PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Essentially, I've got a couple of options here, I'm wondering which one would make a better PC DAW running SCOPE Pro and Cubase SX 4, audio, midi and VST on XP Pro, 32-bit:

1. Buy USED HP XW8000 -- around $1100
Base XW8000/Case/MB/PSU/DVD-Rom with 2 x Xeon 3.zGhz/1MB L3/533FSB
4GB DDR RAM PC2100 ECC 533MHz
Nvidia FX3000 dual display 8x AGP
SCSI 10K RPM HDDs on U320 (RAID) controller
450w power supply
-all the usual bits an pieces

2. Buy and BUILD Asus P5N-E SLI Socket 775 -- under 1500
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40GHz/8MB L2/1066FSB
4GB DDR2 PC6400 800MHz
Nvidia FX 1400 dual PCIe
SATA3 7,200 RPM HDDs on 3GB-capable SATA II (RAID) controller
600w power supply
all the usual bits and pieces

Which one would be a better bet?

Thanks!

well, I'm a bit undecided...
I've got a certain HP brand affinity, and the XW series are well built systems, especially the named lineup. you probably won't have to fiddle with it, since it's complete as it is, with selected components. you can be quite sure to get the drivers online for at least xp (and older) through the next years, although they won't maintain them anymore but they are at least available).
but the homebrew system has some advantages, too. first, there are the new components. adding pieces (like disks) might be easier than for the older system, the parts have full guarantee (I assume), and well, it's a more modern system. you may have to invest some time in assembling and getting it done, though. and not to forget the higher price (if that matters).

can't really vote against the one or the other. maybe you define your preferences somewhat more precise...

-greetings, markus-

stardust wrote:I vote against SCSI drives and architecture. personal opinion for the dying and expensive technology.

Are you experienced with SATA. Is is reliable and robust enough with 7,200 RPM drives?

I work with enterprise level storage (NAS arrays mostly) -- our faster i/o is SCSI when compared to SATA. Also, SCSI seems a bit more reliable and less prone to error.

...but I thank you for the comment and it's certainly something to think about.

Cetaily, you get more bytes for your buck when buying SATA.

stardust wrote:I vote against SCSI drives and architecture. It is my personal opinion against the dying and expensive technology.

that crossed my mind, too, but on the other hand, it has proven to be stable and reliable. if that is a major concern, one might think twice about it. (well, even I as a huge scsi fan, abandoned my scsi subsystem some years ago and got myself a raptor , but my preferences were somewhat different. mainly a compromise involving a fast and not so cheap system drive, and storage drives with more bang for the buck. and scsi is still not dead here. have to turn on my beloved agfa scanner every now and then via usb-to-scsi...

my pro for the xw is, as mentioned, the thoroughly built system approach with a slight con directed to the older processor/memory architecture (and I think the netburst based xeons generate way more heat that has to be transported outside, which isn't supposed to be most silent), as well as the storage price issue. but I still like those machines

-greetings, markus-

for audio, sata is plenty reliable. the second choice is much more economical and likely as reliable as the first in the real world. data is never 100% assured, especially in the old days of 2" tape and yet somehow we survived....

also, super high powered audio isn't really required for a daw. a single good, cheap card is all that's needed.

The 2nd will be a faster system, but I would spend some time thinking about how you protect your data. I do a lot of mirroring myself, or otherwise create a daily backup sync using SYNCBack, or PowerSync, etc.

You could get a SAS controller and SAS disks if you are really hot for the "SCSI" feature set.

a hard drive is many times more reliable than tape. one can always back up to another harddrive for long term storage. optical disks are unreliable.

Correct. Sync to disk.

You folks are GREAT and I THANK YOU for all the feedback!

I've reconsidered my options based on much of the practical discussion going on here and advice from some other technophiles at my workplace (though not sound-specific).

Scrap my idea of that used system.

I'm going to build a new one, the right one for this mission, hopefully.

So, given Cubase SX 4 and SCOPE as the primary use (no gaming), a 50/50 mix of midi and audio tracks in to final mix and master, what would be your suggestion for a "rock solid" system with adequate performance? I'm going to go SATA RAID 1 plus another disk for backup and archive, so the question becomes one of CPU, memory, disks, mobo, and dual display to place around my pro card and Cubase.

And should I stick with XP or go Vista? I see that SONIC CORE is coming out with a Vista release, Platform 5.

Gary B?

... apologies if this info is already posted on another thread somewhere. If so, perhaps someone could post a reply with a link to it?

scrap the raid and just back up to an external hd one a week or month. i'm not saying it can't happen, but i've never lost data on a harddrive even after failure. raid will eat resources better used by your music.

i'd go E6850 core2 duo with either an intel DG33FB(this motherboard and cpu really worked well in the last machine i built), Intel DP35DP, or Gigabyte P35C. just get name brand ram, with the intels it MUST be 1.8v...i prefer WD drives, get 7200 rpm, 8mb or 16mb(better) cache. you can use the 10,000 rpm drives, but i don't think they're worth the extra money, and i use an inexpensive evga nvidia vid card(just pick one, they always work fine. don't spend too much money here though..).

just a simple comment about the SAS drives

ghosting a primitive WD caviar 40gb to a identical drive on the same machine:
1200 mb/sec ancient little crap box built with a p4

ghosting a SAS drive to another on same box on a dell pe1950 awesome box with 2 quad core xeons
270 mb/sec

the native speed of ATA is better for DAW. what happens later in the OS just adds, but if its rubbish in the first place..

scsi might be better for many tracks at once. as long as
its not on the PCI bus.

i say it because generally it is better for servers because it can handle command queue better than SATA.

having said that i would never get SCSI again. there is a new raptor 300 coming out soon, and the price of 150s will drop. then ill get some more of them.