PRO ADVICE NEEDED: HEAR NO EVIL or SEE NO EVIL?

[silicon demon]

brand new member, guys.

not a computer pro. about to build my first! very specific application. here's the problem:

yes, i game a bit...but i'm a pro audio guy. i make music. in researching hardware i see that the comp universe revloves around graphics, and gamers....not audio

i want to build the baddest platform i can for an audio workstation. for those who might not know, in audio we use numerous audio plug-ins called vsts which--running simultaneously--can place enormous strains on a processor.

current set up is a 2.21G AMD Athlon 64 3400+, with 2G of RAM and about 1 tera storage.
not too shabby.

advice on what processor might be geared toward audio, instead of video? should i just opt for the baddest motherboard out there? what is it; dual opteron?

like i said, i think i could build a pc but as far as floating operations widgets and parallel processing squishers, etc., i'm clueless. i'll take any advice out there on where i should start. (especially motherboards/ chipsets; AMD/Intel; and what the best processor is)

i need you guys!!!

 

[Harvey]

I'm a pro audio guy, too. I'm a circuit designer, mostly analog, up in L.A.

I'm an old timer so I'm not that up on the latest workstation platforms, but I'd know who to ask. What do you want to run, and what are the requirements?

 

[Alaric360]

...more of a quick blurb than a comment, but if you're taking FPUs into consideration and you're considering AMD, you're not far off from getting a complete and categorical disapproval from me. AMD's FPUs have been classically notorious for their inadequacy. (I never understood why everyone was all on AMD's nuts back in the nineties...The K6 and K7 cores were complete and utter crap, but Intel went through their classical 'marketing guys run the show' period, so their offerings weren't much better. Right now though, AMD seems to have the kinks worked out for the Hammer and Greyhound cores (not sure if AMD ever came out with the Greyhound, I think the dual-core A64s are the Greyhounds, but don't quote me on that. I'm unsure...but whatever it's called, I think you know which family of processor I'm speaking of) and I'm pretty sure that Intel's cleaned house with their marketing dep and righted their ship, so Intel should be moving back to the forefront. .....And for my customary off-topic blurb, who actually bought one of the first-generation A64s before Windows64 was released? Unless you're just one that has to be on the bleeding-edge, that was just a completely boneheaded move. ...Ok, now I'll just leave that statement completely unsupported so I can get flamed hehehe

 

[silicon demon]

thanx guys,

i really appreciate the input (though i have this odd suspicion that alaric was ragging on me!) ....not quite sure, tho, because i'm so utterly ignorant to this stuff that between the Greyhound cores and the Hammer thingamabobs, i got lost in the matrix.

Hey, this black guy named Morpheus i met offered me some kind of pill. should i take it?

 

[Alaric360]

my sincerest apologies. If I came off as 'ragging on you', I assure you that I was not intending to. ...A lot of that I said was my general disdain for AMD chips and an even greater disdain for the way there are many, many people who previously swore by AMD chips without knowing what they were talking about. A lot of what I said wasn't necessarily directed at you lol. ...How about I refine my post to direct it a little bit towards you (I'm sure you'd like that, seeing as how this is your thread and all lol) ...You mentioned the Opteron chip. ...The Opteron operates on Socket 940 chipset motherboards (there are 940 pins that interface the chip with the motherboard...that's how it got it's name) ...anyway, Opterons are fairly high end processors, geared more towards server applications than Socket 939 chips(..again, named for its number of pins) Chips like the Athlon 64 and Sempron operate on this chipset. ...These are geared more towards general usage. The gist of it is is that since Opterons are geared towards server applications, all of their motherboards are designed to support this function as well. Unless something's changed very recently, these motherboards require registered memory(RAM). I won't really go into details about the specific differences between registered and unregistered memory. But basically, registered memory is designed to support more accurate operations. Home use computers (AMDs Socket 939 chipset mentioned earlier and Intel's Socket LGA775 (They're pretty much the same thing)) are not designed to operate with the computational integrity that machines that are performing server duty or accuracy sensitive operations like mathematical calculations are required to uphold. That is meant to be given to you as specific support for a general recommendation. I know absolutely nothing about audio creation, but I would assume that you know what you're doing on that front. If what you are doing *REQUIRES* accurate and precise calculations, then an Opteron would be a good choice. Otherwise, an Opteron is kinda overkill (It would still work) ...and you'd be needing to buy more expensive components that are meant to support a server that you might not necessarily need. I hope that I've given you at least a little bit more information to help you on your way, and although I'm confident in the information I've given you, I definitely invite anyone reading this that knows of an inaccuracy in my info to correct me. I'd rather be proven wrong than go on thinking that I'm right

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: silicon demon
thanx guys,

i really appreciate the input (though i have this odd suspicion that alaric was ragging on me!) ....not quite sure, tho, because i'm so utterly ignorant to this stuff that between the Greyhound cores and the Hammer thingamabobs, i got lost in the matrix.

Hey, this black guy named Morpheus i met offered me some kind of pill. should i take it?

I have no idea what Alaric360 was ranting about, and I've never heard of any CPU named after a dog. Also, you can pretty much ignore his second post as well, as he has no idea of what he's talking about, as they do indeed make Opteron CPU's for socket 939 motherboards (I own one).

Back on topic. Around here the focus is more on games and benchmarks, so video is a big deal. I know very little about audio other than playing mp3's and what you need for games. If I were you, I'd start asking questions on a forum thats more audio focused, or even try changing the title of this thread to something a bit more to the point, like "need help with high end audio". That might get you some information.

 

[Silversolder]

I too am tied to music. Play a little guitar and have written a song or two. I have country song now and trying to decide it's destination.

Anyway, I am trying to decide on a motherboard too.
I've just about decided to use the Toledo 64x2 because of the added cache.
:music:

 

[silicon demon]

thanx a lot, guys.

alaric, your input was definitely helpful, especially on pin nomenclature.

greenman, i appreciate you playing devil's advocate; i'll deninitley do more research on the Opteron CPU you mentioned. i'll add that alaric may or may not have told me some inaccuracies, but he came back with a real intent to help and it took a real man to re-post.

to me, this is what these forums are all about. This is true democracy--an equal distribution of "knowledge"....and my learning curve is already being reduced. it's great when we help each other out. you guys are awesome.

just so you guys know, i did respond to harvey's post: i sent it in a private message on accident. basically i told him:

as far as system requirements, i guess i don't really know. i'd like to run many concurrent instances of vst [music software] apps running with minimal impact on the processor. hmmm? windows xp. standard ATX design. i'll use a pro audio-geared sound card (M-Audio, etc.), probably throw in ATIs latest and greates video card...i guess basically i just wanna get the baddest motherboard/chip set out there and design around that. i know doing that alone will give me one bad computer...i guess i'm just on a mission to make a box that won't be outdated in a year or three and won't even breath hard when i tax it with all those vsts, software synths and samplers. Forgive the ambiguity, but i'm quite a novice when it comes to computer design. that's why i've set out on this fact-finding mission.

i presently have a SATA set-up with a RAID 0 configuration. i guess the main thing i need is the ability to do extreme parallel processing...lots of threads and handles running simultaneously. i presently have 2G RAM. i'd like to go to 4G or whatever the max is out there right now...i'm really trying to design a hotrod. i guess my dollar limit for all components and the case is 4 grand....5 if i have to. my computer is the center of my music production and i need it to be robust.

my current processor, to refresh you guys, is an AMD 64 3400+ (2.21 Ghz). i'm assuming the 64 means it processes at 64-bits. (what's the highest CPU frequency for AMD these days?) i don't have a preference for AMD or Intel. And the more you guys school me, the more at ease my soul is. =-)

 

[ProviaFan]

From what you describe, you would be well suited by a dual core CPU. Most of the bad stuff that you have been told about AMD in this thread is either 1) outdated or 2) simply not true. You will not be disappointed by an AMD Athlon 64 X2 on a modern motherboard (your RAM could just transfer over unless you need more or want to keep the previous system running). Intel's dual core offerings don't perform as well, consume more power, and run a good deal hotter than comparable X2s (hotter running == harder to cool silently).

By the way, a "64 bit processor" (Intel's recent P4s also support 64 bit extensions) is capable of running in a 64 bit mode (this may be hard to understand if you weren't following technology during the 16 to 32 bit transition back in the late 80's / early 90's), but that doesn't happen unless you use a compatible 64 bit OS (like some kinds of Linux or Windows XP for 64 bit extended systems). Running a normal variety of Windows simply means that your processor is being used as a 32 bit processor, though a darn good one nonetheless.

In a simplified sense, the advantages of running in 64 bit mode are 1) access to more memory (useful in practice if you have more than 2GB), 2) ability to process some types of data in 64 bit "chunks" where a 32 bit processor would have to split it into two pieces, and 3) access to more internal registers, which means that 64 bit programs can keep more data locally available at once instead of needing to waste time grabbing it from the cache or from main memory. I realize that this glosses over a lot of the details, and probably contains plenty of errors. The compter architecture folks are welcome to correct me wherever I am wrong - I would appreciate it.

 

[silicon demon]

thanx prov,

yeh, i'm gonna get some more RAM 'cause i wanna keep this pc separate and up-and-running.

i've pushed this pc to the edge before running multiple downloads and probably a dozen programs (not including background processes)...to where the computer would tell me that my "virtual memory is low".....and "please wait while Windows re-allocates more."

is this referring to my L2 cache? and my RAM is that cache, right?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: silicon demon
is this referring to my L2 cache? and my RAM is that cache, right?

I'll try to summarize various types of memory; you may know some of this, but I don't know how much you know, so please don't be offended if what I'm saying seems simple to you.

On the processor itself, there are several forms of memory, in decreasing order of speed and increasing order of capacity: internal registers, L1 cache, L2 cache, and (sometimes) L3 cache. RAM, which is external to the processor, though fast, is yet significantly slower than the built-in cache; thus, the processor tries to load from RAM into cache things that it thinks it will need ("prefetching," as it were). In the interest of completeness, hard drives are the last (and by far the slowest) type of memory, but those don't really come into play during normal operation unless you run out of RAM.

Anyway, the additional registers that programs can access in 64 bit mode on 64 bit processors can provide a slight increase in performance, if a program performs some repetitive operation that uses more pieces of data at one time than would otherwise fit in the registers of a 32 bit processor. This means that less data has to be pulled in and pushed to the cache (which, again, is internal to the processor and separate from the RAM that you plug in to the motherboard), and so the program can go through its repetitive calculations faster. Given that not many programs stretch the limits of the registers of 32 bit processors, the gain in moving from a 32 bit OS and 32 bit programs to 64 bit versions of both on a given 64 bit processor tend to be rather small, and in ordinary use not noticeable (in my experience and/or humble opinion).

 

[silicon demon]

by no means do i think any of you guys are patronizing me, prov. i still have similac on my breath...i'm the first to admit that.

i am actually leaning towards AMD...if for no other reason that all my research (including this forum) indicates that Intels run hotter.....thus, requiring more fans....and fan noise can be problematic for audio production. plus, my current pc has never given me any problems.

i was just looking at the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 1G FSB Socket 939. so...i'm learning. cool. i see the "X2" nomenclature probably hints at the dual-core element. i'll probably want the universal 939 socket...and this is a true 64-bit processor (as opposed to a 32 + 32-bit).

i think i remember reading a while back that FSB is front side bus. but just what is this 1G FSB?

i went to newegg and saw a dual-core AMD FX-64 Toledo with 1G FSB going for over a grand! it was Socket 939, too....why the great price disparity?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: silicon demon
by no means do i think any of you guys are patronizing me, prov. i still have similac on my breath...i'm the first to admit that.

i am actually leaning towards AMD...if for no other reason that all my research (including this forum) indicates that Intels run hotter.....thus, requiring more fans....and fan noise can be problematic for audio production. plus, my current pc has never given me any problems.

i was just looking at the AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 1G FSB Socket 939. so...i'm learning. cool. i see the "X2" nomenclature probably hints at the dual-core element. i'll probably want the universal 939 socket...and this is a true 64-bit processor (as opposed to a 32 + 32-bit).

i think i remember reading a while back that FSB is front side bus. but just what is this 1G FSB?

i went to newegg and saw a dual-core AMD FX-64 Toledo with 1G FSB going for over a grand! it was Socket 939, too....why the great price disparity?

The Athlon 64 X2 series is dual core; the lower end (3800+, 4200+) can be overclocked to perform in the league of the 4800+ with not much additional heat, and even without overclocking I doubt the performance difference would be worth losing sleep over. The Athlon 64 FX-60 is also dual core (the previous FX series models are not), but very expensive for 0.2 more GHz, and not worth it in my budget-minded opinion.

To throw another item out for consideration, there are also socket 939 Opterons (not to be confused with the socket 940 Opterons, most of which are designed to be used in systems with multiple physical processors). The Socket 939 Opterons that are dual core are physically the same as Athlon 64 X2 processors with comparable speed and cache, but for the money tend to overclock very well (thanks to the more rigorous tests that workstation chips are put through, the poor overclockers tend to be weeded out, or so I'm told).

For example, I have the Athlon 64 X2 4400+; this processor is the same speed as the 4200+, but the 4200+ has half the cache. In practical use, this matters essentially 0%. What you should take away from this is that while you are free to spend plenty of money on the absolute highest end of what's available today, doing so is not the best decision on a cost / performance basis. While you can't go wrong with the X2 or dual core socket 939 Opteron series, the best choice depends entirely on what you can afford to spend, balanced against the benefits of spending some of that money in other areas that might matter more (extra RAM for more samples, perhaps).

 

[vanvock]

Welcome to the Forums. Provia's giving good advice. I don't know about audio specific advice but it sounds like you definetly need to go dual core. The Opterons have twice(1mb) the on chip cache & can overclock to FX speeds. The front side bus doesn't really exist on the AMD's because the memory controller is on the chip. The virtual memory is the page file on the HDD which means it had to expand the size to help run all the stuff you had going, which means you could benifit from all the RAM you can get.

 

[silicon demon]

quoth the raven, nevermore......

got you guys! thanx a million. i'll keep participating.

 

[silicon demon]

ruminating.

yeh, been reading this forum, and this thread in particular, and what you guys are saying is really starting to sink in.

question for you Provia. you said:

I have the Athlon 64 X2 4400+; this processor is the same speed as the 4200+, but the 4200+ has half the cache. In practical use, this matters essentially 0%. What you should take away from this is that while you are free to spend plenty of money on the absolute highest end of what's available today, doing so is not the best decision on a cost / performance basis....

simple...but profound.

i presently have the baby brother of your CPU. the mono-core Athlon 64 3400. It's frequency is 2.2Gh--same as yours. now, if i were to use your processor instead...by the simple virtue that it's dual core would i see a performance increase?

Also...moving on up to the Athlon 64 X2 4600+ or 4800+....jeez, it's only .2Gh increase! would i even see that gain? (in fact, you posed this very question above! i've been looking at a graph on AMD's website and now it's easier for me to grasp).

it almost looks to me like i already have an awesome CPU...unless i can get some substantial gain from going dual-core, i might as well keep what i've got (aww shucks!)

By the way guys, i did see that there indeed is an Opteron that's dual core and socket 939. here's the link:

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/default.aspx

The Opteron maxes out at 2.4Ghz, as well. I'm not saying i wouldn't see an performance increase by getting another 200Mhz in speed, especially if it was dual-core. But i'm too much a novice to really know if i would either.

I'm bummed.

 

[Howard]

I don't see why your current system isn't up to the task. Is CPU utilization ever 100% while you're working?

EDIT: Is it quiet enough for you?

 

[ProviaFan]

The only time you would see a gain would be if you use programs that are multithreaded (many pro audio applications are, from what I've read), or if you use two computationally intensive programs at the same time (say, a softsynth "wired" into a multitrack recording program). If your current system doesn't hit 100% utilization much (at least not during the recording session), I see little reason to throw the entire thing out and replace it with new unless you have money growing on trees. A much more reasonable solution would be to add RAM (4 x 1GB would max out your system and should be enough for a while), get quieter fans, find a better backup solution (external hard drives or magnetic tape), or just add more internal hard drive storage capacity. Unless you're doing something extremely difficult, I don't see why your current system could be made to work, if you want it to.

 

[Greenman]

Ditto what others have said here. Unless you're running two or three apps that are choking the cpu you already have, a dual core won't help at all. Thats a question only you can answer. What are you running and what is your cpu usage?
The Opteron cpu's you found are pretty much the same as the x2 line. Where they shine is in overclocking, most of them will run far faster than the rated speed, and thats why so many around here love them.

 

[silicon demon]

i know that overlocking is a whole 'nother universe into and of itself. so i don't wanna get too far into that , or stray too far from the subject here.

But to overclock the Opterons (which you seem to make sound as if they are reliable even while overclocked), is it as simple a matter as adjusting your BIOS settings and providing some liquid cooling? or is it one of those in-depth over-clocking maneuvers (where you might get the results you want, but you still run the risk of damaging your system?)

RE: HOWARD

Nope: my system is way too loud (but then again, i've got 5 fans....some of which i could stand to lose).

 

[Greenman]

Yes, it's all bios settings, and no, you don't have to water cool. Rule of thumb is you only need water when you up the cpu voltage, the Opterons don't get much out of more volts, and even with a small voltage increase they run very cool. They are reliable when clocked, up to a point. Thats why you test the cpu at 100% load for 24 hours. If it's stable you're good to go, if not you slow things down till it is. There is no way to tell what sort of OC you might get, most Opterons do very well, though there are one or two around here that got "duds" that almost won't clock at all. As you said, clocking is another matter, though if it's something you might do you need to keep it in mind when buying parts. But you really need to figure out what you need first. How many apps do you run at the same time, and what is your CPU usage when doing it. If the answer is 2 and 35%, then add some memory and walk away happy. If it's 6 and 100% you need to upgrade.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: silicon demon
i know that overlocking is a whole 'nother universe into and of itself. so i don't wanna get too far into that , or stray too far from the subject here.

But to overclock the Opterons (which you seem to make sound as if they are reliable even while overclocked), is it as simple a matter as adjusting your BIOS settings and providing some liquid cooling? or is it one of those in-depth over-clocking maneuvers (where you might get the results you want, but you still run the risk of damaging your system?)

RE: HOWARD

Nope: my system is way too loud (but then again, i've got 5 fans....some of which i could stand to lose).

You can get a nice increase in clock speed even using stock air cooling, but in the interest of keeping temps low (to increase stability and lifespan among other things) most people buy aftermarket heatsinks or move onto water cooling.

You still haven't answered the question about your CPU utilization, so the only thing I can recommend now is to buy a new heatsink and fan and get quieter fans and/or a new case.

 

[silicon demon]

sorry, bro. my cpu usage was mentioned a the top of this thread.

it's for pro audio apps, which happen to run in multiple instances (numerous threads and handles)...and no, i've never maxed my CPU but i would like a little more breathing room.

and thank you to all whom have contibuted. In ONE day my understanding has moved up exponentially.

 

[Howard]

If your CPU has never maxed out, the CPU isn't really the limiting factor. I can understand your desire for breathing room, though, so you can try overclocking your CPU. If you leave the voltage alone, there's a negligible chance that any permanent damage will occur if you do it carefully.

By CPU utilization I mean the number that shows up in the Task Manager under the Performance tab.