

Thanks,

Scott

The FSB is generally important on a DAW. But most important for your
recording performance and if using VST Samplers.

The FSB is the internal connection (like a highway) between your CPU and
your RAM and Harddrives. The Faster the FSB the more tracks on your
"Highway". Its also good to have a fast and stable FSB for multitrack
recording because it reduces directly the latency of your system.

My choice would always be the one with the fastest FSB but you will also
have to use fast reliable RAM (no NO-Name RAM!) and some good Mainboard.


Toms Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.de / http://www.tomshardware.com)
is a good source to get some overview and indeep infos on CPU's Chipsets
and so on.
They got an interesting issue about a dual 4.1 GHz PC at 130 $:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/..._41_ghz_cores/

I think I am going to build up such a system as a DAW with two drives
and so...gonna report if it works out good.


Hope i could help you.

Marco Aeberli wrote:
wrote:
Hi,

I've got a choice between a new dual-pc with a 667MHz FSB
or a Pentium4 jobbie with a 800MHz FSB. Which one is better
for multitrack audio? How critical is the front side bus?

Thanks,

Scott

The FSB is generally important on a DAW. But most important for your
recording performance and if using VST Samplers.

The FSB is the internal connection (like a highway) between your CPU and
your RAM and Harddrives. The Faster the FSB the more tracks on your
"Highway". Its also good to have a fast and stable FSB for multitrack
recording because it reduces directly the latency of your system.

My choice would always be the one with the fastest FSB but you will also
have to use fast reliable RAM (no NO-Name RAM!) and some good Mainboard.


Toms Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.de / http://www.tomshardware.com)
is a good source to get some overview and indeep infos on CPU's Chipsets
and so on.
They got an interesting issue about a dual 4.1 GHz PC at 130 $:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/..._41_ghz_cores/

I think I am going to build up such a system as a DAW with two drives
and so...gonna report if it works out good.


Hope i could help you.

You did. OK, I'm looking at a Dell laptop with 2.0 GHz Dual Core
processor and 667MHz FSB, with a 7600 rpm HD and 2GB RAM
running at 500-odd MHz. The alternative is a desktop with P4 at
3.something MHz, an 800MHz FSB and similar RAM (I think) and
HD. Will I lose too much capability if I go for the lappie?

Scott

(I have yet to decide on my I/O, but the MOTU MicroLite or the
Emu 1616M look appealing)

FSB is what Rosa Parks stood up for. I think..

wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi,

I've got a choice between a new dual-pc with a 667MHz FSB
or a Pentium4 jobbie with a 800MHz FSB. Which one is better
for multitrack audio? How critical is the front side bus?

Thanks,

Scott

wrote in message
oups.com...

Marco Aeberli wrote:
wrote:
Hi,

I've got a choice between a new dual-pc with a 667MHz FSB
or a Pentium4 jobbie with a 800MHz FSB. Which one is better
for multitrack audio? How critical is the front side bus?

Thanks,

Scott

The FSB is generally important on a DAW. But most important for your
recording performance and if using VST Samplers.

The FSB is the internal connection (like a highway) between your CPU and
your RAM and Harddrives. The Faster the FSB the more tracks on your
"Highway". Its also good to have a fast and stable FSB for multitrack
recording because it reduces directly the latency of your system.

My choice would always be the one with the fastest FSB but you will also
have to use fast reliable RAM (no NO-Name RAM!) and some good Mainboard.


Toms Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.de / http://www.tomshardware.com)
is a good source to get some overview and indeep infos on CPU's Chipsets
and so on.
They got an interesting issue about a dual 4.1 GHz PC at 130 $:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/..._41_ghz_cores/

I think I am going to build up such a system as a DAW with two drives
and so...gonna report if it works out good.


Hope i could help you.

You did. OK, I'm looking at a Dell laptop with 2.0 GHz Dual Core
processor and 667MHz FSB, with a 7600 rpm HD and 2GB RAM
running at 500-odd MHz. The alternative is a desktop with P4 at
3.something MHz, an 800MHz FSB and similar RAM (I think) and
HD. Will I lose too much capability if I go for the lappie?

Using a laptop for multitrack audio is asking for trouble, the answer is
yes, you will lose capability (and stability, and reliability) if you go
with the laptop.

"Mike Rieves" wrote in message
. ..

You did. OK, I'm looking at a Dell laptop with 2.0 GHz Dual Core
processor and 667MHz FSB, with a 7600 rpm HD and 2GB RAM
running at 500-odd MHz. The alternative is a desktop with P4 at
3.something MHz, an 800MHz FSB and similar RAM (I think) and
HD. Will I lose too much capability if I go for the lappie?

Using a laptop for multitrack audio is asking for trouble, the answer is
yes, you will lose capability (and stability, and reliability) if you go
with the laptop.

I hope the R.A.P folks don't tear Mike a new one over this.

You may be able to get your laptop running without a single problem. Based
on personal experience and watching threads for years, I would you are much
more likely to have issues on a laptop versus a desktop when it comes to
audio apps. Hell, even at work (I'm a software developer) proportionally
laptops tend to offer many more general compatibilty problems than desktops.

I would guess that most of us who have been there and done that would choose
a desktop over a laptop given a choice. This assumes, of course, that
portability is not an issue.

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:Qg7hg.26485$ZW3.17030@dukeread04...
"Mike Rieves" wrote in message
. ..

You did. OK, I'm looking at a Dell laptop with 2.0 GHz Dual Core
processor and 667MHz FSB, with a 7600 rpm HD and 2GB RAM
running at 500-odd MHz. The alternative is a desktop with P4 at
3.something MHz, an 800MHz FSB and similar RAM (I think) and
HD. Will I lose too much capability if I go for the lappie?

Using a laptop for multitrack audio is asking for trouble, the answer
is
yes, you will lose capability (and stability, and reliability) if you go
with the laptop.

I hope the R.A.P folks don't tear Mike a new one over this.

You may be able to get your laptop running without a single problem. Based
on personal experience and watching threads for years, I would you are
much
more likely to have issues on a laptop versus a desktop when it comes to
audio apps. Hell, even at work (I'm a software developer) proportionally
laptops tend to offer many more general compatibilty problems than
desktops.

I would guess that most of us who have been there and done that would
choose
a desktop over a laptop given a choice. This assumes, of course, that
portability is not an issue.


I think most of the folks in R.A.P. know that a laptop is much more likely
to have issues than is a desktop. The main issue with toting a desktop
around has always been the big bulky monitor, but now that flat panel LCD
monitors are available at reasonable prices, carrying a desktop to gigs or
recording sessions is not all that much harder than carrying a laptop. I've
seen folks use laptops for audio with good results, but I've seen folks have
issues with laptops a lot more often. :-) Perhaps I was a judging laptops a
bit too harshly, but I think anyone considering using a laptop for
multitrack audio should think long and hard before making that investment.

A few days late, to say the least, but I've actually been toying with the
idea presented by www.tomshardware.com that a Pentium D 805 can be
physically clocked to 4.1 GHz (might be a bit costly with heat piping) and
by the review, for the dollars, it is a high dollar Pentium AND AMD killer.
Dual Core, 667 FSB (but it runs on both the up and down side of an
electronic signal, so actually double the effective FSB throughput).

Read the article. It might be an eye-opener.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi,

I've got a choice between a new dual-pc with a 667MHz FSB
or a Pentium4 jobbie with a 800MHz FSB. Which one is better
for multitrack audio? How critical is the front side bus?

Thanks,

Scott