Would 1.66 GHz be enough?

[The Unavoidable]

...for everyday music production? I just got a sweet deal on a new laptop, and was planning on picking it up in a few days. However, looking over the system specs I noticed that it only has 1.66 ghz (dual core).

Would this cut it for the major DAWs and VST/plug-ins and all that? Looking at the Steinberg website the sysreqs on Cubase 5 is 2.0 ghz. Would that mean that it would not run on that machine, even though it matches (and exceeds) every other system req?

 

[Metaltastic]

I'm pretty sure there's more to performance than just raw clock speed, hence how my Dual Core 2.5 ghz laptop will annihilate any of the like 3.5 ghz Pentium 4's of yesteryear - in other words, I'm certain you'll be fine!

 

[Erik Monsonis]

I'm using a Dual core laptop, 2.1ghz per core and and 3GB of RAM. It's performance is more than average. However, I can't load tons of effects on hundreds of tracks... It's just enough for my actual needs.

OT: Marcus, how do you manage to be online all the time, mostly when I am (considering we have about 5-6h difference)??

 

[rcg]

dependent how many plugins do you want to use, they consumed much CPU.

 

[Metaltastic]

OT: Marcus, how do you manage to be online all the time, mostly when I am (considering we have about 5-6h difference)??

Hey, it's 1:41 in the afternoon here, and I'm just killing time between my class that ends at 12 and my next one at 2!

 

[Erik Monsonis]

Oh, I see

 

[The Unavoidable]

Well, being able to use a sea of plug-ins isn't actually a big deal, just the normal stuff would suit me just fine. So, even though Cubase 5 has 2.0 ghz in the system requierments, it should run just fine on a 1.66 dual core? Cause that's pretty much my biggest concern.

 

[KeithReyn]

I may be wrong, but the 2ghz system requirement is for a single core. Since youll have a dual core, i dont think there would be a problem at all. i havent seen a DAW that requires multiple cores.

 

[Metaltastic]

Good point Keith!

 

[kev]

It might be a little tight, you'll probably be ok recording but you're not going to be able to get away with much in the way of plugins/vsts.

 

[John_C]

yeah, time to start really getting good at micing, because you'll be a little limited in your scope to fix things.

 

[Morgan C]

Dual Core essentially doubles the power doesn't it? So you have about 3.2 Ghz essentially, if I understand correctly. I think it may be a little less than that though.

 

[Trevoire520]

On a similar topic, how much processing power do you need for recording a large amount of tracks? (16-24) I'm looking at the bottom of the line Macbook (2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM) as I'm getting sick of dragging my bulky unstable desktop around when I have a session.

 

[vrtkll]

Just because its 1.66ghz doesn't mean it's not that fast. Today's processors do more per clock cycle than the older processors did. Dual cores dont really "double" power they just give another helping hand to process stuff. They tag team things. You can also go into task manager and right click on a process and dedicate a core to just one program if you really want to also. I think it should be plenty fast enough though, as long as you don't go running 500 soft synths lol.

 

[kev]

Dual Core essentially doubles the power doesn't it? So you have about 3.2 Ghz essentially, if I understand correctly. I think it may be a little less than that though.

Not quite man, you get two 1.66ghz processors which doesnt equate to 3.2ghz of speed. So whilst you can do "two things at once", it wont process at a clock speed of 3.2ghz. It seems to be quite a confused thing actually, and i have noticed people trying to market PC's in this way which kind of worries and annoys me.

For instance, my quad core is 3.8ghz, but that doesnt mean I have 15.2ghz. I just have four processors running at 3.8ghz.

 

[Morgan C]

Yeah I understood that much Kev. But in audio, where every 'process' is rather small, like a plugin or whatever, it doesnt really matter much whether you've got one processor running at 4ghz or 2 processors running at 2ghz each. I think?

 

[egan.]

On a similar topic, how much processing power do you need for recording a large amount of tracks? (16-24) I'm looking at the bottom of the line Macbook (2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM) as I'm getting sick of dragging my bulky unstable desktop around when I have a session.

I can still run 48 track PTLE sessions on my 2.8ghz P4. Obviously speed matters but I think people blow this stuff out of proportion. FWIW I did a whole record on my 2.2ghz MBpro w/ 2 gigs of ram.

 

[kev]

Yeah I understood that much Kev. But in audio, where every 'process' is rather small, like a plugin or whatever, it doesnt really matter much whether you've got one processor running at 4ghz or 2 processors running at 2ghz each. I think?

Yeh, there isnt much in audio that I have come accross that is extremely taxing on the cpu alone Morgoe. Its generally a build up of many vsts and plugins that eventually grinds a pc down. Im one of these that cant stand bouncing and like to track/mix/ghetto master everything all in one session, so thats where a quicker CPU really pays dividends.

 

[Russtopher]

FWIW, I took a session I was working on using my laptop (2.4Ghz P4, 1GB RAM WinXP) and fired it up on my 2Ghz dual core Vista machine at work, just for shits and giggles. Running 10 tracks of drums, 6 guitars (4 rhythm 2 leads), 2 bass tracks, and 4 vocal tracks, all with a decent amount of plugs (compressors, EQ, verb and delay sends, plus sample replacement on drums in Reaper), I had about 20% total CPU usage. At home on my laptop I was averaging near 70%.

 

[Metaltastic]

Dual Core is like having a mini-me version of your cpu to kick the data in the shins on it's way through.

And cackle mischievously in the process