I'm buying a new PC

otto · Post by **otto** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:41 pm

It'll be a PC, not interested in the Mac comments. Sure they look cooler and their commercials tell me how un-hip I am using a PC... I'm over it.

So what would you suggest as far as minimum processor speed, minimum memory, etc. I have 1G memory in my current computer at that seems to usually be enough for FL studio and the aps I'm running however my processor is sometimes too slow. I want to spend less than $800 and it looks like I've got plenty of options. Which processor do you suggest and what other suggestions do you have on a new PC.

ford442 · Post by **ford442** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:59 pm

i would go with an intel cpu at the moment - whatever you can afford.. i would start with 2 gigs of ram, leaving room for 2 more ..

single or dual 64bit core - as close to 3ghz as you can get i guess.. EDIT: actually i see you can get over 3.0 GHZ dual-cores for not that much..

i have an Asus NForce motherboard right now.. i would probly buy a new NForce based board if i were upgrading .. but that's me..

what CPU do you have now that seems slow?

i am running an AMD 3200+ 32bit 2.2ghz - 2 gb PC3200 - and i have no plan to upgrade until maybe 2009 when the next windows comes out.. by then we may see 16 or 32 cores from intel ...

otto · Post by **otto** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 3:32 am

ford442 wrote:i would go with an intel cpu at the moment - whatever you can afford.. i would start with 2 gigs of ram, leaving room for 2 more ..

single or dual 64bit core - as close to 3ghz as you can get i guess.. EDIT: actually i see you can get over 3.0 GHZ dual-cores for not that much..

i have an Asus NForce motherboard right now.. i would probly buy a new NForce based board if i were upgrading .. but that's me..

what CPU do you have now that seems slow?

i am running an AMD 3200+ 32bit 2.2ghz - 2 gb PC3200 - and i have no plan to upgrade until maybe 2009 when the next windows comes out.. by then we may see 16 or 32 cores from intel ...

Intel celeron 1.7...its a few years old.

ford442 · Post by **ford442** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:13 am

ya.. agreed.. anything below 2ghz for music is getting to be a little dated i would say..

sorry i don't know exactly which CPU to tell you to get.. i know that intel are releasing 1333Mhz FSB chips right now.. it should drive down the price on regular consumer chips... anything 3GHZ and above is going to give you a huge speed boost.. be sure to get fast RAM.. 2GB is the new standard - 4gb for video pros..

you can let me know if you need more help.. we could talk on MSN or ICQ also...

fOZf8 · Post by **fOZf8** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:35 am

I would suggest a core 2 duo if you can boot the cost...I have a desktop with an x2 4200+ in it (2x2.2ghz), and my macbook pro has the woodcrest core 2 duo 2x2.33ghz. Both machines have 2gb ram running in dual channel. The core 2 duo is a fairly significant amount faster when I'm running things right in the memory (ie, realtime audio, dsps, etc)...in fact, the only thing that makes my desktop better, is that it's hard drives are double the speed of my macbooks.

In regards to hard drives, check out the seagate perpendicular drives. I have 3 in my desktop, 2 sata and 1 pata, and all 3 of them benchmark a sustained average read speed of 72-75mbps, which is fast as my freaking Raptor drive! They stay cooler though...be sure to get them with the 16mb cache too, it makes a huge difference for large file access.

um, i have other suggestions, maybe I'll drop more later when they come to mind.

Meso · Post by **Meso** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:24 am

I would say go for Intel Core 2 Duo,
I have 2 computers one running a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz and a laptop running a Core Duo 1,86Ghz and the laptop is a lot more powerful despite the clock speed difference
(both computers have 1024Mb RAM)

otto · Post by **otto** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:45 pm

Thanks for the info everyone. I was leaning towards dual core but I opened Pandora’s Box when I searched for information about different processors. Now I’ll just be searching for some deals.

Meso · Post by **Meso** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:34 pm

Where I live the best deals are on the Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 (2.13Ghz) and E6600 (2.4Ghz)
I would go for the E6600 if I was buying a new computer now.

Post by **Stab Frenzy** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:47 pm

Core 2 Duo, at least 2GHz, at least 2GB Ram, you should be sweet for music.

JSRockit · Post by **JSRockit** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:52 pm

Stab Frenzy wrote:Core 2 Duo, at least 2GHz, at least 2GB Ram, you should be sweet for music.

Yep, these are good laptop specs.

Thefumigator · Post by **Thefumigator** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:39 am

On a budget, I don't think you'll get a GOOD core 2 duo based machine below 800$, but ask motavis, he got a Hewlett Packard PC, Core 2 Duo based.

FACTS:

-FL studio doesnt use 2 cores for the moment til an upgrade or something appears. You could however do some rewire tricks with FL and another app. You could still get good performance by trying to get the best single core you can get. Probably any cheap sub 100$ Athlon 64, like the 4000 version.

-Core 2 Duo are way faster than Athlons X2, the tests are revealing it. However, in terms of price/performance ratio AMD wins, but Intel got the performance crown (finally, after so many years being beat by the AMDs offerings during the 2003~2006 period). Moreover, price war is going on RIGHT NOW, so, things are going down in price soon.

-Forget Pentium D, even for their low price, they are the worst dual core processors ever made in performance terms. However, it will be way faster than your celeron. Pentiums 4... too old. But if you get a 3Ghz one and don't mind the temperature or power consumption, I wouldn't get it pass, it will beat your celeron by a way big margin.

END of budget/bargain opinion

-AMD is going to release a new processor codenamed Barcelona and claimed it will completely kill intel. That means 2 things: A new alternative is coming, and, prices are going down again. Remember the music apps will be the same... software: evolves slowly. Hardware evolves quickly.

-If you are going to build it yourself, Nforce chipset for the motherboard is a must. Asus is the top manufacturer. Dont understimate their cheap alternative subdivision called Asrock, they do cheap stuff without all the fancy things and are very reliable.

-Lot of stuff that could be said. Just ask.

for prices check and compare at www.newegg.com , www.zipzoomfly.com , www.tigerdirect.com etc

fOZf8 · Post by **fOZf8** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:14 am

Thefumigator wrote: -If you are going to build it yourself, Nforce chipset for the motherboard is a must. Asus is the top manufacturer. Dont understimate their cheap alternative subdivision called Asrock, they do cheap stuff without all the fancy things and are very reliable.

no doubt, I run my x2 4200+ on an Asrock 939 dual sata2, and it's a great motherboard. When I still had a Venice core 3200+ in it, I had it overclocked to the speed of a 3800+ for almost a year straight, 24/7, and it never flinched about it once!

When it comes to the system architecture though, the 939 and am2 board layouts and bus paths are ingenious, and I think they're definitely a step ahead of intel with them, but I've been using intel chips AND amd since the days of the pentium 1 and K2s...inch for inch, and pound for pound, the intels have always reacted in far better ways when you redline them. I don't mean overclocking, I mean when the system is slammed at 100% cpu usage and the disks are thrashing from the massive onslaught of multi-tracking audio (and or video) and such. In these cases, every intel chip I have owned has rocked....particularly once hyper threading was introduced. Simply put, they always hold their ground far better than athlons.

since the A64s moved into the 939 chipsets, they've always performed better for gaming, but for realtime floating point integer calculations, like what gets hit the most when using software synthesis and live plugins, the intels just always outdid the athlons. What made the Athlons so much better for the life of intel's pentium 4 prescott based cores, was that the thermal dynamics of the Prescott's were simply HORRIBLE. When running at the same work level as an equivalent AMD, they'd run at double (or more) the temperature.

meh, I'm just rambling now...if you get 2gigs of ram (matched memory mind you, for dual channel), and a dual-core, you should be fine unless you're an uber geek like me. Honestly, the best advice I could give you is that if you know a thing or two about computers, build it all from scratch...I'll never do anything otherwise again (excluding laptops), and everytime I think otherwise, a friend with a dell or hp or some c**p calls me over to fix there pc, and I remember why they suck so badly.

Meso · Post by **Meso** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:35 am

A lot of good advices, but I think the nr 1 rule is do your homework and know exactly what you are going to buy and why.
I have seen it countless times when a salesperson sells people a lot of c**p they don't actually need or worse even
when they are trying to get rid of obsolete stuff by straight out lying to people.

otto · Post by **otto** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 10:49 pm

About dual cores; I know that most software isn't multithread and can’t take full advantage of dual core. Correct me if I'm wrong: If I am running FL and a couple softsynths and a few FX the various software load is split between the two processors...more or less.

otto · Post by **otto** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 10:50 pm

Meso wrote:A lot of good advices, but I think the nr 1 rule is do your homework and know exactly what you are going to buy and why.
I have seen it countless times when a salesperson sells people a lot of c**p they don't actually need or worse even
when they are trying to get rid of obsolete stuff by straight out lying to people.

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.