Buying a new pc for recording: Quad Core or Dual Core?

[Josh Burgess]

I'm buying a new desktop PC for recording soon... and I'm wondering, should I get a Quad Core or a faster Dual Core? I've read that lots of tasks and software don't actually take advantage of quad core very well, and that getting a faster Dual Core processor (for about the same price) might be a better idea...

But I don't know how this relates to audio production...

What do you guys think?

 

[Kazrog]

Get a Mac, first of all. Second of all, more cores are better in most DAW software.

 

[everybody's x]

somebody recently posted an article on here about quad cores not outperforming duo-cores in audio apps. I think it was Oz

 

[Josh Burgess]

Get a Mac, first of all. Second of all, more cores are better in most DAW software.

I don't want a Mac. They cost much more to get the same power. Sure, they might run better, but I'm not paying twice as much just to have a Mac.... and I'm not so sure about most DAW software needing more cores. It's my understanding that dual core technology has a lot of advantages over single core, but the same isn't necessarily true for quad core over dual core. Apparently a lot of software has not been engineered to really take advantage of quad core processing... and that's why I'm making this thread... to find out from you guys, who hopefully know. haha.

 

[SpewChunks]

Get a faster Dual Core, the amount of difference between dual and quad core as far as recording in DAW's goes is minimal, you would be hard struck to find any difference in performance. The main role for a CPU in a DAW environment is the capability to handle plugins and any new CPU on the market will be excellent. If i were you, i'd worry less about the CPU, and spend more mula on a really good solid PSU and as much good quality matched ram as you can fit, thats where you'll get the best performance advantages.

 

[Slemmu]

Well at least in the world of Pro Tools LE it really does make a difference : http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat....172215&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=1

Dverb 2.0 Test

The CORE 2 DUO Dverb results


BigBubbaj = 136 Dverbs at 24 48 1024 on a E6600 - ABIT AW9d-MAX (975X)

RecordingGuy = 110 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a E6400 - ECS PX1 Extreme (P965)

Gonzo99 = 117 Dverbs 24 48 1024, 150 Dverbs when overclocked to 3 GHz on a E6400 - Asus P5B (P965)

Tjkili = 136 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a E6600 - ASUS P5B (P965)

Mcpram = 120 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a E6600 - ASUS P5B (P965)

Khatru = 121 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a E6600 - ASUS P5W DH Deluxe (975X) 2 GB DDR2 6400, Mbox, 7.3.1

jemd = 141 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a seriously Over Clocked E4300 - Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6 (P965)

Doogz = 120 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a E6600 - Asus P5BN-E SLI (Nvidea 650i)

Vocal VooDoo 104 Dverbs on a E6600 - ASROCK 4 core DUAL VSTA (VIA 880 Ultra) 2 GB DDR2 667, MBox2 7.3cs2

Finne = 155 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a E6600 - Asus P5B Deluxe (P965)

SeanDerMan 132 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a E6700 - Asus P5B Deluxe (P965) 2GB DDR2


The CORE 2 QUAD Dverb results


sureno 229 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a QX6700 Quad - Gigabyte GA-965P-DQ6 (P965)

howlead 230 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a Q6600 Quad - Intel DG965 OT (P965)

JamTime 250 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a Q6600 Quad - ASUS P5B Deluxe WI-FI (P965) 2GB DDR2 1066. ASUS 1650, Mbox2, LE 7.3

NickH 259 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a Q6600 Quad - ASUS P5B Deluxe (P965) 2 GB DDR2 1066. ASUS 7600 GS, 002R

auxsend1 252 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a Q6600 Quad- Intel BOXDP35DPM (P35) 2 GB DDR2 667, ASUS 8600GT, MBox2 Pro LE 7.3.1 cs3

Sunburst79 288 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a Q6600 - Asus P5K Deluxe WiFi AP (P35) 4GB DDR2 1066, Asus 1600Pro, 2 74GB Raptors (Audio and OS), 002R, 7.3cs4

77Pro 254 Dverbs 24 48 1024 on a Q6600 - Asus P5B (P965)3GB DDR2 800, 2 36 gb Raptors, 2 400 Barracudas, 003R factory, MPTK, 7.3cs4.

agonydfeet 270 Dverbs 24 48 1024 On a Q6600 - Asus P5B Deluxe(P965) 4GB of Corsair DDR2 800, XFS 7600GT 256, 2 250GB Seagate HDD, 002R Factory 7.3cs4

 

[SickBoy]

Quad-Core all the way!
Intel's Q6600 is bargain these days and overclocks very easily if you want to...
Just make sure to replace the stock cooler, it's really poor, I'd recommend Scythe Katana 2!
And throw in at least 4GB of DDR2 800Mhz memory, 2x2GB would be the best choice IMO... Memory has never been cheaper, so I'd recommend getting some quality brands like OCZ, Geil, Corsair or Kingston instead of some cheap crap.

 

[SpewChunks]

I stand corrected with those quad/duo comparisons

 

[Notuern]

The latest software that are written uses "multicore"-technology instead of "dualcore"-technology, so i guess quadcore performs really well in REALLY new software.
Otherwise i guess its useless(Unless you are runnin mac as others said.).
If you buy an Intel Dualcore you will still have 4 visible cores, so id settle with that, but thats me.

 

[SickBoy]

If you buy an Intel Dualcore you will still have 4 visible cores, so id settle with that, but thats me.

Care to elaborate? I mean, this statement makes no sense to me...
Dualcore has 2 cores, thus 2 cores are visible, not 4?!

The thing is that any pro software (not just audio apps, but things like Premiere, Photoshop and various other as well) gets optimized for advanced components like quad-core CPUs, whereas non-pro apps like games don't. That's why gamers like Core2Duo more, cause it gives them the same or even more performance than Quads for a smaller price tag...

 

[Notuern]

Care to elaborate? I mean, this statement makes no sense to me...
Dualcore has 2 cores, thus 2 cores are visible, not 4?!

The thing is that any pro software (not just audio apps, but things like Premiere, Photoshop and various other as well) gets optimized for advanced components like quad-core CPUs, whereas non-pro apps like games don't. That's why gamers like Core2Duo more, cause it gives them the same or even more performance than Quads for a smaller price tag...

Intel uses "Hyper-Threading", which means that it emulates an extra core on each core.
I have an old computer, one core, but i have two visible cores.

If you have a pc running on Windows XP, press ctrl + alt + delete and check under performance, and you will see that you have more then one visible cores.

And its not "pro-software", its about the software being able to find and handle the different cores.
Just because a software can handle dualcore doesnt mean that it will be able to handle the other cores, because alot of the software uses "dualcore-technology", and not the "multicore-technology".

 

[ElektricEyez]

What is comes down to is what DAW your going to use. In order for the DAW to benefit from a dual/quad core, they have to support it. For example, PT 6 does not even benefit at all frm having dual core, because of the stacking it uses, however PT 7 utilizes both cores.

Personally I have a dual Core AMD Opteron running at 2.6 ghz and use Sonar Producer Ed version 6.2 The software utilizes both cores, and it even takes advantage of the 64 bit technology, despite the fact that I am running 32 bit windows. I have run over 35 tracks, and TONS of plugins and have never seen my CPU utilization go past 50% per core. same system using protools on the other hand getting up to 32 tracks, some songs have hit that 75% cpu utilization. I think it has something to with Sonar using the 64 Bit technology.

I have yet to see any DAW benefit from 4 cores, although I am sure it may in the future, no DAW's have stacking programming that benefits from it yet. The only thing they are good for at this point is multi-tasking. Which I don't see the point when your mixing. But 2 cores will be stronger than 4 IF the DAW uses 2 cores. Remember stacking occurs at the client level, not the OS level. Hope this helps

 

[SickBoy]

Intel uses "Hyper-Threading", which means that it emulates an extra core on each core.
I have an old computer, one core, but i have two visible cores.

Oh, that thing... That was a feature on Pentium 4 CPUs IIRC, not the later dualcore, Core2Duo and QuadCore CPUs...

 

[Notuern]

Oh, that thing... That was a feature on Pentium 4 CPUs IIRC, not the later dualcore, Core2Duo and QuadCore CPUs...

I googled abit and found out it is called "Virtualization Technology" today, but it does the same thing.
You can actually run 4 independent operativesystems on a Intel Dualcore(1 on each "core".).
So its still a feature, they just changed its name.
Anyways, this is why i always loved Intel(They have _ALWAYS_ been beating the crap out of AMD.).

Edit: Read more about it, virtualization is not as efficient as hyperthreading, and isnt really the same thing(Although it can do alot of the same things.). And Intel are going to reintroduce multi-threading into their cpu's.
Another advantage of using HTT is that it doesnt use as much power in relation to performance.

Edit2:

Looking around some more i found that "Intel Pentium Processor Extreme Edition 840" is both dualcore and hyperthreading, and as a plus it also utilizes "Virtualization Technology". \o/

 

[SpewChunks]

Virtualization and Hyperthreading are not the same thing at all, although they may seem similar. They are both technologies that has been implemented into recent CPU architectures (but have been around for a long time in other formats), but it is possible to have Hyperthreading and Virtualization on the same CPU.

Hyperthreading, as you said is the act of simulating two cores when there is only one, but Virtualization enables multiple instances of operating systems or 'Virtual Machines' to be run in parralell, so for instance you could have, windows xp pro, windows vista, solaris, and redhat all running at the same time on a single CPU (or even multiple cores if thats your cup of tea).

Virtualization is not a new concept it's been around in software format aswell... Obviously running your DAW in four separate instances of an OS isn't going to be very helpful so i wouldn't consider it a benefit to the average person just yet. A dual core CPU will only have four visible cores if it has hyperthreading... and as far as AMD vs Intel, thats a load of shite they are both very excellent and innovative.

 

[ElektricEyez]

I googled abit and found out it is called (They have _ALWAYS_ been beating the crap out of AMD.).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Intel has not always been beating AMD. It's actually only up until recently that Intel has gotten ahead in the race because they finally got passed their netburst architecture. Before that AMD was killing them in every aspect. Although I will say Intel has gotten some nice CPU's out there now with there core 2 duo's - less power consumption, less heat and I think they will even be using 45 nanometers which also means less heat. But they are more expensive too. AMD still makes some seriously fast chips, and I doubt that unless you were using benchmark testing you probably would not notice the difference in performance if you were working with each chip side by side.

In addition to that AMD was the first to come out with dual core technology, and 64 bit technology leaving Intel dusted for a long time. They just had the name and the marketing power over AMD, but being popular doesn't mean that you are better. Also, AMD was the first to make a quad-core CPU on a single die.

As far as hyper-threading goes, it wasn't all that cracked up what you thought it was, in Protools LE up until version 7, you had to disable the hyper-threading or you would experience system crashes. Actually there were a few programs out there that required you to shut down hyper-threading. Virtual cores are nothing in comparison to the real deal. But then again, even with 4 cores, if the software doesn't use all 4 cores, then its absolutely pointless to have them - at least for now. I don't see this multi-core thing as nothing more than a trend, if the software doesn't use them, then the only thing they are good for is multi-tasking, and the only real need for that are in server situations. Most people don't run 3 applications at a time, so therefore the other 2 cores will just be sitting there collecting dust.

 

[Notuern]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Intel has not always been beating AMD. It's actually only up until recently that Intel has gotten ahead in the race because they finally got passed their netburst architecture. Before that AMD was killing them in every aspect. Although I will say Intel has gotten some nice CPU's out there now with there core 2 duo's - less power consumption, less heat and I think they will even be using 45 nanometers which also means less heat. But they are more expensive too. AMD still makes some seriously fast chips, and I doubt that unless you were using benchmark testing you probably would not notice the difference in performance if you were working with each chip side by side.

AMD has always been better at doing one thing at a time, which basically no computer does, while Intel has been better att handling multitasking.
Of course AMD is good, but it has never been as good as Intel.

In addition to that AMD was the first to come out with dual core technology, and 64 bit technology leaving Intel dusted for a long time. They just had the name and the marketing power over AMD, but being popular doesn't mean that you are better. Also, AMD was the first to make a quad-core CPU on a single die.

This is partially true, sence my father is an it-technician i do happen to know that Intel actually had 64 bit and dualcore technology at the same time as AMD, the difference was that Intel was doing harder testing on their CPU's before releasing them.
My father had laid his hands on a dualcore 64 bit processor months before AMD was even close to releasing them on the retail market.
The thing was that AMD was earlier on the retailmarket because they just hoped it would work as good as they wanted(Trying to compete with Intel.), and ofcourse, the first one to release the product is going to get sell more of them.

As far as hyper-threading goes, it wasn't all that cracked up what you thought it was, in Protools LE up until version 7, you had to disable the hyper-threading or you would experience system crashes. Actually there were a few programs out there that required you to shut down hyper-threading. Virtual cores are nothing in comparison to the real deal. But then again, even with 4 cores, if the software doesn't use all 4 cores, then its absolutely pointless to have them - at least for now. I don't see this multi-core thing as nothing more than a trend, if the software doesn't use them, then the only thing they are good for is multi-tasking, and the only real need for that are in server situations. Most people don't run 3 applications at a time, so therefore the other 2 cores will just be sitting there collecting dust.

This is reliant on the software, and hyperthreading is still VERY usefull even if the active software doesnt use it, sence most software doesnt use all the power from the cpu.
This means that one "core" can handle the active software, while the other one handles the background tasks.
If a software crashes because of hyperthreading, its not Intels fault, its the creators of the software that just are plain stupid for not supporting it(I have never had a crash because of hyperthreading).

You call it a trend, why?
Multiple cores is very usefull, sence one core can handle the backround processes, one can handle the active program, another one might handle stuff like plugins etc.
I cant se how this would be a trend just because all software today doesnt support it.

 

[Baron of Norsworthy]

I'm buying a new desktop PC for recording soon... and I'm wondering, should I get a Quad Core or a faster Dual Core? I've read that lots of tasks and software don't actually take advantage of quad core very well, and that getting a faster Dual Core processor (for about the same price) might be a better idea...

But I don't know how this relates to audio production...

What do you guys think?

Don't go out and buy the latest and greatest because all the software apps will have to upgrade to 64 bit operating systems as 32 bit support has finished.

If you really want to spend your money on a new PC buy a dual core as they are less expensive and most Applications are not multi core aware yet.

 

[Josh Burgess]

Don't go out and buy the latest and greatest because all the software apps will have to upgrade to 64 bit operating systems as 32 bit support has finished.

If you really want to spend your money on a new PC buy a dual core as they are less expensive and most Applications are not multi core aware yet.

32 bit support finished? If that were true, there wouldn't be a 32 bit version of vista, but there is. And I'm not planning on buying the latest or greatest... I just want something good. My current computer is extremely old and couldn't handle recording, and I'm ready to start with everything, so I need a new computer.... I'm buying the parts from newegg and putting one together myself. I've decided on pretty much everything already except for the motherboard and the processor...

For the processor, I'm mainly looking at the E8400 dual core vs. the Q6600 quad core...

 

[SocialNumb]

hint: hint: