PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

I have had the little E6400 in my Cubase / SFP DAW. I thought I'd save the E6700 for the MOAD ( mother of all DAWs ) of the future. But greed seems to have reared it's beautiful head. I have been sitting idely by waiting for developers to churn out more libraries for GVI / GS3 amd it seems like the party is slowing down. So I said fuck it, go w/ a VSTi and see what's up. My God. I have loaded a virtual instrument x 4 and have added a VSTi synth w/ high polyphony, and this DAWg just wants more !! Can I expect even greedier amounts of loaded VSTi's w/ the E6700 ??!! I had no idea that this is the real power behind VSTi's. I think that the sample based ones are more to my liking. There are so many to choose from. I am gonna start designing a full symphony Orchestra, after I get the basic meat and potatoes nailed. My old Akai CD's just can't compare anymore, but some will be saved in the performances 4 they lack other examples such as footsteps in 'da sewer, and weird sound fx that I'll never use. Except I do torment the audience w/ fake applause patches, and use all of the 3 stooges, and star trek FX. When really top heavy women walk by I use the famous nngggyyyaahhh from Curly as I wipe my face of sweat.
Will I see a drastic difference in the 2 CPU's. The E6400 has 2MB of unified L2 cache, and is 600 MHz slower than the 4MB L2 6700.


Peace Through Superior DSP's,

yeah, the sample based vstis(romplers) are pretty good. basically they're just proprietary libraries that are like giga but with nicer guis.

I'm getting a woody.

brotha man jimmy...
try the cakewalk rapture and dimension pro, very good romplers with some nice expansions.
i did a few big projects on my new pc now and im really astonished by the power of the e6600.
i cant seem to get that cpu meter in cubase over half of its capacity

I too am shocked @ the power achieved through VST. I use to think VST sucked until I heard Sonalksisss, and started experimenting w/ GVI. Until I feel the need to expand, I will use the E6400. But Larry Seyers Acoustic Drum Library uses several different instances of convolution reverb and mic modelling / placement on each drum. This is what caught my attention. The CPU meter finally moved up to about 30% w/ 2 x GVI's running, and 2 x VSTi synths . So let the games begin. If I feel I need the E6700, I have it, but damn these CPU's have come to life while I concentrated on DSP's and their project size. The best of both worlds.

no reason to get excited...
it's just the big chache (and probably improved pipelines) inside the CPU that make the CPU 'more available' as it's waiting less for memory data.
I didn't really check it, but afaik a CPU meter isn't reflecting 'true' calculation power at all... it only shows how much CPU resources are 'in use' and how much are 'idle'

cheers, Tom

Is it the IPS that makes modern CPU's so efficient Brotha' Man Astro?

well, I don't find them very effective at all...
I still have one of those pizza Macs around with a clock rate that's just 1% of a current Pentium - working on the Pentium doesn't feel a hundred times faster, let alone the oldie had to calculate the entire graphic screen, too.

Anyway, this makes me curious - I have a compiler for both systems (made by the same manufacturer), so I could measure the same (benchmark) program on both CPUs. As already mentioned the 1.66 CoreDuo performs 30% faster that a 2.4 Pentium 4 - if I remember correctly the bench exists for the old version, too.

to be honest I always wished I could have that old CPU with a current clockrate and (even more important) the current memory size - but in the lean OS of the old days - that would hunt, as you like to call it...

cheers, Tom

Yes,
I believe that qualifies as a hunting DAWg .

here's a screenshot from about 20 years ago...
it shows an 'instrument builder' (part of the ConcertWare package) via additive synthesis running on a 8 MHZ machine with 1MB Ram.
Which means that 4 complete 'computers' would fit inside your CoreDuo, the latter running at a clockrate 300 times as fast

but the true reason for the screenshot is in the right corner:
instead of the additive method you could also draw a free form wavecycle - doesn't it look exactly like the respective Flexor device ?
btw the resulting waveform of the additive synthesis is also plotted as a graph

cheers, Tom

Way Cool,
I should have kept my Atari Commodore w/ Opcode.

JV