I'm buying a new PC

[OriginalJambo]

Thanks... no I'm not a total tool. I've installed various hardware on different computers. Really I'm just a bit confused about dual core... pretty much what I read everywhere is that it is fast but no software takes full advantage of it yet.

Don't quote me on this but I think dual core optimised programs are just that - written in a way that allows them to take full advantage of the dual core architecture.

But having two cores is always better than one if it's the same spec of processor. The work load should still be split between them, just not half as efficiently. I could be totally wrong but it makes logical sense to me.

[ford442]

i am optimistic that in the next year or two we'll see the whole software community going multi-core compliant.. i mean - in 2009 we'll probly see 8-cores from Intel - wouldnt most software be rendered almost useless if it couldnt take advantage of multi-cores then? i think i've also read that new OS's will fake multi-core compliancy for apps that don't have it already.. maybe the CPU itself could fake it for apps..

[Wiglaf]

But having two cores is always better than one if it's the same spec of processor. The work load should still be split between them, just not half as efficiently. I could be totally wrong but it makes logical sense to me.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. A single-thread app will stick with one core, leaving the other one to waste energy. Oh, some programs will use both, but the second core will see about <5% usage. That's why single thread apps, especially like games, still run better on a single core than a dual or quad. (Assuming the single core has a higher clock speed, which usually is the case)

That said, so much new software is going the multi-threaded route that getting a dual or quad core just makes good sense.

[OriginalJambo]

Sorry, but this is incorrect. A single-thread app will stick with one core, leaving the other one to waste energy. Oh, some programs will use both, but the second core will see about <5% usage. That's why single thread apps, especially like games, still run better on a single core than a dual or quad. (Assuming the single core has a higher clock speed, which usually is the case)

That said, so much new software is going the multi-threaded route that getting a dual or quad core just makes good sense.

Really? That sucks.

I was going to go dual core but there may not be much point for me until FL Studio supports it. I suppose it would be future proofing though, and this of course could change for the next version anyway.

Thanks for correcting me though - I wasn't too sure as I said but the reality that a single, non-dual core compatible program can only be handled by the one core is a bit of a let down for me.

[viscerallove]

only software i know of offhand that fully supports dual core right now is sonar 6. however, i do believe many (or most) softwares will be moving toward the multithreading support in the near future, so you will be better off in the long run getting a dual core processor now. prepare for the future and all that jazz

EDIT: according to http://www.fruityloops.com/ , the new version of fl studio supports dual core. looks like youre gettin yourself a core 2 duo

[Meso]

In my experience the dual core is better than single core, even with software that does not support it,
I am running Cubase SX2 and I have both a 2.8Ghz P4 and a 1.86 Core Duo both with same amount of ram, and the Core duo is performing a lot better, I often ran out of cpu power on the p4, but have still not had that problem with the laptop running the core duo, and i'm using a lot of vst plug ins and instruments at the same time and never freeze them or render to audio.

[John H]

Ableton Live 6 is dual core optimized!

[Soundwave]

Dual core definitely makes a difference with audio weather the software does so or not. I use Sonar 3.1 but without the multiprocessor option on as I like many users find it created more problems than it solves.
I went form a 2.2ghz AMD 754 to a dual core 2.4ghz AMD 939 and the performance increase is far greater than 0.2ghz. I can also get a much lower latency without any pop's or dropouts.
I'd try and build a purpose made machine rather than modify an off the shelf home computer as many other components come into a good music PC especially if you intend to record audio.

[Altitude]

2 cores are ALWAYS preferable since unless your running win95, windows will decide the processor affinity on its own so it will decide which process should be assigned to which core. This makes EVERYTHING run better since it has twice the resources to run background services, same holds true for more cores.

[kk994]

Pro-Tools allows you to select the number of processors...

[fOZf8]

Just a quick note to tag onto the dual core bit...although not all apps are multi-core optimized (although I know Cubase SX3, pro-tools, and ableton all ARE), the fact of the matter is that so long as you are using XP post sp2, or OS X, the operating systems ARE multi-core optimized (well, perhaps not XP home...but Pro is).

Basically, if Fruity Loops is not optimized, having a dual core will allow you to SLAM FL to the limit, and still be able to open up a browser window with a flinch in the system....trust me, there is NO reason to not be getting a dual-core in any new computer currently...especially not when Apple just released an 8 core Mac pro!!!

...mm, anyways..hehe

[otto]

I’m thinking about going with this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6883103059

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+(2.2GHz)
2GB DDR2
320GB SATA

$650

Any thoughts?

[Altitude]

I would pass, the 4200 is pretty weak compared to the c2d's out there and I would avoid vista until at least the 1st service pack since only a handful of hardware manufactures support it at this time

[otto]

I would pass, the 4200 is pretty weak compared to the c2d's out there and I would avoid vista until at least the 1st service pack since only a handful of hardware manufactures support it at this time

I can install XP on it. I think it will be hard to get around buying a new system (aside from building it myself) that doesn’t come loaded with vista. What chipset would you recommend that isn’t crazily priced. I’m looking to stay under $800 full package; I don’t need the absolute best computer in the world either. I’d love a Jupiter 8 but can’t afford it, same deal here.

[ford442]

by chipset you mean motherboard design? my current favorite is NForce "Designed by Nvidia".. a lot of people will back me up that they are good.. i would also try to get one made by Asus...