Hello , I have just moved my Pulsar II board from my old Pc (P4) to a brand new quad core with win xp home spII and asrock mobo 4Core1600Twins-P35.
A lot of problem during installation , xp was asking for cd while I was installing from a dawnloaded scope 4 platform...?
System is unstable and xtc plugins are not working , I've disabled the on-board audio card ( via bios ) , the strange thing that the same things happens also with a firewire M-Audio Audiophile card ( clipping and crashing ) that works perfectly on my laptop..
Does anybody has suggestions...?
Thanks a lot
Marco
Win XP and Pulsar II boards
well, what did you expect from a 50 Euro mobo anyway ? 
sorry that my answer to your first post - welcome btw
reads a little bit sarcastic, but that's just the way it is.
Why do some manufacturers offer similiar items at a higher rate ?
Certainly not because they are thugs or have a famous brand name...
These boards require software to operate, and this software is what makes the difference - also in price...
For audio it's Intel, Gigabyte, Supermicro, Asus(?) or any industrial grade stuff
Sack the board and/or use it for gaming in another box, seriously
Tom
sorry that my answer to your first post - welcome btw
reads a little bit sarcastic, but that's just the way it is.Why do some manufacturers offer similiar items at a higher rate ?
Certainly not because they are thugs or have a famous brand name...
These boards require software to operate, and this software is what makes the difference - also in price...
For audio it's Intel, Gigabyte, Supermicro, Asus(?) or any industrial grade stuff
Sack the board and/or use it for gaming in another box, seriously
Tom
I'm still hanging onto my P4 3GHz machine that's starting to show its limits. I suppose Pentium processors have reached their life span in modern DAW. 
On that note, I've been looking to build a new computer and been meaning to ask in this forum for a good system component suggestions. Don't mean to hijack the thread but seems to me it is somewhat related...in terms of what works well with Scope system.
I thought about jumping over to Intel-based Mac G5 but Apple has ditched PCI all together it seems...or am I misinformed on that?
Anyway, if anyone has a solid working Scope system using a quad core, I'd love to find out how you did it.
On that note, I've been looking to build a new computer and been meaning to ask in this forum for a good system component suggestions. Don't mean to hijack the thread but seems to me it is somewhat related...in terms of what works well with Scope system.
I thought about jumping over to Intel-based Mac G5 but Apple has ditched PCI all together it seems...or am I misinformed on that?
Anyway, if anyone has a solid working Scope system using a quad core, I'd love to find out how you did it.
-
chriskorff
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:09 am
well Chris, this is certainly correct in your special case...
but it does not make any sense at all - and I really mean it - to put an almost 1k Euro audio device into some bargain of obscure quality.
This would be just gambling - which is fine on it's own, if the person can handle it...
in fact almost 90% of all 'Scope s*cks error reports' are based on a mobo of inferior quality as it turned out in the end - people fiddled for days(!) because an item was $20 cheaper, tweaked Windows up and down for PCI performance etc...
to tell the truth I never tweaked anything in my systems (except shutting off the write cache) because on a quality board the difference is neglectible.
Multi-Core mobos are (obviously) much more complex than P3 and 4 versions - and we all know that the average gaming Joe will never even use 20% of what's supplied with the hardware, let alone those who run it for office and internet.
A supplier can afford to release really crappy stuff (aka save money) and still serves the vast majority of customers just perfectly, as they'll never get into a situation to notice. They don't run servers or DAWs
cheers, Tom
but it does not make any sense at all - and I really mean it - to put an almost 1k Euro audio device into some bargain of obscure quality.
This would be just gambling - which is fine on it's own, if the person can handle it...
in fact almost 90% of all 'Scope s*cks error reports' are based on a mobo of inferior quality as it turned out in the end - people fiddled for days(!) because an item was $20 cheaper, tweaked Windows up and down for PCI performance etc...
to tell the truth I never tweaked anything in my systems (except shutting off the write cache) because on a quality board the difference is neglectible.
Multi-Core mobos are (obviously) much more complex than P3 and 4 versions - and we all know that the average gaming Joe will never even use 20% of what's supplied with the hardware, let alone those who run it for office and internet.
A supplier can afford to release really crappy stuff (aka save money) and still serves the vast majority of customers just perfectly, as they'll never get into a situation to notice. They don't run servers or DAWs
cheers, Tom
-
chriskorff
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:09 am
Absolutely, Astro.
I'm a big fan of the "Buy right or buy twice" maxim, but in this case I had the mobo before the card, and (very, very fortunately, it turns out) it worked 'straight out of the box'. Given the number of teething troubles some people have, I actually feel quite lucky!
Actually... you sound like you know a fair bit about this kind of thing...
Basically, it was a total hybrid mobo (ASRock 775Dual 880Pro), in that it has 1 PCIe slot, 1 AGP slot, 4 PCI slots, accepts DDR and also DDR2 (though not at the same time), and also can take P4 processors, as well as some of the early dual core ones...basically made for people who want to upgrade in increments.
I can get a P4 Extreme Edition 955 (sock 775) 4mb L2 cache (2mb per core), 3.46g processor - which would max the mobo out completely - for 280 USD... do you think that's worth it? It also accepts Pentium D processors, which are a lot cheaper... whaddya say?
(sorry for the slight hijack - if you want to PM me Astro, it would be much appreciated.)
Cheers,
Chris
I'm a big fan of the "Buy right or buy twice" maxim, but in this case I had the mobo before the card, and (very, very fortunately, it turns out) it worked 'straight out of the box'. Given the number of teething troubles some people have, I actually feel quite lucky!
Actually... you sound like you know a fair bit about this kind of thing...
Basically, it was a total hybrid mobo (ASRock 775Dual 880Pro), in that it has 1 PCIe slot, 1 AGP slot, 4 PCI slots, accepts DDR and also DDR2 (though not at the same time), and also can take P4 processors, as well as some of the early dual core ones...basically made for people who want to upgrade in increments.
I can get a P4 Extreme Edition 955 (sock 775) 4mb L2 cache (2mb per core), 3.46g processor - which would max the mobo out completely - for 280 USD... do you think that's worth it? It also accepts Pentium D processors, which are a lot cheaper... whaddya say?
(sorry for the slight hijack - if you want to PM me Astro, it would be much appreciated.)
Cheers,
Chris
I'm not a hardware whizz at all, the main difference regarding my opinion is that it developed via the Apple way, starting with the Motorola 68K CPU, PowerPCs and only then came the Pentium.
Even the most 'extreme' version of this chip is a lame duck imho - you may have guessed that if you happened to read some of my older posts...I've adressed it frequently.
I know pretty well how a humble 33 MHZ 68040 performs - the P4 you mention has a clockrate 100(!) times higher, but it's real-world performance is at best 20 times faster - 500% slower than expected, or only one fifth of it's 'projected' capabilities.
To make things worse, the old CPU I refer to also had to process all the screen graphics...
don't worry, I'm not driving it into off-topic, it's just to explain why my viewpoint may be a bit more 'rational' and most important: you have to see the whole picture - something the industry often doesn't really appreciate...
afaik the P4 is a fairly inefficient design compared to it's predecessor and the follow-ups conceptually lend a lot from the P3, which obviously was more advanced but had temperature problems.
If I remember correctly my Tualatin 1.3G had almost the same performance as my P4 2.4
That's why I wouldn't invest seriously in anything P4 based.
my bottomline is that (say) increasing a CPU clock by 50% may read impressive - and most people 'ugrade' for way less... but a simple program optimization can easily yield 2, 3 or even 8 times the performance.
You'd better look for well-written software than for clockrate multipliers...
That's another reason why I'd never go for 'ultimate' performance hardware, but rather for well designed and reliable stuff.
The 'hardware' is the least influence - which people seem to forget frequently.
It's supposed 'power' invites either crappy software architects or automated code generators - which is ridiculously absurd if you think about it in depth...
cheers, Tom
Even the most 'extreme' version of this chip is a lame duck imho - you may have guessed that if you happened to read some of my older posts...I've adressed it frequently.
I know pretty well how a humble 33 MHZ 68040 performs - the P4 you mention has a clockrate 100(!) times higher, but it's real-world performance is at best 20 times faster - 500% slower than expected, or only one fifth of it's 'projected' capabilities.
To make things worse, the old CPU I refer to also had to process all the screen graphics...
don't worry, I'm not driving it into off-topic, it's just to explain why my viewpoint may be a bit more 'rational' and most important: you have to see the whole picture - something the industry often doesn't really appreciate...
afaik the P4 is a fairly inefficient design compared to it's predecessor and the follow-ups conceptually lend a lot from the P3, which obviously was more advanced but had temperature problems.
If I remember correctly my Tualatin 1.3G had almost the same performance as my P4 2.4
That's why I wouldn't invest seriously in anything P4 based.
my bottomline is that (say) increasing a CPU clock by 50% may read impressive - and most people 'ugrade' for way less... but a simple program optimization can easily yield 2, 3 or even 8 times the performance.
You'd better look for well-written software than for clockrate multipliers...
That's another reason why I'd never go for 'ultimate' performance hardware, but rather for well designed and reliable stuff.
The 'hardware' is the least influence - which people seem to forget frequently.
It's supposed 'power' invites either crappy software architects or automated code generators - which is ridiculously absurd if you think about it in depth...
cheers, Tom
I run several PCs with ASRock motherboards and they all work perfectly (one of them is an AThlon 2400+ running for sevral years time now).
ASRock is a child brand of ASUS and they're a great bang for the buck.
I just replaced an ASRock motherboard hosting a QX6800 and 3 scope pro cards that worked fine because it's limited to 2GB of RAM and it was a bit short. The VIA chipset ocasionnally gave me some PCI bandwidh issue but nothing I couldn't live with.
I've always been very happy with these mobos.
ASRock is a child brand of ASUS and they're a great bang for the buck.
I just replaced an ASRock motherboard hosting a QX6800 and 3 scope pro cards that worked fine because it's limited to 2GB of RAM and it was a bit short. The VIA chipset ocasionnally gave me some PCI bandwidh issue but nothing I couldn't live with.
I've always been very happy with these mobos.
reputations develope over time - the VIA KT133 chipset with an AMD CPU once was extremely popular.
An original Pulsar One will not even load the basic project in SFP without PCI overlflow on a KT133.
As VIA is notoriously known for bad PCI performance (probably thinking: who needs PCI anyway these days?...) and most of their boards sold with AMD stuff, the latter simply was associated.
There are great performing systems based on AMD CPUs, but while any Intel based will deliver excellent PCI performance, only a small fraction of AMDs will. If you know which one, it's as good as anything else
back on the topic of this particular ASR board, it might of course be just a bad Windows install. It seems to be a fundamental problem because the M-Audio card doesn't work either.
A 'cheaper' mobo is more likely supposed to fail, as it will have received a lower degree of quality control
It will be more likely to installation problems because (bios) software developement will be less thorough.
no matter which company stands behind the product - that's simple business 101
if a product has a failure rate of (say) 2% or 8% makes an enormous difference in large quanty production.
In the hypothetic low quality group you'd need at least 12 boards (statistically) to meet a bad one - in the other case it would be 50...
A DAW will use almost every part of the system - the typical home user probably less than 25%.
That's why they can afford to release more crappy consumer stuff, without the rubbish getting noticed... and they will do - it's about money
cheers, Tom
An original Pulsar One will not even load the basic project in SFP without PCI overlflow on a KT133.
As VIA is notoriously known for bad PCI performance (probably thinking: who needs PCI anyway these days?...) and most of their boards sold with AMD stuff, the latter simply was associated.
There are great performing systems based on AMD CPUs, but while any Intel based will deliver excellent PCI performance, only a small fraction of AMDs will. If you know which one, it's as good as anything else
back on the topic of this particular ASR board, it might of course be just a bad Windows install. It seems to be a fundamental problem because the M-Audio card doesn't work either.
A 'cheaper' mobo is more likely supposed to fail, as it will have received a lower degree of quality control
It will be more likely to installation problems because (bios) software developement will be less thorough.
no matter which company stands behind the product - that's simple business 101
if a product has a failure rate of (say) 2% or 8% makes an enormous difference in large quanty production.
In the hypothetic low quality group you'd need at least 12 boards (statistically) to meet a bad one - in the other case it would be 50...
A DAW will use almost every part of the system - the typical home user probably less than 25%.
That's why they can afford to release more crappy consumer stuff, without the rubbish getting noticed... and they will do - it's about money
cheers, Tom
Hy guys , thanks for all this replies .
I've installed again Xp pro SpII and ASPI and all now seams to go better , cubase sx send me and error when activating XTC plugins but seams to work..
I've discovered that my pulsar shares and IRQ ( 21 ) with the an on board usb controller...in fact if I turn on my external hard drive , scope crashes..
How to change IRQ setting without making mess...
I've installed again Xp pro SpII and ASPI and all now seams to go better , cubase sx send me and error when activating XTC plugins but seams to work..
I've discovered that my pulsar shares and IRQ ( 21 ) with the an on board usb controller...in fact if I turn on my external hard drive , scope crashes..
How to change IRQ setting without making mess...
just disable the controller making trouble in the device manager. you have others. you may or may not need to move the stuff on the usb port to another port.djrings wrote:Hy guys , thanks for all this replies .
I've installed again Xp pro SpII and ASPI and all now seams to go better , cubase sx send me and error when activating XTC plugins but seams to work..
I've discovered that my pulsar shares and IRQ ( 21 ) with the an on board usb controller...in fact if I turn on my external hard drive , scope crashes..
How to change IRQ setting without making mess...