Processors... help me :)

philter · Post by **philter** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:10 pm

Right, this might be a long question but here goes.

I'm going to be getting a new computer at some point in the near future, and i'm stuck on processors. I've been told that not all programmes take advantage of quad core processers and that theyre only built to use 2 cores... or some shit like that. was wandering if ableton would make use of these 4 cores or would it just use 2? or is what ive been told a huge lump of shite, any pc wizards care to explain cos i actually dont know what im on about.

cheeeers

djake · Post by **djake** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:13 pm

at the moment ableton supports 2 cores.

not sure if it suports up to 4 thou, sorry

philter · Post by **philter** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:16 pm

djake wrote:at the moment ableton supports 2 cores.

not sure if it suports up to 4 thou, sorry

ok thanks man,

anyone else care to share their wisdom?

abZ · Post by **abZ** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:17 pm

I run Ableton on a quad core. Ableton has multi-proc support but I don't know how it distributes the load tbh. I will tell you that the little meter has yet to go over 50% on any of my projects. I use a shit ton of VST. I would totally recommend the quad core. I am 100% satisfied with mine.

altered state · Post by **altered state** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:08 pm

I am using a E8400, its is only dual core but is CHEAP AS CHIPS and has a native clock speed of 3ghz - for around 100 quid (less now i think) thats a dope processor - and has LOADS of overclocking potential if youre into that.

I've never gone over 20% cpu load in my projects, and I dont belive in all that "bouncing down to save cpu" m'larky.

For bang per buck, it tottaly blows quad cores out of the water - I will be upgrading to quad core in the summer when they come down, but current for a quad anywhere near as fast you are looking at spending between 700-1000+.

When I came to building my PC in the summer (I take computers quite seriously... into the whole geek scene ting) i was torn between the brand spanking new quads and this processor, but I am really pleased I chose the E8400 - not only does my computer rinse similar priced quads (and similar speed quads) the last time i bench marked my PC, due to the construction of the CPU it is really heat efficant, meaning you can push this thing well up to 4Ghz + on air cooling alone.

Ive been running it at 3.6Ghz with no crash rate for months now, and for 100 quid..... man you're a mug to NOT consider this gem.

/geek over

abZ · Post by **abZ** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:12 pm

Altered State wrote:I am using a E8400, its is only dual core but is CHEAP AS CHIPS and has a native clock speed of 3ghz - for around 100 quid (less now i think) thats a dope processor - and has LOADS of overclocking potential if youre into that.

I've never gone over 20% cpu load in my projects, and I dont belive in all that "bouncing down to save cpu" m'larky.

For bang per buck, it tottaly blows quad cores out of the water - I will be upgrading to quad core in the summer when they come down, but current for a quad anywhere near as fast you are looking at spending between 700-1000+.

I have this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819115017 It's under 200.

altered state · Post by **altered state** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:18 pm

abZ wrote:
Altered State wrote:I am using a E8400, its is only dual core but is CHEAP AS CHIPS and has a native clock speed of 3ghz - for around 100 quid (less now i think) thats a dope processor - and has LOADS of overclocking potential if youre into that.

I've never gone over 20% cpu load in my projects, and I dont belive in all that "bouncing down to save cpu" m'larky.

For bang per buck, it tottaly blows quad cores out of the water - I will be upgrading to quad core in the summer when they come down, but current for a quad anywhere near as fast you are looking at spending between 700-1000+.
I have this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819115017 It's under 200.

2.4 GHz and 4mb of cache.... not good.

Thats 0.6 Ghz per core and 1mb of cache per core.

E8400 runs native at 1.5 Ghz per core and has 3mb of cache per core.

More cache = more speed, the cache is the slowist part of a processor, the more you have, the faster it can process instructions.

And instructions still have to be carried out in order, so theres no use having more cores if you are still waiting for the small cache to swap in instuctions 1mb at a time

Pallms · Post by **Pallms** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:22 pm

Unless you are doing extremely intense projects, Ableton won't come close to using 100% of a dual- or quad-core CPU.

I'm not sure how many cores Ableton is developed for, but keep in mind that you always have something running in the background, such as an operating system.

So, let's say Ableton is designed for 2 cores. If you had a dual-core, it would be:

Core 1 - Windows + Ableton
Core 2 - Ableton

If you had a quad-core, the Windows processes could be assigned to an individual core:

Core 1 - Windows
Core 2 - Ableton
Core 3 - Ableton
Core 4 - Used for any other tasks and/or small Windows tasks. (For example, having a Web browser open while working on your tunes.)

This would theoretically give more power to Ableton, as it is able to use 100% of two cores instead of only 100% of one and some of another. If you have extra money to spend and want your PC to be more future-proof, go with a quad core. Even if Ableton doesn't support 4 cores now, it most likely will in the near future. If you don't want to spend as much, go with a dual-core and it will still be able to handle Ableton fine.

Many people think that if something isn't designed to use 4 cores, the extra cores will just sit there doing nothing. This isn't the case. Any operating system always has a lot of tasks going on that can be offset to other cores. If you get a dual-core and a quad-core both clocked at the same speed, the quad-core will always outperform the dual core.

abZ · Post by **abZ** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:24 pm

Altered State wrote:
abZ wrote:
Altered State wrote:I am using a E8400, its is only dual core but is CHEAP AS CHIPS and has a native clock speed of 3ghz - for around 100 quid (less now i think) thats a dope processor - and has LOADS of overclocking potential if youre into that.

I've never gone over 20% cpu load in my projects, and I dont belive in all that "bouncing down to save cpu" m'larky.

For bang per buck, it tottaly blows quad cores out of the water - I will be upgrading to quad core in the summer when they come down, but current for a quad anywhere near as fast you are looking at spending between 700-1000+.
I have this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819115017 It's under 200.

2.4 GHz and 4mb of cache.... not good.

Thats 0.6 Ghz per core and 1mb of cache per core.

E8400 runs native at 1.5 Ghz per core and has 3mb of cache per core.

More cache = more speed, the cache is the slowist part of a processor, the more you have, the faster it can process instructions.

And instructions still have to be carried out in order, so theres no use having more cores if you are still waiting for the small cache to swap in instuctions 1mb at a time

It is plently good enough for what I do with it.

Pallms · Post by **Pallms** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:38 pm

abZ wrote:
Altered State wrote:
abZ wrote:
Altered State wrote:I am using a E8400, its is only dual core but is CHEAP AS CHIPS and has a native clock speed of 3ghz - for around 100 quid (less now i think) thats a dope processor - and has LOADS of overclocking potential if youre into that.

I've never gone over 20% cpu load in my projects, and I dont belive in all that "bouncing down to save cpu" m'larky.

For bang per buck, it tottaly blows quad cores out of the water - I will be upgrading to quad core in the summer when they come down, but current for a quad anywhere near as fast you are looking at spending between 700-1000+.
I have this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819115017 It's under 200.

2.4 GHz and 4mb of cache.... not good.

Thats 0.6 Ghz per core and 1mb of cache per core.

E8400 runs native at 1.5 Ghz per core and has 3mb of cache per core.

More cache = more speed, the cache is the slowist part of a processor, the more you have, the faster it can process instructions.

And instructions still have to be carried out in order, so theres no use having more cores if you are still waiting for the small cache to swap in instuctions 1mb at a time
It is plently good enough for what I do with it.

The Q6600 is a fine processor. For the most part, cache only makes a huge difference in games. Unless you are trying to play the latest games at the highest settings, a little less cache won't be noticeable.

jagle · Post by **jagle** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:47 pm

ableton is for MULTI-CORES
that means many
it share its basic needs over all
and then each track gets assigned to a core
so

DUAL CORE
Track 1 CPU 1
Track 2 CPU 2
Track 3 CPU 1
Track 4 CPU 2

QUAD CORE
Track 1 CPU 1
Track 2 CPU 2
Track 3 CPU 3
Track 4 CPU 4
Track 5 CPU 1
Track 6 CPU 2
Track 7 CPU 3
Track 8 CPU 4

eastern electrics · Post by **eastern electrics** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:08 pm

jagle wrote:

[...]
and then each track gets assigned to a core
so

DUAL CORE
Track 1 CPU 1
Track 2 CPU 2
Track 3 CPU 1
Track 4 CPU 2

QUAD CORE
Track 1 CPU 1
Track 2 CPU 2
Track 3 CPU 3
Track 4 CPU 4
Track 5 CPU 1
Track 6 CPU 2
Track 7 CPU 3
Track 8 CPU 4

fail.

futures_untold · Post by **futures_untold** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:32 pm

Why don't you email Ablton directly and ask them?

reason · Post by **reason** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:28 am

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan08/a ... n_0108.htm

altered state · Post by **altered state** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:59 am

jagle wrote:ableton is for MULTI-CORES
that means many
it share its basic needs over all
and then each track gets assigned to a core
so

DUAL CORE
Track 1 CPU 1
Track 2 CPU 2
Track 3 CPU 1
Track 4 CPU 2

QUAD CORE
Track 1 CPU 1
Track 2 CPU 2
Track 3 CPU 3
Track 4 CPU 4
Track 5 CPU 1
Track 6 CPU 2
Track 7 CPU 3
Track 8 CPU 4

glottis5 · Post by **glottis5** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:56 am

Altered State wrote:I am using a E8400, its is only dual core but is CHEAP AS CHIPS and has a native clock speed of 3ghz - for around 100 quid (less now i think) thats a dope processor - and has LOADS of overclocking potential if youre into that.

I've never gone over 20% cpu load in my projects, and I dont belive in all that "bouncing down to save cpu" m'larky.

For bang per buck, it tottaly blows quad cores out of the water - I will be upgrading to quad core in the summer when they come down, but current for a quad anywhere near as fast you are looking at spending between 700-1000+.

When I came to building my PC in the summer (I take computers quite seriously... into the whole geek scene ting) i was torn between the brand spanking new quads and this processor, but I am really pleased I chose the E8400 - not only does my computer rinse similar priced quads (and similar speed quads) the last time i bench marked my PC, due to the construction of the CPU it is really heat efficant, meaning you can push this thing well up to 4Ghz + on air cooling alone.

Ive been running it at 3.6Ghz with no crash rate for months now, and for 100 quid..... man you're a mug to NOT consider this gem.

/geek over

got an e8400 as well, great processor.

paradigm_x · Post by **paradigm_x** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:23 am

hmm

ive got a e6600 thinking of upgrading (nebula mainly, TANS your cpu) was thinking of going Q6600. Not sure now ?

this is the prob with pc components, i find you read more and more reviews/opinions and get more confused. Happened buying a 24" widescreen earlier. Just jumped in and got one in the end, spent far too long reading reviews and forums.

philter · Post by **philter** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:24 pm

futures_untold wrote:Why don't you email Ablton directly and ask them?

Yeh, I have, but thought I might of had a chance of getting a quicker response here, still waiting for reply from ableton.

And cheers everyone for your input

much appreciated, cheeers

philter · Post by **philter** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:28 pm

reason wrote:http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan08/a ... n_0108.htm

safe

abZ · Post by **abZ** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:35 pm

Paradigm X wrote:hmm

ive got a e6600 thinking of upgrading (nebula mainly, TANS your cpu) was thinking of going Q6600. Not sure now ?

this is the prob with pc components, i find you read more and more reviews/opinions and get more confused. Happened buying a 24" widescreen earlier. Just jumped in and got one in the end, spent far too long reading reviews and forums.

I know exactly where you are coming from. I read a lot of crap before I pulled the trigger. Most folks where steering me towards the quad. A few folks where very hardcore on the dual core. I knew a few guys personally that where running the q6600 and they where happy so I went with that. At the end of the day it runs my audio apps very well. That is my computers main purpose. I am happy after 6 months of using it. You can get some great deals on the duos. I don't think you can go wrong either way.

Processors... help me :)

Processors... help me :)

Who is online