PlanetZ@scopeusers.com

Scope Users Community
It is currently Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:46 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 814
Location: Springfield !
Hi,

Does anyone have or had Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4 or previous versions. Just looking at CPU's and comparing them this one has caught my eye as it has a very decent score on Intel vs AMD high end above that of some other good CPU's of years gone by such as i7 3930k and i7 5820k.

It's clocked to 2.1 Ghz which some may say is too slow but ahas Intel Boost technology that can auto-boost up to 3 Ghz if loads are sufficient.

It can also be put in dual configuration in a motherboard with 2 x CPU's but you don't get the full value of 2x CPU's.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:46 am
Posts: 59
This processor family scores high thats true. But this Xeon E5-2620 v4 is one of the cheapest.
To build it with 2 procs would still be expensive. If u build it in a workstation/server u can't overclock. Turboboost on modern systems give lag spikes due memory related issues.
I think u be better of with older generations processors. I think for a daw (without older scope cards) a evga classified SR2 with dual socket give u best results in price performance.
U could get 2x xeon x56xx range and I7 extremes all sixcores with 3.33 and 3.46 base clockspeed and overclock them to 5 GHz aircooled and stable.
That is has 4x 16 pCI-e slots doesnt matter u could fit 1x pci-e cards like xcite and rme in those slots.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 814
Location: Springfield !
It's more to have a chat about it etc...

I think memory problems can come from not having the correct RAM installed eg-2400 Mhz instead of 2100 Mhz which is what is specified on Intel's website for E5-2620 V4.

Yes it is one of the cheapest but it's still £400 :lol: - Still not cheap!

I was looking at the specs and they looked really good, hence discussion but clock speed is slow 2.1 Ghz with 8 cores and 16 threads. The very nice 3770k has 4 cores with 8 threads.

Another reason for discussion is I'm just finding my feet with computer hardware and building and beginning to see the specifics a bit more clearly which is why I ask is E5-2620 V4 a good processor, opinions vary.

I suppose an analogy I drew was in comparison to a car with horse power [higher revs] and torque [pulling power] with the Xeon having more torque where as i7 may be more for revs or more cycles per second within the Mhz frequency bands 1866 or what ever.

Another thing is can Cubase and Pro Tools, Magix Samplitude, Digital Performer, Reaper, etc.......................take advantage of this Xeon threads and cores?

I think I read somewhere that PT can do it all and make use of everything the CPU has to offer but Cubase can do a certain amount of cores say 24 and then xxx threads - I've just made this up btw - If you know better please say.

It would be good if DAW programs developers had a way of testing this and having the numbers quantified in the manual and used as a selling point but to give information to the buyers.

Same for instruments - It's geek information talking about it until your computer grinds to a halt un-expectedly then it's WTF time
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

DAW management I suppose to know the numbers.

On a different note there was an article online about an overclocking contest and a figure of ridiculous proportions for an over clock and there was a picture of a guy holding a can in his hand with a hose and what looked like clouds of smoke above the computer then it twigged he was using liquid nitrogen or something similar to keep his rig cool :lol:

Fancy doing that in the studio? - mind those hands :x


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Posts: 20903
Location: ghetto by the sea
more cores and more thread don't always mean better performance. it depends on the types of tasks. for offline processes, the more cores, the merrier, so if rendering video is your goal...for audio, fewer cores is probably fine, maybe better, unless rendering audio(offline) is the main purpose...the application needs to be optimized for the extra cores, or there may be no gains, only bluescreens.

generally, i don't think it matters that much. enough plugins is enough. everything that has been made for the last couple of years(i5/i7) is powerful enough. for specific purposes though, the choices might be very important.

i mean, even if you make the most awesome choice right now, in 6 months everyone will be clucking their tongues and wondering why you didn't just wait, because what you just bought is passe. the more you think about it, the greater the chance that you'll just have to think about it a whole lot more because what you were considering is discontinued. i'd rather be using the machine.

well, i realize that people have different goals. you know me, i have to rant sometimes...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 5:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 814
Location: Springfield !
It's good to have a rant every now and then!!!

Hi-tech is always being superseded that's just how it is! - Look at the Scope PCI cards, as old as the hills! - But we still love them and they can be used up to a point that the threshold will allow - eg - how powerful a cpu is - I've got some old machines now but they can be used up to a point to contribute to what I'm doing.

Back to cores and threads, I get you it isn't always best if they are not being used by the programs NOT using them in which case it would not be an optimised program would it? ??

- So how many of the programs today are using many cores and threads?

I'm glad I've looked at the Xeon's because it's helped a bit more with the cores and threads so when I look at a spec of 3770 CPU I know it's got 4 cores and 8 threads. There are some Xeons that have 8 cores and 4 threads with higher clock speed and there are Xeon's with 10 cores and 20 threads and 8 cores and 16 threads - Now I know a little more!

What are offline processes? - is this background applications running? -


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:46 am
Posts: 59
garyb wrote:
i mean, even if you make the most awesome choice right now, in 6 months everyone will be clucking their tongues and wondering why you didn't just wait, because what you just bought is passe. the more you think about it, the greater the chance that you'll just have to think about it a whole lot more because what you were considering is discontinued. i'd rather be using the machine.

well, i realize that people have different goals. you know me, i have to rant sometimes...

Thats why i invest in older generations. 1st i can get a lot of information about pro's and cons and 2nd its like buying a 4 year old car full option what have cost u new 50.00 but u get it for 16000
Instead of buying a new Kia picanto for the same price.

fraz wrote:
Back to cores and threads, I get you it isn't always best if they are not being used by the programs NOT using them in which case it would not be an optimised program would it? ??

- So how many of the programs today are using many cores and threads?

-
I use cubase and it using all the cores. Only the first core get loaded a lot more while other dont load up to even 50%. Therefor getting more cores dont bennefit that much.
If u stack up different computers with audio over lan, you would have more overallperformance. Guys using cubase also use vienna ensemble to stack up. For regular composing its a overkill but for prostudiowork its a cheap and solid solution for what i hear.
I also use reason 9 and find it more solid and it looks like its realy using all the cores you throw at it. I used a lot of other DAW's to but cant realy tell much about it course i didnt stressed them out.

fraz wrote:
Another reason for discussion is I'm just finding my feet with computer hardware and building and beginning to see the specifics a bit more clearly which is why I ask is E5-2620 V4 a good processor, opinions vary.

This linkhttps://www.scan.co.uk/3xs/info/audio-pc-processor will give u more a idea of what differnent CPU's do for your DAW.
I'm sorry the Dawbenchmark forums are still closed otherwise u would find a lot of information there.
If u google "JCschild" u can find a lot of intresting and learnfull discussion. He's be building DAW's for decades.

Still i agree with Gary that all depends on what u doing. Live usage, recording bands with 200 or more audiotracks or just composing with the occasional Guitar mic or outboard gear.
If u realy need to push the limits i'm still wouldnt invest in like a 22 core xeon, i would rather invest in dsp power like Xcite or UAD voor live usage, for big recording i would still go for Adat recorders,or a bunch of RME 32/32 io Adats.
For occasional recording/composing i'm satisfied with my i7 laptob and a usbaudio interface.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Posts: 20903
Location: ghetto by the sea
rendering or exporting audio or video is a great example of an offline process.

playing back audio is not.

yes, Cubase uses all cores, it just doesn't use all cores efficiently, and the more cores, the more inefficient. almost all audio programs exhibit this behavior, some worse than others.

anyway, the most powerful processors or the biggest sample libraries will not translate into the best music, most of the time. just get a reasonably fast machine for a reasonable price, if making music is the main goal.

if playing with the computer is the main goal, then get on the hamster wheel and RUN!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 814
Location: Springfield !
Well Gary,

It's a combination of sample libraries will would use CPU etc....

Some older items I've got like SW1K and old Roland sound modules sound great too! - And don't bugger the CPU up.

As I'm enthusiast i'm trying to cover all bases which is great.

With having RAM and 64 bit OS / hosts the possibilities are very good as compared to the days of 32 bit - But 32 bit still has its uses

On a side note someone online had info on working out CPU strength which is useful

Take 3770k 4 cores @ 3.5 Ghz = 4 x 3.5 = 14

14 is a number that doesn't mean much to me other than the sum of the cores multiplied by the base operating frequency of the processor and 14 is the product of these two factors.

A sluggish XEON CPU lets take the

E5-2620 V4 8 cores @ 2.1 Ghz so 8 x 2.1 = 16.8

So compared to the 3770k above it's overall a bit stronger [in theory] - but gives me an indication of the power of the CPU.

With the possibility to network two computers the overall power can be used to a good effect but it's helped me work out a little more and correlate the differences in clock speeds between i7 and Xeon

If someone is going to use VSTi and many are it is important to have some level of knowledge of what a CPU is capable of with the installed RAM.

Using Scope synths etc.... in project mode is a similar idea with the DSP.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 4:00 pm
Posts: 4272
Location: West Coast USA
Given the massive cost increase for Xeon components (CPU, RAM, motherboard etc), such a small improvement for a few extra cores is hardly worth it. I should know, I use multiple Xeon class systems (both Supermicro based Windows systems that I built by hand, and Mac Pro's that were obviously not built by hand) in my graphics, video & 3D workflows.

For audio work the best rule of thumb tends to be fewer higher clocked cores will win over more slower cores, everytime. This is because you're going to be limited by the thread that peaks FIRST, rather than overall core counts. So having more headroom per thread is going to get you further with *most workflows*, and those that rely on VEP Pro and other such tools can easily be farmed out to another machine.

Since all but the top SKU's in the Xeons eschew clockspeed for core counts (to keep TDP's in check), you're always going to do best with 6-8 cores and the max clockspeeds. Once you consider this, the only advantage the Xeons have is ECC ram, which is not needed for audio work. Also, when I invest in a Xeon build, I tend to build for a 4-5 year usage minimum and run my TCO against that, but you could spend the same amount of money on consumer class gear and upgrade three times within that same lifecycle, and get far far more performance (due to gains down the line) for the same overall TCO. So I wouldn't even bother with Xeon builds for DAW usage unless you have some extreme usage scenario.

Furthermore, if you don't need massive i/o support (ie, tons of PCIe lanes and the extra onboard device support) then the added cost of even consumer class LGA-2011 cpu's may again not necessarily be worth it. There are several reasons that these platforms only show modest gains against the mainstream cpu+chipset combinations, primarily the fact that they tend to lag 1-2 generations behind the more consumer oriented CPU's in terms of architecture. But this platform also tends to have chipsets that have been around longer, have more internal latency and so on.

We've long since passed the point where having the bleeding edge for our audio workflows is a requirement, built a system to fit the needed specifications plus some room for overhead so it's comfortable for 2-3 years (imho)...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Posts: 20903
Location: ghetto by the sea
that's what i'm sayin' ^^^^


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:32 am 
Sorry for hijaking, but im considering building a seperate machine, purely for scope (no sequencer etc.). I'm thinking the Intel G4400 (https://ark.intel.com/products/88179/In ... e-3_30-GHz) should be enough, any reason to stay away from it? I know its Dual Core, but that shouldn't be a problem for scope use? Its dirt cheap, so I can build a new system for around $300.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Posts: 20903
Location: ghetto by the sea
i'm not5 sure how well the socket 1151 machines work. i believe they're ok for PCI cards, but...

an HP XW4400 would be what i'd get if i just wanted a Scope machine. you should be able to get one from Ebay for about $100 including shipping.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 814
Location: Springfield !
valis wrote:
Given the massive cost increase for Xeon components (CPU, RAM, motherboard etc), such a small improvement for a few extra cores is hardly worth it. I should know, I use multiple Xeon class systems (both Supermicro based Windows systems that I built by hand, and Mac Pro's that were obviously not built by hand) in my graphics, video & 3D workflows.

For audio work the best rule of thumb tends to be fewer higher clocked cores will win over more slower cores, everytime. This is because you're going to be limited by the thread that peaks FIRST, rather than overall core counts. So having more headroom per thread is going to get you further with *most workflows*, and those that rely on VEP Pro and other such tools can easily be farmed out to another machine.

Since all but the top SKU's in the Xeons eschew clockspeed for core counts (to keep TDP's in check), you're always going to do best with 6-8 cores and the max clockspeeds. Once you consider this, the only advantage the Xeons have is ECC ram, which is not needed for audio work. Also, when I invest in a Xeon build, I tend to build for a 4-5 year usage minimum and run my TCO against that, but you could spend the same amount of money on consumer class gear and upgrade three times within that same lifecycle, and get far far more performance (due to gains down the line) for the same overall TCO. So I wouldn't even bother with Xeon builds for DAW usage unless you have some extreme usage scenario.

Furthermore, if you don't need massive i/o support (ie, tons of PCIe lanes and the extra onboard device support) then the added cost of even consumer class LGA-2011 cpu's may again not necessarily be worth it. There are several reasons that these platforms only show modest gains against the mainstream cpu+chipset combinations, primarily the fact that they tend to lag 1-2 generations behind the more consumer oriented CPU's in terms of architecture. But this platform also tends to have chipsets that have been around longer, have more internal latency and so on.

We've long since passed the point where having the bleeding edge for our audio workflows is a requirement, built a system to fit the needed specifications plus some room for overhead so it's comfortable for 2-3 years (imho)...


Hi Valis,

In reply and general chatter - Over the years I've collected a few CPU processors!

Q9450 Core 2 Quad
Q9550
Q6600
3770k and S
4790k
G3258 Celron dual core
3930k 6 core
5820k 6 core

A good selection over the years and a lesson learned on a Pentium III 1 Ghz CPU that I upgraded which was a mistake as the machine was OK as it was back in 1999!

Since then I keep the machines together and no upgrades unless a part fails which has occurred. All machines can be useful and I've built two now.

A spare machine is handy in case one stops working and when PCI is not available I hope I've got enough for the PCI cards from way back when :)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 2:54 pm
Posts: 28
fraz wrote:
valis wrote:
Given the massive cost increase for Xeon components (CPU, RAM, motherboard etc), such a small improvement for a few extra cores is hardly worth it. I should know, I use multiple Xeon class systems (both Supermicro based Windows systems that I built by hand, and Mac Pro's that were obviously not built by hand) in my graphics, video & 3D workflows.

For audio work the best rule of thumb tends to be fewer higher clocked cores will win over more slower cores, everytime. This is because you're going to be limited by the thread that peaks FIRST, rather than overall core counts. So having more headroom per thread is going to get you further with *most workflows*, and those that rely on VEP Pro and other such tools can easily be farmed out to another machine.

Since all but the top SKU's in the Xeons eschew clockspeed for core counts (to keep TDP's in check), you're always going to do best with 6-8 cores and the max clockspeeds. Once you consider this, the only advantage the Xeons have is ECC ram, which is not needed for audio work. Also, when I invest in a Xeon build, I tend to build for a 4-5 year usage minimum and run my TCO against that, but you could spend the same amount of money on consumer class gear and upgrade three times within that same lifecycle, and get far far more performance (due to gains down the line) for the same overall TCO. So I wouldn't even bother with Xeon builds for DAW usage unless you have some extreme usage scenario.

Furthermore, if you don't need massive i/o support (ie, tons of PCIe lanes and the extra onboard device support) then the added cost of even consumer class LGA-2011 cpu's may again not necessarily be worth it. There are several reasons that these platforms only show modest gains against the mainstream cpu+chipset combinations, primarily the fact that they tend to lag 1-2 generations behind the more consumer oriented CPU's in terms of architecture. But this platform also tends to have chipsets that have been around longer, have more internal latency and so on.

We've long since passed the point where having the bleeding edge for our audio workflows is a requirement, built a system to fit the needed specifications plus some room for overhead so it's comfortable for 2-3 years (imho)...


Hi Valis,

In reply and general chatter - Over the years I've collected a few CPU processors!

Q9450 Core 2 Quad
Q9550
Q6600
3770k and S
4790k
G3258 Celron dual core
3930k 6 core
5820k 6 core

A good selection over the years and a lesson learned on a Pentium III 1 Ghz CPU that I upgraded which was a mistake as the machine was OK as it was back in 1999!

Since then I keep the machines together and no upgrades unless a part fails which has occurred. All machines can be useful and I've built two now.

A spare machine is handy in case one stops working and when PCI is not available I hope I've got enough for the PCI cards from way back when :)


Is there a huge improvement from 4790k to 5820k in terms of DAW usage (plugins, vsti, and vsts, etc).?
Have you overclocked 5820k? Does it come with a fan, or you have to buy a separate one? If you OC, is it required to buy xtra fans, liquids and so on?
I see 5820k requires X99 Motherboards? Are X99 MoBos compatible with Xite?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 814
Location: Springfield !
Hello Paprika,

4790K is socket LGA 1150 Z97 etc....
5820K is socket LGA 2011 v3 X99

There isn't a big difference between the two - 5820K is 6 cores where 4790K is 4 cores - Both CPU's overclock really well if you want to do this - Some people do, some don't! - I haven't yet but I might in the future! - 5820K does not come with a CPU cooler and fan so you'll need to get your own. 4790K does come with a cooler but many people upgrade to a better one even if they're not overclocking.

Both CPU's are fabulous but they are obselete now - 1151 replaced 1150 with the 6700k which is very good and 6800k replaced 5820k Haswell-E for LGA 2011 v3 for the new Broadwell CPU's.

If you want a 4790k you'll need to be quick as they're not produced, ditto for 5820k - 4790k is cheaper than 5820K but not cheap!!!

1150 works best on Scope from what I've understood whether this is the PCI cards or PCI-e Xite-1. Someone on another thread claims that 1151 Z170 motherboard is working fine with PCI cards

Someone else here had big problems with Xite on X99 whilst I've read someone else got his UAD and Xite-1 working with X99 on an Asrock X99 WS board but I can't confirm validity of this claim.

I've not tried Xite-1 with X99 ----- YET - I will try in the future on one of my X99 boards


Last edited by fraz on Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Posts: 20903
Location: ghetto by the sea
i agree fraz, but the only thing that is "obsolete" about the processors you mentioned is that intel wants to sell a different model. more cores don't necessarily mean more work gets done, it depends on the application. the "obsolete" processors work just as well as their replacements. nobody will be able to do more fabulous things just because they have one or the other.

until something REALLY radical and different hits the market, the CPU wars are over. the computer industry is putting it's money and effort into funneling "consumers" into tablets and smartphones and "desktops" that are the same as tablets and smartphones. 90% of the change from Windows 7 to Windows 10 is about this.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 814
Location: Springfield !
As long as we have enough CPU to run Scope or UAD or "AN-other" interface with enough VSTi's then we'll be happy!

Some guy running Cubase on Steinberg forum was commenting on his use of 5820k and he was very very happy with it - He may have overclocked it to a degree. Similar results could be obtained with 4790k probably.

I'm no expert but have learned a few things.

5820k 22nm
4790k 22nm - both Haswell

6800k 14 nm but does not overclock as well as Haswell, not that I wish to overclock but is minimally more powerful. Intel will make next CPU's 10nm - I don't understand the manufacture process but they're "shrinking" apparently to get equal or parallel performance in years to come with greater efficiency.

More cores means less work :) - 5820k with 6 cores is only 2 more than 4790k so it's not many more - Xeon CPU's can have 14 cores or more - Less is more!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 814
Location: Springfield !
Yes Garyb the change from Windows 7 to 10 was about the apps [like smart phones] - but windows 10 is sold to consumers as part windows 7 and part windows 8 because consumers did not like windows 8. Customers / consumers will not buy if they do not like.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Posts: 20903
Location: ghetto by the sea
Windows 8 was designed to fail to bring you to 10.
these things are planned years before the public hears about them.

more cores does not always equal more speed. the application needs to be written for using more cores. audio apps are many years behind say, CAD/CAM. what is more powerful on paper may or may not be more powerful in real life. :D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:00 pm
Posts: 257
Yes probably, all "in between" versions of Windows really sucked....

95 okay, 98 bad, 98se good, windows millenium bad, winxp good, vista bad, win7 good, win8 bad, win10 dunno...starting to see a pattern here :lol:

_________________
- We're freaks about gearz and methods -
More on dNa: http://dnamusic.nl


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Donate to help support this community


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group