Stability! No more no less!

Liet

Liet

Crazy Clubber
I've noticed many guys having or wanting, "state of the art" equipment.
Well here's an issue:
Lets talk about what is nessesary and what really works.
An expert on the computer field told me that I didn't need to buy some great 700-900 MHz computer.
The topic started when I was talking about the stability of my former softsynth. I wanted to buy a new computer. I then got the message:
The high-end processors (700-900 MHz) are not only not as stable as the (350-550 MHz) but have other issues.
For one thing they need COOLING - by a big mothercooler. These processors can make a meltdown in seconds if they are not cold, and you can be have to spend alot of money to buy a new cooler that wont crack as fast.
I'm tired and I don't wanna write anymore, but I'll get back to ya.
Comments and the lot - put em here!
http://djchriss.has.it
 
Too true, Too true. I heard that you could cook lunch on a 900 Mhz Athlon. Its true too. Oh yeah, the CPU fan of an athlon is about as big as two Pentium III's.
 
Hmm... Interesting...

An entire lunch eh? Do you think you need different processor speeds, say if you wanted your steak medium instead of well-done?

Anyway... I recently picked up an extremely nippy Athlon 800 and haven't had too many problems with it. There are some instability issues, admittedly but I think that's just down to the amount of software I've got loaded on it. In terms of how much I actually need the speed, I realised my expectations were a bit ambitious. In fact, the only time I actually use the whole processing power is when I'm playing games in high-resolution and high-colour graphics. I reckon it's worth it for this reason alone :)

However, there is one major advantage you get from a faster processor: ****-hot encoding times for MP3 conversion! The last PC I had was a 486 running at 100Mhz. Encoding a single MP3 used to take about an hour and now it takes about 3 mins!

Well, that's my pennies-worth anyway. Sorry, I mean cents-worth ;)

Laters,
 
Ahhh yes... A "soldier of fortune" in 1600*1200*32bit at a high framerate ;) ;) ... good reason alone hehe

More seriously.. As I said in another thread, whenmoney is an issue, I agree with buying a slower/cheaper processor, but upgrading memory and soundcard should be a priority.
 
Of course

Very true ManoOne
The need of a good soundcard is a basic one, also RAM should be at least 64 I think, and that's scraping it.
I believe though that this often is due to bad programming. Windows have these premade functions wich makes ALOT of unneccesary checks and back-and-forth writing to make it easy for the developers. Too bad, cause if it was properly I believe you could double the speed of most programs.
Sincerely Dj Chriss
http://www.mp3.com/ChrissT
 
o.k. this is what i've got .........

pentium iii 550mhz, 128mb ram, 20gb hd, pentium motherboard & chip set, sndblaster live platinum
And this is what i run simultaneously....

Software synths: rebirth , retro vs2, virtual sampler

CUBASE v Lwith 8 to 12 audio tracks, Midi sequencing, 3 plug ins usually ( real time pitch stretch, pro delay , pr reverb , pro filter passes)

Winamp: to audition mp3 and .wav files while i'm playing a song in cubase.

And cool edit pro recording in the back ground to mix down to.

Sometimes reto vs2 can eat up too much audio proccessing when using more than fou channels but it's just a case of bouncing the audio down to cubase. The sound quality is excellent though.
 
Yes memory and souncards are very important...I think 128 Mb is a minimum, if you want to run a soft like cubase and soft synths, like Unity...also be careful with hd, you could need a fast one if you want to play a lot af audio tracks...and I think that speed is also a thing to consider a lot...you see I've bought a powermac 7600/132 when it was out, and it was enough powerfull for my needs, but now with all this softs synth and plug-ins...it's really too short...and sometimes i just want to throw it through the window !
 
nook said:
Yes memory and souncards are very important...I think 128 Mb is a minimum
Click to expand...

I agree kind of. I wouldn't recommend any less to the average user, but all mine have over 384 Mb now... And I still want more....

By the way, Dual PIII 650, 384 Mb Ram, 64 Meg Voodoo 5, Ultra Wide SCSI hd, SoundBlaster Live, and a 21" Nokia is what I have in front of me right now... It's a decent setup.
 
Ahh yes a 21" :)... a big screen is great these days with all these crazy user interfaces. I own a 19" NEC and I admit I would'nt use a 17" anymore :)
 
Yes, I remember the first time I used 3d studio Max... It was on a 15" monitor running 800 x 600... I had to scroll for everything... plus I had to sit about 3 inches from my monitor to work with anything.

It's nice being able to run 1600 x 1200 and still be able to read the text now... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top