Buying Used HP Server - What Matters Most?

[jta]

I'm trying to help a non-profit theater spec an affordable PC that would be capable of running Scope and Pulsar PCI cards (v 3.1C) together with the Dante Virtual Soundcard (connected via CAT 5e or CAT 6 to an Allen & Heath iLive fixed series Mixrack).

I first saw favorable mention of the HP XW4600 Workstation here and I've been looking at eBay as a result. Lots of choices, though.

Most have an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU. The most expensive tend to be the ones with a 3.16 GHz CPU, 4 or 8 Gigs of RAM, a 512 MB video card with dual display, a big HD, and Windows 7 Pro. A common configuration is a 3.0 GHz CPU, a medium or small HD, an unspecified video card, 2 (or 4) Gigs of RAM and some variation of Vista. And the cheapest seem to be the ones with a ~2 GHz CPU, 1 or 2 Gigs of RAM, an unspecified video card, and no OS (there may or may not be a small HD). And there's an interesting (to me) outlier that uses a Xeon 2.4 GHz.

All the models listed have a built-in Intel Ethernet port (1 Gigabit) which A&H and Audinate (the Dante company) spec as being able to run 64 channels (twice as many as needed) of 24 bit 48K audio both ways. The Dante Virtual Soundcard on the PC can output to ASIO or (in the most recent version) to Windows WDM.

The computer would be used during shows for primary or secondary in-box multitracking, external multitracking via LightPipe, and for primary distro of a L+R 'tapers' signal. After-show uses are far less important but might include converting .wav files to .flac, transferring files to a band's USB stick, converting 48k to 44.1k, and maybe some video post functions. Several instances of XP Pro are available. The cost of Scope 5.1 would put that out of the picture until we can be sure the pieces all work together, and if VDAT under 5.1 can't go over 32 channels, would be unneeded anyway.

My questions are about the suitability of the XW4600 and (if suitable) which of the various XW4600 options would represent the most bang-for-the-buck. The goal is a well-balanced machine that does the job. Your opinions are welcome. So please speak out. Recommendations for similar performing machines are welcome, but the corporate computer buying cycle seems to have put a lot of XW4600s on the market right now, so there is some price competition.

best,

john

[garyb]

i use the xw4400.

pretty much all of the variations should be sufficient for what you are doing. grab the best features for the least money....i'd look towards the middle specs.

[jhulk]

i use the xw6000

which has lagacy pci 2.1 slots 4 of them

[jta]

Thanks garyb and jhulk.

There are about half as many XW4400s as there are XW4600s on eBay right now and zero XW6000s. Guess the corporate replacement cycle is in-between, putting the XW4600 in the Goldilocks zone for 1Q 2013.

I've read that lower-clocked Xeons can be faster than some of their higher-clocked Intel non-Xeon CPU siblings of the same era. Any opinions on the merits of the Xeon for a Scope system?

best,

john

[garyb]

XEONs are great, just another processor really, but a higher quality one for mission critical, always on applications.

for what you are trying to do, there's not much difference between any of these processors mentioned. all of them are more than powerful enough. if you were running a whole lot of heavy vsts and vstis at the same time, the processor might matter more...

[jhulk]

where are you based as in uk charles computers

does most of the corporate stuff

i brought my machine for £88 with 4gb memory xp sp3 professional dual head graphics card

and it has onboard scsi i run scsi to ide cf hotswap drives for my samples

makes it easier for me for getting big sample banks from my multisample recording machine to my scope machine

its lightning fast compared to my my p4 machine which im about to upgrade to another xw6000 machine

you need to switch off hyperthreading

and you will have a dual xeon system

[garyb]

that will get it done.