Single processor vs. duo core

[Scarpie]

sorry guys for the lack of edumacation. but i 've come across a great deal for a computer to start my recording. great specs. but it's a single processor. when i've been told to not settle for anything less than a duo core. (not dual)

comp has 4 gb RAM
3.0 ghz processor
1 TB of harddrive space

but a single processor worth getting? will it do for recording? i am looking to record all kinds of music not just metal through protools. i don't know if that has any bearing on the computer but i'd thought i'd share that incase it does bear consequence on what i need.

thanks so much guys i know so little about this, i really need alot of help here

[Elysian]

single processor sucks, imo. pass it over.

[CynicEidolon]

No. If it's that old of a computer... It's unlikely that it can even come close to using 4gB of ram... Little own be able to do anything as hungry as record often. If you are just going to use it once and awhile for stuff here and there, sure, it'll be fine. But, if it's going to be your work horse. No way.

[7 Dying Trees]

Duo/Dual core, same thing. Basically you really want two or more processor cores as it allows for better thread sharing. DDR2 and above is also advisable.

[mortega76]

I would skip the duo/dual core all together... I just built myself an intel i7 920 setup with 4gb of ram... My previous setup was a dual core e6600... I did a test with a project that had about 100 plugins and 20+ tracks of audio... on the e6600 it would run at about 70-80% processor usage and would stutter... now with my i7 it coasted at about 20-25%, no stutters!!! Sonar is recognizing a total of 8 processors... 4 physical and 4 virtual... hyperthreading on the i7 from some benchmarks that I've seen can give a system 40% more processing power so I have mine turned on... so skip the dual core and go for the i7. You''ll spend min $600, max $1 billion dollars.

[Plankis]

It depends, cubase sx3 only uses 1. So if that's the DAW you're going to use then a single core would work nicely. But ofcourse, more is more..

[Elysian]

Originally Posted by Plankis

It depends, cubase sx3 only uses 1. So if that's the DAW you're going to use then a single core would work nicely. But ofcourse, more is more..

sx3 takes advantage of multiple cores.

Steinberg multi processor technology in CUBASE SX3 and NUENDO 3 software

just from a quick google

[Plankis]

Then it's only on my computer... There's always been a big difference in how much my 2 cores needs to work.

[Elysian]

Originally Posted by Plankis

Then it's only on my computer... There's always been a big difference in how much my 2 cores needs to work.

you might not be stressing the system, do you run a lot of plugins? plugins is where dual core will really shine

[CynicEidolon]

More important than how many ghz and cores and such is how you TUNE your PC. I know of single core systems that would eat a duo core alive! Simply, because of the users ability make the system more efficient. There are also a lot more factors than just the speed of the processor and the size of your RAM.

[Scarpie]

such as? hahaha sorry learning here

and thanks guys, i need all the help i can get.

[Elysian]

Originally Posted by CynicEidolon

More important than how many ghz and cores and such is how you TUNE your PC. I know of single core systems that would eat a duo core alive! Simply, because of the users ability make the system more efficient. There are also a lot more factors than just the speed of the processor and the size of your RAM.

maybe in a single app that doesn't support multithreading, sure, but dual cores will ALWAYS triumph when multitasking, or when running apps that take advantage of them.

[CynicEidolon]

Originally Posted by Elysian

maybe in a single app that doesn't support multithreading, sure, but dual cores will ALWAYS triumph when multitasking, or when running apps that take advantage of them.

Yes, I will agree with you, most of the time, that is true. But, If you have your DuoCore running XP with 52 processes in the background because you didn't tweak your services... It won't beat a single core with 18 processes running at the same bus speed.

[Scarpie]

ok could you guys talk english for two seconds?!!!!

[ZeroSignal]

Originally Posted by CynicEidolon

Yes, I will agree with you, most of the time, that is true. But, If you have your DuoCore running XP with 52 processes in the background because you didn't tweak your services... It won't beat a single core with 18 processes running at the same bus speed.

How does one accomplish this? I'm kinda afraid to touch anything...

[Elysian]

Originally Posted by CynicEidolon

Yes, I will agree with you, most of the time, that is true. But, If you have your DuoCore running XP with 52 processes in the background because you didn't tweak your services... It won't beat a single core with 18 processes running at the same bus speed.

you mean the processes in the background that don't take priority unless they absolutely have to? i've done all the service configs and crap like that, and single core or dual core, it doesn't matter, the difference is placebo at best.

[CynicEidolon]

Originally Posted by ZeroSignal

How does one accomplish this? I'm kinda afraid to touch anything...

It's easy brotha! Just if you aren't sure what to turn on or off. Set a restore point and go crazy! Just don't turn off the system restore point or you'll in a world of hurt! Haha.


My Computer(Right Click)->Manage->Services and Apps->Services

There will be a BIG list of stuff. It'll tell you whether something is on or off. Enabled or not. You can set things you use sometimes to Manual and things you don't use to Disabled. (IE. If you use an Ipod, I set those to manual as it will only turn on when you connect the Ipod -I think. I don't have one.- Where as, my PreSonus sound card, I have as automatic cause I use it frequently. And all the remote user crap that Windows has, I just turn off. I've never met a person that has used that.) Haha.

[newamerikangospel]

How I understand the dual/quad core is, you have a road that the speed limit is 30 miles an hour on (the processor speed).

If its a small road that only carriers 10-15 people on it a day (internet usage, youtube videos, ect), then you only need a two lane road (single/"traditional" processor)

If it is a busier road, such as a medium sized city, 40,000 people or so, and it is going to carry 5,000 people a day (spreadsheet, documents, some recording or photoshop), you need 4 lanes (dual core).

If this is a major road in the middle of a large city, say dallas, that will carry 1,000,000+ a day (workhorse recording 8-10 hours a day, HD video editing, HD photoshop, ect), you need 8 lanes (quad core).

*need means to run efficiently, not that you cant do anything unless you have

I bought a Compaq with a Pentium D (lower end dual core) 2.8, and 4Gb ram (3.0 recognized) for about $600 (plus $90 for ram and not including dedicated sound card/outboard device), and it works for the personal recording I do now.

[mortega76]

you guys should know that all things being equal... A single core of an i7 processor running at 2.66 will run circles on a P4 3.8 (or any single core for that matter) the new i7 is a much more efficient processor that technically has more horsepower per cycle than anything that has ever been release to the consumer...

[CynicEidolon]

Yes, it is... But, it's always ridiculous to get state of the art right when it comes out. Those things haven't been out long enough to justify their price versus their efficiency. They are nice, but still are just a bit overkill for most stuff. Most people just track and 44.1k 24bit anyway. And a DuoCore can handle that hands down. Even in high track counts.

[thebhef]

Intel's going to be making chips with 6 cores within a year. I'd get at least a dual, probably a quad. You could easily get yourself a badass yorkfield based system for less than 700 bucks.