Yep, there's no need to swap with 2 gigs of RAM (RAM is hugely faster than hard disk drives).

Take the 800mhz one the difference in price shouldn't be significant as DDRII prices have plummetted.

Take all the time you need, no rush at all on my side!
Torn, yes, I'll go with 800mhz corsair xms2 ram methinks...

a good start would be to follow this guide:
http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/OptimizeXP.html

then

run > regedit

remove dlls from cache memory

go to hkey_local_machine\software\microsoft\windows\curr entversion\explorer. create a new dword value named alwaysunloaddll, and give it a data value of 1

prefetch parameters
set the registry key hkey_local_machine\system\currentcontrolset\contro l\session manager\memory management\prefetchparameters\enableprefetcher to 0 to disable prefetching, 1 to prefetch application launch files, 2 to prefetch boot files, or 3 to prefetch as many files as possible.

place windows kernel into ram

edit the registry key hkey_local_machine\system\currentcontrolset\contro l\session manager\memory management\disablepagingexecutive to 1 to disable paging and have the kernel run in ram (set the value to 0 to undo this hack). exit the registry and reboot.

enough for now.

i was refering specifically to this:


if the peak commit charge is frequently near the limit commit charge, you need to increase your memory either by getting more physical ram or increasing the paging file.

hey Nic! how's the PC treating you, got it already?
Dunno if you ordered already but as far as I experienced PENTIUM cpus are much more reliable than MADs and they don't cost a lot. Also if you are planning on buying some serious sound card avoid the INVIDIA / VIA chipsets...

depending on how many channels you need on the soundcard I would suggest TASCAM stuff... I have 3 of their cards (US122 - 2 ins, 2 outs; US428 - 4 ins, 2 outs; and FW1804 - 10 ins, 2 outs) and I think they're fucking solid audiomakers.

hey max!
still "building" the thing (due to "budget limitations" I'm waiting for good offers for each "piece") , here 's how it should be according to my latest plans:

Asus p5b-vm mobo
intel E2180 cpu
2 GB dd2 ram (either 667 or 800 mhz in dual channel)
seagate barracuda with 16MB cache and 7200 rpm
rasurbo silent psu
a decent case (possibly with some noise-blocking features like the antec solo).

as for the sound card, I'll save for a motu ultralite..will take some time, but it will be worth it (and in the meantime I can work with the digital recorder+pc anyways).

still working on this. I was thinking about the processor, will the cache memory have a great influence even if I don't plan to "record" with the pc? Shall I go for a E4400 (2mb cache) or even higher, like, E6600, 4mb cache, just as the one I have on my "graphic+gaming" machine? (prices should drop a bit after april 20th)

Yes it has. But you can also compensate it with overclocking (the E4400 should be very good at it - without any risk for the hardware).

yep but overcloking (thing that actually I'm not much inclined to do) wouldn't make the cache bigger, just the cpu faster :D.

Yes but then the performances would be similar between the E4400 and the E6600 at stock speed. If you don't want to overclock go for the E6600 then (I have one and it's still a very powerful CPU event if dates a bit now).

that's true but I'm not asking the differences i'd get in mhz - speed , just if having a bigger amount of cache would help or if it's not much important for mixing stuff with a bunch of plugins active... even a 2180 can run at 3ghz properly cooled ;)

the "real" question is : how much does the amount of cache memory influence the performances of the cpu in this specific task?

sorry, I didn't make this much clear at first...

if you're just talking about cpu cache it really depends on the situation

ok, here's a performance chart:



basicly it relies on how much you're willing to spend.
i would keep the money... but it's up to you. if you think that extra money it's worth that sligth improvement....

interesting chart. even if there are no specific big audio applications on there, looks like tha 4mb isn't much of an improvement. I'll search for a 1MB vs 2MB chart and make up my mind.

dude you don't need huge muscle for audio these days. maybe in 1999 but not in 2008. cpu speed has become pretty irrelevant.

and may i say, speed is overrated. most computers can handle most audio editing these days. i'd put more emphasis on stability and solid performance than in overclocking and pushing benchmarks. my favorite benchmark is how long can you run a computer without rebooting it. i'd focus on that... because having your machine crash and losing work is the real time waster.

There's much more difference in terms of performance between 1MB and 2 than between 2MB and 4 so go for 2 at least.

Depends what he wants. For some solid durable monitoring headphones go for Beyer DT100 or any number of " Senn's " range (HD650 are good but expensive). For mixing, really, on a budget? Save your money, use whatever headphones/speakers you're used to listening to music on ( a friend of mine uses some shit computer speakers and his mixes are sometomes better than mine ). Otherwise I'd buy Tannoy Reveals (again if on a budget but quite good anyway, actually). I have many different speakers, but in all honesty I use a pair of Panasonic's consumer range headphones mostly ($9).

As for a PC recording machine? I'm not too sure.I've only ever used a 'homebrew' cubase machine once in my life and I hated every fucking second on it. There's just no kineticism - it distends my rectum.

Depending on how serious you are, I'd 'pop' for something like this :

http://cgi.ebay.com/Mackie-HDR-24-96-Hard-Disk-Recorder-No-reserve-As-Is_W0QQitemZ370042073438QQihZ024QQcategoryZ41784QQ ssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Then get a small desk and the other required bits to accompany it. It has a 'Pro-tools-like' interface built in when you plug in a monitor and mouse. You can get a load of problems with home built computers loaded with Cubase. It can be highly annoying.You want something sturdy and reliable to use as your 'multitracker'.

One of the very very few decent pieces og gear mackie makes, I however would not recommend for a home studio setup on a budget.

thanks for your suggesions, but I'm pretty much set up as of now (I need a really simple little studio).
I have a fostex digital multitrack recorder with hd
A lem rd82fx mixer
I'll use the pc just to make some electronic bases/noises and mix the separate tracks transferred from the recorder. So the pc is hardly a proper "recording machine" in this scenario, more like a "mixer that keeps track of the changes/effects for each track" :D
I have yamaha Hs 50m studio monitors, will mix with them.

I'm just trying to decide what's the most cost-effective cpu "future-proof" for a couple years. :)

macpro tower ftw

Crypto, you've a weird concept of "cost effective cpu for a win xp based pc". :D
p.s. off topic but it's my own thread, so, yeah: did you record some stuff with yout gear?

yeah!
it's awesome
i'll post some audio tomorrow

did you see the most recent pics of the studio?
http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/showthread.php?t=5596

scroll down

i'd stick with a core2duo.

intel is working on a new cpu microarchitecture that will change the fsb and end the need for a large cache, and amd has a dubious future, but the core2duo has wide enough of a user base that it will continue to be sold for some time in the future. (more on amd's troubles here).

i'm still running a p4 in my video editing machine & it works without trouble. might take a little longer than a newer cpu to render & encode & shit of that sort but it works perfectly fine.

the thing with the core2duo is if you buy a cheap one today you might be able to upgrade a couple of years from now to speeds that currently are unavailable to you.

if you want your system to have a good upgrade path, get the best and more future-proof motherboard you can afford, 2 gigs of ram and a normal cpu. then you can add/replace components as time passes.

if you've chosen an amd platform already just get whatever you can at this point.

AMD dual core works great for running Sonar Home Studio. I've tried Cubase too, but that program blows - there's a reason they give it away for free with every piece of computer recording equipment. Most of the XP tweaks will only give you limited performance improvement compared to the big two: turn off internet and turn off anti-virus software.

You probably already found a sound card, but if you're ever looking for a good mixer for computer applications, try the SoundCraft Compact 4 mixer.

:confused:

blah!
E4500 (or E4600) FTW. Or E6600 if the price drop announced for april 20th will have some effect over here :(
the title of this thread is getting more and more misleading...

just go with the cheap & splurge on the mobo.

mobo = more crucial for future proofing

!@#$%,

My mistake. I have an AMD Athlon 64 with dual core, not core2duo.

I already have a decent one got really cheap (p5b-VM) that's pretty all-in-one with stuff I needed (on board graphic, digital audio out, firewire port). Not the most future proof you can get, but should work pretty solid for a decent time span and I got it so cheap that when it will become a limitation for the system I won't cry replacing it.

ah ha ha yea. core2duo is by amd's nemesis.

the dualcore athlon64/opteron in an impressive cpu but since amd is in a bit of trouble the future of its line of products is uncertain. so the availability of good motherboards is going to be reduced.

oh asus is solid. just get the $120 cpu man. save your cash for things like signorinas :D

oh, I wish there were 120$ cpus over here :D

still, the e6600 is double the price of the e4500 and you most definitely do not need the extra processing power. i'd take the leftover cash over the extra cpu cycles.