PC building - a "Recommended" List?
hi all,
i will be building a brand new PC at the same time as i buy my first creamware hardware - namely a Pulsar II with Z-link and an A16 (mixer replacement setup!).
i have therefore a tremendous choice of motherboard styles, processor types, and HDD arrangements.
i know there will be lots of different ways to get satisfactory results. does anybody have comments or experiences to share about their experiences with:
motherboards + attendant chipsets
CPU manufacturers (AMD vs Intel)
RAM types
Windows Installs
This is my first post, so if i'm querying a topic that's already been copiously discussed, please tell me to shut up and point me to the relevant thread.
Carl
i will be building a brand new PC at the same time as i buy my first creamware hardware - namely a Pulsar II with Z-link and an A16 (mixer replacement setup!).
i have therefore a tremendous choice of motherboard styles, processor types, and HDD arrangements.
i know there will be lots of different ways to get satisfactory results. does anybody have comments or experiences to share about their experiences with:
motherboards + attendant chipsets
CPU manufacturers (AMD vs Intel)
RAM types
Windows Installs
This is my first post, so if i'm querying a topic that's already been copiously discussed, please tell me to shut up and point me to the relevant thread.
Carl
Yes, this is a subject that has had a lot of discussion!
One of the big issues with Pulsar is PCI bandwidth i.e. data transfer from the pulsar card over the pci bus to system ram. The pulsar uses system ram to process reverb effects, sample player plugins etc.
There are problems with AMD based chipsets not having as good PCI bus throughput as Intel based chipsets. Subhuman (the resident guru?) has done some very good testing on this so try searching these forums for AMD vs Intel etc, should get you the info you're after.
But I will offer my suggestion to dedicate the pc to audio only (no games, IE, office etc). Pulsar seems to play nicer that way!
Good luck,
Stuart.
One of the big issues with Pulsar is PCI bandwidth i.e. data transfer from the pulsar card over the pci bus to system ram. The pulsar uses system ram to process reverb effects, sample player plugins etc.
There are problems with AMD based chipsets not having as good PCI bus throughput as Intel based chipsets. Subhuman (the resident guru?) has done some very good testing on this so try searching these forums for AMD vs Intel etc, should get you the info you're after.
But I will offer my suggestion to dedicate the pc to audio only (no games, IE, office etc). Pulsar seems to play nicer that way!
Good luck,
Stuart.
This is kinda odd but...
The i845 and i815 chipsets have slightly more PCI bandwidth than the i850!
So if you NEED the "BEST" PCI bandwidth (ie: you use LOTS of pulsar verbs, samplers, etc), the board to get is ASUS P4B266 with DDR. But i850 has much better memory performance, and is slightly faster for other tasks, and the difference isn't all that large, I haven't had any PCI problems at all with i850.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: subhuman on 2002-01-21 10:31 ]</font>
The i845 and i815 chipsets have slightly more PCI bandwidth than the i850!
So if you NEED the "BEST" PCI bandwidth (ie: you use LOTS of pulsar verbs, samplers, etc), the board to get is ASUS P4B266 with DDR. But i850 has much better memory performance, and is slightly faster for other tasks, and the difference isn't all that large, I haven't had any PCI problems at all with i850.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: subhuman on 2002-01-21 10:31 ]</font>
Hardstor sounds like a man I could relate too!
Had a quick look at your website. Sounds like you are into this hardcore! You might like to seriously consider going intel with the ASUS P4B266 with DDR like Dr. Subhuman suggests for P4 processors. Or for P3, get the ASUS TUSL2-C, another excellent stable board. Make sure you get a nice meaty power supply too!
Cheers,
Stu.
Had a quick look at your website. Sounds like you are into this hardcore! You might like to seriously consider going intel with the ASUS P4B266 with DDR like Dr. Subhuman suggests for P4 processors. Or for P3, get the ASUS TUSL2-C, another excellent stable board. Make sure you get a nice meaty power supply too!
Cheers,
Stu.
I'm choosing AMD.
I've done all the research and AMD kill P4. I believe most people go for Intel just for the name. The P3 was a hugh success and in it's own right! But P4's sux. Specs are nothing compared to "real world" using.
It's like is, you could tell me that your brand new car (2002 model) would kill any old car. I race you with my old Manga and kick your ass.. why? because my car has turbo boosts. And I built it for much less than what you paid for your car new car.... enough said...
"Real world" performace is all that matters. (this is only an example)
I've done all the research and AMD kill P4. I believe most people go for Intel just for the name. The P3 was a hugh success and in it's own right! But P4's sux. Specs are nothing compared to "real world" using.
It's like is, you could tell me that your brand new car (2002 model) would kill any old car. I race you with my old Manga and kick your ass.. why? because my car has turbo boosts. And I built it for much less than what you paid for your car new car.... enough said...
"Real world" performace is all that matters. (this is only an example)
-
- Posts: 236
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
I agree... stable is very important when it's comes to PC's. But I don't believe that AMD athlons are in any way unstable. Most of the high end PC's users are using Athlons. If you checkout overclockers.com or overclockers.com.au you will see that anyone who is hard core into computers is using an athlon. You could build an athlon system for 1/2 price of a P4 and overclock it to run way faster than any P4. In FACT intel are trying to copy some of AMD's up and coming technology. Check out tomshardware.com and you will see why AMD are leading the way even without having a 2.2Ghz. They don't need it. 2.2 is just a number. It has nothing to do with how Fast it is Suppost to preform. Just see any bench mark results. When all is said and done AMD inplores better RAM and faster motherboards. I'm talkiing in REAL WORLD performance. Also AMD products are cheaper. Why? because intel has to recover billions of dollars just to make money. AMD doesn't.On 2002-02-24 09:29, eliam wrote:
Sometimes a FAST car won't get you as far as a STEADY one...
Intel is more stable, and I have an Athlon which is faster. I have no a-priori preference, this is hard-won knowledge and hands-on comparison of both: go for the steady car.
I guess when it's all said and done. If a person knows nothing about computers just be happy with your more expensive slower P4.
One more thing research water cooling!!!!!!
You'll need it for which ever PC you buy. It will be your best investment. Silence at last!!!!!!
It's possible... But are all those overclockers and computerheads actually running samplers and multitracker studio programs on their engines? That's to consider too! Because when you check what the people into this precise sphere of computer audio work with, you may find that the explanations of Monsieur Subhuman are the most accurate you can get!!
WayneSim,
AMDs are good, but <i>with Creamware</i> it is quite clear the motherboard is more important than the CPUs here, and for the least amount of tech related time and the most MUSIC related time spent on a PC, I would really suggest an Intel solution or a Mac.
I am a techhead and appreciate all that AMDs have to offer, but they require a lot more skills to troubleshoot and debug to get a solid working system. The chipsets and motherboards seem to be the key to a rock solid Creamware setup. This advice comes from someone who has had multiple Creamware cards in a motherboards with the following chipsets: KT266A, KT133A, KX133, 440BX, i815, i815EP, i845, i850, nForce420. I know enough about SiS chipsets & their performance with CW to know that I probably won't use them. Understand that ALL of these work with CW cards, but some definitely perform much better and with fewer headaches and tweaks.
I still think the i8xx series are the best for use with Creamware cards, as they have excellent PCI performance, with the onboard IDE channels NOT sharing PCI bus. Again, this assumes MY way of working, which is using a lot of Sampler/Reverb and delay based effects in my projects, and having head room so it can run solid without thinking about it. Sometimes a limit can become creative inspiring, too...
So I say let the techheads and 'hardcore computer guys' go with Athlons... after all, most musicians won't be spending the cash on water cooling when they could get a P4 that works almost straight away out of the box with the stock heatsink. And if price is a main consideration, AMD has and probably always be a bit cheaper, good bang for buck.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: subhuman on 2002-02-25 22:33 ]</font>
AMDs are good, but <i>with Creamware</i> it is quite clear the motherboard is more important than the CPUs here, and for the least amount of tech related time and the most MUSIC related time spent on a PC, I would really suggest an Intel solution or a Mac.
I am a techhead and appreciate all that AMDs have to offer, but they require a lot more skills to troubleshoot and debug to get a solid working system. The chipsets and motherboards seem to be the key to a rock solid Creamware setup. This advice comes from someone who has had multiple Creamware cards in a motherboards with the following chipsets: KT266A, KT133A, KX133, 440BX, i815, i815EP, i845, i850, nForce420. I know enough about SiS chipsets & their performance with CW to know that I probably won't use them. Understand that ALL of these work with CW cards, but some definitely perform much better and with fewer headaches and tweaks.
I still think the i8xx series are the best for use with Creamware cards, as they have excellent PCI performance, with the onboard IDE channels NOT sharing PCI bus. Again, this assumes MY way of working, which is using a lot of Sampler/Reverb and delay based effects in my projects, and having head room so it can run solid without thinking about it. Sometimes a limit can become creative inspiring, too...
So I say let the techheads and 'hardcore computer guys' go with Athlons... after all, most musicians won't be spending the cash on water cooling when they could get a P4 that works almost straight away out of the box with the stock heatsink. And if price is a main consideration, AMD has and probably always be a bit cheaper, good bang for buck.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: subhuman on 2002-02-25 22:33 ]</font>
Great discussion right here!On 2002-02-25 10:07, subhuman wrote:
WayneSim,
AMDs are good, but <i>with Creamware</i> it is quite clear the motherboard is more important than the CPUs here, and for the least amount of tech related time and the most MUSIC related time spent on a PC, I would really suggest an Intel solution or a Mac.
I am a techhead and appreciate all that AMDs have to offer, but they require a lot more skills to troubleshoot and debug to get a solid working system. The chipsets and motherboards seem to be the key to a rock solid Creamware setup. This advice comes from someone who has had multiple Creamware cards in a motherboards with the following chipsets: KT266A, KT133A, KX133, 440BX, i815, i815EP, i845, i850, nForce420. I know enough about SiS chipsets & their performance with CW to know that I probably won't use them. Understand that ALL of these work with CW cards, but some definitely perform much better and with fewer headaches and tweaks.
I still think the i8xx series are the best for use with Creamware cards, as they have excellent PCI performance, with the onboard IDE channels NOT sharing PCI bus. Again, this assumes MY way of working, which is using a lot of Sampler/Reverb and delay based effects in my projects, and having head room so it can run solid without thinking about it. Sometimes a limit can become creative inspiring, too...
So I say let the techheads and 'hardcore computer guys' go with Athlons... after all, most musicians won't be spending the cash on water cooling when they could get a P4 that works almost straight away out of the box with the stock heatsink. And if price is a main consideration, AMD has and probably always be a bit cheaper, good bang for buck.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: subhuman on 2002-02-25 22:33 ]</font>
Good points made by Subhuman!
Do you have any Creamware benchmarks on these Motherboards? Also do you run any tests AMD vs Intel. Because you seem to have played with many motherboards. I just think that P4 are only just now starting to catch up to an AMD system. There first batch of P4's really did sux comparied to AMD. The gap is very close now. But price is not.
I'm just not convinced about P4 because of price vs performance. I would never touch a MAC! Iv'e used them with a Full ProTools setup. For the amount of money G4's are worth I could build a PC that could fly to the moon and back. Not to mention record the sound of the moon rotating. (ok, i'm getting carred away).
Water Cooling is mainly for silence as far I go. I hate fan noise with a passion and will never put up with it ever again! The cost of water cooling I believe makes up for itself with overclocking. So therefore Water Cooling really costs nothing! And you have SILENCE. I would use water cooling no matter what computer I was using.
Anyway this debate (amd vs intel) will go on and on. I guess the only test will be with benchmark tests on Creamware and other Audio products that also including price.
So please someone run some high end equal set-up tests. Of course the tests have to be done fairly also regaurding price. And then we will see!