Author |
Message |
BobTheDog
Joined: Feb 28, 2005 Posts: 4044 Location: England
Audio files: 32
G2 patch files: 15
|
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 2:24 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Ah, I thought he/she was going for the 1366, might as well just get DDR2 RAM then, wouldn't that be cheaper? |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Ashe37
Joined: Oct 31, 2009 Posts: 17 Location: Los Angeles
|
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 2:27 am Post subject:
|
|
|
1156 uses DDR3.... the memory controller is built onto the processor. _________________ Ensoniq VFX & ESQm
Korg M3, EMX-1 , MS2000BR
Roland MKS-50, Alesis Micron
Waldorf Blofeld |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
BobTheDog
Joined: Feb 28, 2005 Posts: 4044 Location: England
Audio files: 32
G2 patch files: 15
|
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 2:29 am Post subject:
|
|
|
So it needs DDR3 but can only use 2 channels? |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Ashe37
Joined: Oct 31, 2009 Posts: 17 Location: Los Angeles
|
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 2:31 am Post subject:
|
|
|
yep, 2 channels of DDR3-1066, iirc _________________ Ensoniq VFX & ESQm
Korg M3, EMX-1 , MS2000BR
Roland MKS-50, Alesis Micron
Waldorf Blofeld |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
jksuperstar
Joined: Aug 20, 2004 Posts: 2503 Location: Denver
Audio files: 1
G2 patch files: 18
|
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 7:46 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Also, the 1156 series don't technically *need* perfect pairs anymore. Things are better for sure with dual channels of paired up RAM, but it's not a requirement. The new cache and memory management unit can optimize things on it's own now.
So, you can take that left over DDR3 that you have laying around for 3 years now, and stick together an ad-hoc system to calculate the size of the expanding universe, or decode SETI receptions at blazing speed
It should be noted for the original poster, that whatever you get, choose the chip in the family with the largest size cache. The more data in cache, the less you access RAM anyway. And the new cache in the 1156 has more sharing between the cores, so efficiency of multi-track mixing can require less use of external memory if your tool spreads tracks out across cores. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Rykhaard
Joined: Sep 02, 2007 Posts: 1290 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 6:30 am Post subject:
|
|
|
BobTheDog wrote: | So we won't be recommending AMD then
I must admit my PC building days are gone, would it still work out cheaper to build your own or just buy one nowadays? |
Mmm. That's got me wondering a bit as I am now as of yesterday, getting ready to construct a new machine for music only and ... I wont touch Intel. Lots of studying to do, for me.
Seeing the recommendation for NOT having wifi at the same time as the machine running, I'll have to keep in mind. My wifi router is up on the 1st floor of the house and my new music purposed computer will be in the basement's studio. Hmmm hmmm hmmmmmm.
There're so many aspects to look at for building a machine specifically for music recording as well. Running Reaper for audio as well as MIDI at the same time, being the end result / desire.
Would there be any advantages to going 64 bit as opposed to 32? (The extra memory abilities of Win 7, with 64 bit.) I'm also looking towards the future. The 6 1/2 year old machine that I'm replacing were a powerhouse when I built it - FOR the purpose of lasting a long time. That's another main feature that I'd like with the new machine - for it to be a powerhouse, for a good long time.
Could anyone out there give me any rough estimates as to what I should look for in building a new machine? I.E.:
- # of cores
- amount of RAM
- HD speed / # of hard drives (knowing that physically separate for data, is a preference)
- 64 or 32 bit? (It WILL be Win 7)
Also - could the downside of AMD be specified at least somewhat for me? I've not been a fan of Intel for years and years, due to their extreme extra costs for just about anything. Perhaps they've come down closer to AMD in pricing though, and I'm not aware of it?
Thanks for any tips / suggestions / help. I'd like to start purchasing the required components for building the machine, as soon as possible.
I'm also not worried on graphics for it. Would it be ok to leave the graphics engine to the motherboard itself? Or would it still be better to go with a physically separate video card? |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
jksuperstar
Joined: Aug 20, 2004 Posts: 2503 Location: Denver
Audio files: 1
G2 patch files: 18
|
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:13 am Post subject:
|
|
|
You can always run a connection to the internet from your upstairs PC, and use something like VNC to remote into that computer from your studio PC inorder to do browsing.
That's to say: you will have wifi enabled in your studio only while web browsing. Otherwise, it's off. However, the studio PC will talk to your "normal" computer, which then talks to the internet. That keeps your studio computer safer. VNC is extremely easy to use, and fast over a local internet. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Uncle Krunkus
Moderator
Joined: Jul 11, 2005 Posts: 4761 Location: Sydney, Australia
Audio files: 52
G2 patch files: 1
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:05 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Rykh,
I can't see anything wrong with AMD, they've served me well for the last 10 years or so.
And definitely get a separate video card. You don't want to be sharing any RAM with the video system. Keep as much as possible freed up for your music. _________________ What makes a space ours, is what we put there, and what we do there. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|