It's a system thing
The question is, what are you doing with the audio?
Are you using your PC as a production station with something like Pro-Tools, Cubase, Reason, or something else that plays back and mixes multiple tracks with multiple effects?
Are you using your PC as a home media center that will be the signal source for your main speakers?
Are you using your PC as a hard-disk recorder for music?
For an audio workstation, I feel that it is important to have multiple hard disks on seperate IDE channels. It's probably worthwhile to have a small but fast "scratch" disk, and in fact many of these programs ask for you to specify a scratch disk that is seperate from the main system disk.
For a home media/theater center, thermal considerations are a big deal. With an audio workstation you might be able to put the noisy PC into a cabinet or ventilated isolation box, but you're probably not so lucky in your home listening environment. This means that power consumption is critical. For high performance, Athlon 64 seems to be winning right now. It's more expensive, but a Pentium M is also a good solution. Pentium M has only modest processing performance, but it's a laptop chip so it really sips power.
As a hard disk recorder, you want a ton of RAM and a processor setup that is good for multitasking. Even moreso, you'll need a hard disk setup that is supportive of the task at hand. This might mean using a lot of different hard drives.
For any of these tasks, the Athlon 64 X2 series seems like a good contendor, since they have good performance in multitasking, good access to RAM, and low power consumption.
As a final word- people have been happily doing all kinds of audio things on PCs for (practically) the last decade. For most of the applications I listed here, the overall system configuration is much more likely to be the limiting factor than the processor.
The question is, what are you doing with the audio?
Are you using your PC as a production station with something like Pro-Tools, Cubase, Reason, or something else that plays back and mixes multiple tracks with multiple effects?
Are you using your PC as a home media center that will be the signal source for your main speakers?
Are you using your PC as a hard-disk recorder for music?
For an audio workstation, I feel that it is important to have multiple hard disks on seperate IDE channels. It's probably worthwhile to have a small but fast "scratch" disk, and in fact many of these programs ask for you to specify a scratch disk that is seperate from the main system disk.
For a home media/theater center, thermal considerations are a big deal. With an audio workstation you might be able to put the noisy PC into a cabinet or ventilated isolation box, but you're probably not so lucky in your home listening environment. This means that power consumption is critical. For high performance, Athlon 64 seems to be winning right now. It's more expensive, but a Pentium M is also a good solution. Pentium M has only modest processing performance, but it's a laptop chip so it really sips power.
As a hard disk recorder, you want a ton of RAM and a processor setup that is good for multitasking. Even moreso, you'll need a hard disk setup that is supportive of the task at hand. This might mean using a lot of different hard drives.
For any of these tasks, the Athlon 64 X2 series seems like a good contendor, since they have good performance in multitasking, good access to RAM, and low power consumption.
As a final word- people have been happily doing all kinds of audio things on PCs for (practically) the last decade. For most of the applications I listed here, the overall system configuration is much more likely to be the limiting factor than the processor.
Sorry for such an open question.
I'm using it for production purposes. Basically, using Ableton Live,
and, Wavelab (Cubase) for audio editing. I will need to use two
sound cads, and, all .wav files too.
I'll also use it for hard disk recording as well. I'm pretty sure 3 Ghz
will do the job. I'm just noty sure if Athlon or Pentium would be best.
This computer won't be used for the internet, or word processing.
So, I'll just dump bundled software, and, just install Abeton Live,
and Wavelab.
So Athlon 64 X2 will handle this, no problem?
I'm using it for production purposes. Basically, using Ableton Live,
and, Wavelab (Cubase) for audio editing. I will need to use two
sound cads, and, all .wav files too.
I'll also use it for hard disk recording as well. I'm pretty sure 3 Ghz
will do the job. I'm just noty sure if Athlon or Pentium would be best.
This computer won't be used for the internet, or word processing.
So, I'll just dump bundled software, and, just install Abeton Live,
and Wavelab.
So Athlon 64 X2 will handle this, no problem?
Athlon X2 would be my pick but alot of attention will have to be paid to memory and disk subsystems.
The new Intel "core" architecture (essentially and updated and optimised pentium 3) is going to be very interesting when the dual core cpu's with HT and virtualisation appear at the end of this year and they even run very cool. AMD is going to have to work very hard to better this.
The new Intel "core" architecture (essentially and updated and optimised pentium 3) is going to be very interesting when the dual core cpu's with HT and virtualisation appear at the end of this year and they even run very cool. AMD is going to have to work very hard to better this.
!!!!!and whatever you do dont buy from pc world!!!!! I take it from saying about bundled software your after a ready made pc? I would recomnd you build it yourself. Better value for money and you get to choose the exact parts you want, instead of buying and having to upgrade it straight away.
Many real world comparrisons can be found on sites like http://www.anandtech.com/ , my vote personaly goes for AMD, in the real world it smokes an Intel of equal cost by miles, and in the few tests it does lag, its only marginal.
If you do decide to go AMD, you may want to wait for the AM2 chips, which are due for release shortly, or you will find yourself stuck with a lot of obsolete hardware at your next upgrade.
I would not get the X2 for this, unless your software is specificaly tailored for it... Get the fastest single core processor you can find rather...
If you do decide to go AMD, you may want to wait for the AM2 chips, which are due for release shortly, or you will find yourself stuck with a lot of obsolete hardware at your next upgrade.
I would not get the X2 for this, unless your software is specificaly tailored for it... Get the fastest single core processor you can find rather...
Thanks for the help, thus far.
I do have an old AMD computer (I believe its the first AMD.) and,
an old Celeron computer. From what I've experienced (With these
dinosaurs) the AMD offers more heat than the Celeron, whereas
the Celeron is slower than the AMD. Considering the AMD is 400
MHZ, and, the Celeron is 500 MHZ, I'm puzzled whats going on
here.
The AMD is on Windows 98 (First Edition) 64 mb of ram
The Celeron is on Windows 98SE 191 mb of ram
Then, there is the Dell
Offering Windows XP,
I forgot the GHz, and slow as f... Using a Pentium 3
Actually, the Dell is slower than the 98 dinosaurs.
I would assume the Celeron would work faster, but thats not
the case (Yes, I prevented unecessary programs from starting
up upon booting the computer) I've already given up on the
Dell.
Nevertheless, the Ableton Live, will probably consume the most
ram, considering my wavelab program, is from 1998.
The soundcards were only mentioned due to mixing from one
source to another, which, could be a form of multitasking. ..........maybe
As you can tell, I'm not a computer guy, moreover an audio guy.
I just need a Processor that can manage 8+ hours of audio manipulation without showing signs of getting warmer than
average, at a good speed.
I do have an old AMD computer (I believe its the first AMD.) and,
an old Celeron computer. From what I've experienced (With these
dinosaurs) the AMD offers more heat than the Celeron, whereas
the Celeron is slower than the AMD. Considering the AMD is 400
MHZ, and, the Celeron is 500 MHZ, I'm puzzled whats going on
here.
The AMD is on Windows 98 (First Edition) 64 mb of ram
The Celeron is on Windows 98SE 191 mb of ram
Then, there is the Dell
Offering Windows XP, I forgot the GHz, and slow as f...
Using a Pentium 3Actually, the Dell is slower than the 98 dinosaurs.
I would assume the Celeron would work faster, but thats not
the case (Yes, I prevented unecessary programs from starting
up upon booting the computer) I've already given up on the
Dell.
Nevertheless, the Ableton Live, will probably consume the most
ram, considering my wavelab program, is from 1998.
The soundcards were only mentioned due to mixing from one
source to another, which, could be a form of multitasking.
..........maybe As you can tell, I'm not a computer guy, moreover an audio guy.
I just need a Processor that can manage 8+ hours of audio manipulation without showing signs of getting warmer than
average, at a good speed.
Amd 64 x2 I'm no expert but I'd say audio editing needs WAY less power than video editing. I just built a new computer for my parents. Specs are Amd 2900 Athlon 400mhz front side bus, cheap KT-600 mother board, 512mb corsair xms ram, cheap Gforce 5900xt 128mb video card, Ide hard drive.... like $450 is all it took. My dad can play ANY new game very very well with this setup. I'll bet this setup with 1gig ram and a good sound card would do very well. Someone could spend 3-4 times more but is it really that much better?? Maybe it takes more than I think for audio editing??
Small comment on the hard disks; the Western Digital Raptor series gets you into SCSI speeds with a SATA disk. Depending on your schedule, the new perpendicular recording disks that are just beginning to show up will be as fast as the Raptors. The Raptors also have 5 year warranties. I pair a Raptor with a slower, larger, (cheaper) disk.
the raptors have a very fast seek time but the data transfer is actualy quite low from what iv read. I imagine seek speed is not too important for audio. Keep it defraged and the big files should all be in one chunk. To be honest i think we are getting into too much detail for what he wants. Could just be me tho, I think too much!!!!
The biggest concern with audiophile luistening and a PC is fan noise. The cooler it runs the fewer and quieter fans. At the moment AMD seems to be run cooler, hence potentially less noise. There are also a few motherboards fot the Pentium M which was originally a laptop CPU and thus designed to run cooler. Unfortunately this is a kind of pricey. Since the soundcard is the heart of it for audio. You chances of going completely "fanless" may be better by latching on to an older P-III ot P-II if that will otherwise suit your needs.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.