Time is ripe for hardware upgrade here, and some reflections about could be very usefull indeed.
From the reading of previous topics it comes out that Conroe CPUs and Intel 965 chipset are used whitout problems for CW boards based DAWs.
Since one of the needs moving me to upgrade is a quieter/cooler machine, the high power absorbtion of the Conroe is however source of some doubt for me. So i'm wondering if Core2 CPUs (though still quite expensive), as well as hi-freq FSB mobo, have been successfully tested with Scope.
Moreover it's not yet clear for me if i really can expect a valuable increase of performances using state of the art dual/multi core CPU for native audio apps.
The second point i'd like to discuss is about HDDs.
Trying to find out the concrete transfer rate needs for a DAW, i ventured some calculation.
I can see a single PCM 16 bit 44.1 KHz track contains something around 86 KB x sec.
It follows that 24 simultaneous tracks would produce a data flow around 2.1 MB/sec. Looks like every HDD can do that..? Just buffer size and seek times can make the difference..?
I've at the moment 2 HDDs with a tranfer rate of 40 MB/s, cache 8 MB, so i've 3 alternatives:
- don't upgrade HDDs
- replace one of that with a faster/well buffered one
- coupling the two disks in a RAID0 stripe, adding a third disk for the OS.
Considering each disk requires some CPU resources, RAID stripe could be a wrong choice. For sure it bring no advantages in the seek time range.
Even though buffer size would be doubled, without a dedicated PCI controller it definitely could prove a waste of resources (and even PCI resources have to be well managed).
But, in the need of tracks number and audio resolution increase, i absolutely can't figure out if more calculation power is enough without better file system performances.
Going for a new disk, WD Raptors still seems to have the best performances, but i'm wondering about later SATA II devices.
Advices and considerations from any of you that is dealing or has dealed with this kind of issues are really welcome.
Hardware upgrade
get the conroe. it is superior to the dual core and it's quiet and cool. core2 is conroe.
as to the hdd, a 7200rpm drive with an 8mb buffer should be sufficient. a bigger buffer, faster spinning drive is better, but you may not notice the difference. if you are buying a new drive, for price vs. performance, i'd get a 7200 rpm drive with a 16mb buffer. i see little reason for a raid array.
as to the hdd, a 7200rpm drive with an 8mb buffer should be sufficient. a bigger buffer, faster spinning drive is better, but you may not notice the difference. if you are buying a new drive, for price vs. performance, i'd get a 7200 rpm drive with a 16mb buffer. i see little reason for a raid array.
-
r u xperienced
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:00 pm
Sorry I miswrote Conroe, but I was thinking about D9xx series. Means Presler.garyb wrote:get the conroe. it is superior to the dual core and it's quiet and cool. core2 is conroe.
I'd like to get a Conroe, but here the price for an E6600 is around the whole money i'm about to spend for both mobo and CPU...
:-/
If you plan to buy a D 9xx, just keep in mind that extreme power consumption is expensive toor u xperienced wrote:I'd like to get a Conroe, but here the price for an E6600 is around the whole money i'm about to spend for both mobo and CPU...garyb wrote:get the conroe. it is superior to the dual core and it's quiet and cool. core2 is conroe.
:-/
to give you some figures
the smallest CoreDuo 1.66 is about 30% faster than a P4 2.6 Ghz, in my case a MacMini versus a Gigabyte 865 mainboard (I develope on the P4, but the target machine is the Mini, benchmarked the same application, native execution, no emulation)
Imho the Core Duo is a great value for money if you avoid the top of the line version - as usual 10% performance cause a 40% price increase
cheers, Tom
the smallest CoreDuo 1.66 is about 30% faster than a P4 2.6 Ghz, in my case a MacMini versus a Gigabyte 865 mainboard (I develope on the P4, but the target machine is the Mini, benchmarked the same application, native execution, no emulation)
Imho the Core Duo is a great value for money if you avoid the top of the line version - as usual 10% performance cause a 40% price increase
cheers, Tom
-
r u xperienced
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:00 pm
lol AndreD.
Tom and garyb, maybe i could gonna get an E6300; just in the hope even old software can use both the cores.
Garyb, i probably shall not upgrade HDDs, but if i may get a Raptor or Seagate, i'll probably gonna use it for the OS; a faster boot and native plugs load would be great.
Well defragmented, the data disk would not requires very short seek times.
Another thing i'm wondering about is a RAM issue:
better bigger, or faster?
I've installed 1GB @ 533MHz, so if i'd gonna buy other RAM, is it better adding or replacing with 800MHz modules?
As for the motherboard, this design put some distance between graphic card and PCI slots
but suchAbit IL9 pro has 945p chipset... could it be a good choice?
Merry Xmas to you all!
Tom and garyb, maybe i could gonna get an E6300; just in the hope even old software can use both the cores.
Garyb, i probably shall not upgrade HDDs, but if i may get a Raptor or Seagate, i'll probably gonna use it for the OS; a faster boot and native plugs load would be great.
Well defragmented, the data disk would not requires very short seek times.
Another thing i'm wondering about is a RAM issue:
better bigger, or faster?
I've installed 1GB @ 533MHz, so if i'd gonna buy other RAM, is it better adding or replacing with 800MHz modules?
As for the motherboard, this design put some distance between graphic card and PCI slots
but suchAbit IL9 pro has 945p chipset... could it be a good choice?
Merry Xmas to you all!