This is a follow-up question to my other DAW configuration post that I wanted to break out on its own, to see what people thought.
Assuming that I'm running Sonar 7, Gigastudio, some VSTi and VST/DX plugins, and a few other audio apps under Windows XP 32-bit, on an Intel DP35DP (with 4GB RAM and SCOPE 4.5 Pulsar II card), which processor will benefit me the most? And if the Quad, is it worth the difference in price? Keep in mind that this motherboard doesn't support overclocking.
$320
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 Yorkfield 2.66GHz 12MB L2 Cache LGA 775 95W Quad-Core Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... &Tpk=Q9450
$190
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale 3.16GHz 6MB L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... &Tpk=E8500
Thanks!
- Cowboy
Q9450 Quad or E8500 Duo, which is best in my situation?
Re: Q9450 Quad or E8500 Duo, which is best in my situation?
I really like the 8x00s they run so cool. i think it would be fine.
scope itself uses almost 0 CPU on a modern machine so most of the power will be left for your DAW apps.
If its not enough you could always upgrade later and sell that CPU or use it to upgrade another machine, friends machine etc.
I think you will be pleased with it.
and as a bonus. if you get one of those massive heatsinks you can run it with the fan off except when its under load for a long time. (less noise in DAW is good right)
scope itself uses almost 0 CPU on a modern machine so most of the power will be left for your DAW apps.
If its not enough you could always upgrade later and sell that CPU or use it to upgrade another machine, friends machine etc.
I think you will be pleased with it.
and as a bonus. if you get one of those massive heatsinks you can run it with the fan off except when its under load for a long time. (less noise in DAW is good right)
Re: Q9450 Quad or E8500 Duo, which is best in my situation?
they dont even come close to 65w even under load. it is closer to 30. thats just the maximum design wattage. thats why its the same for a whole range of CPUs which run at completely different speed.
Re: Q9450 Quad or E8500 Duo, which is best in my situation?
Make sure your CPU if purchasing the Core 2 Duo E series, is the newer 0 stepping though. The leftover models from previous versions are the same price, and nobody advertises that fact. You must ask them for it before purchasing. The benefits are obvious in recent benchmarks. Personally I would buy the E8600 as it's 3.33GHz stock speed is perfectly suited for the 1333MHz FSB.
Quad's work really well w/ Sonar 7.0 also. But must run very fast to beat the power / speed of the E8600's.
http://www.dawbench.com/blofelds-xp-v-vista.htm
These guys are freaks and seem to enjoy tweaking their DAW's as much as recording.
Quad's work really well w/ Sonar 7.0 also. But must run very fast to beat the power / speed of the E8600's.
http://www.dawbench.com/blofelds-xp-v-vista.htm
These guys are freaks and seem to enjoy tweaking their DAW's as much as recording.
Re: Q9450 Quad or E8500 Duo, which is best in my situation?
Hi,
Sonar is used for rendering not real time, so we have to take care to the conclusion we can draw from this test.
What I find interesting is the decreasing ratio CPU clock/ performance increase for Quad core compared to Dual core. It seems that the Quad suffer from cores competing for RAM access. I wonder if we could improve this by increasing the RAM clock (I mean for a 1066 FSB CPU, we could have the DDR2 RAM operating at PC2 8500 for example).
cheers
Sonar is used for rendering not real time, so we have to take care to the conclusion we can draw from this test.
What I find interesting is the decreasing ratio CPU clock/ performance increase for Quad core compared to Dual core. It seems that the Quad suffer from cores competing for RAM access. I wonder if we could improve this by increasing the RAM clock (I mean for a 1066 FSB CPU, we could have the DDR2 RAM operating at PC2 8500 for example).
cheers
-
sonicstrav
- Posts: 459
- Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:00 pm
Re: Q9450 Quad or E8500 Duo, which is best in my situation?
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 Yorkfield 2.66GHz 12MB L2 Cache LGA 775 95W Quad-Core Processor
Works great - I've had it for 4 months - no noise with this heat sink -Scythe Ninja II
Works great - I've had it for 4 months - no noise with this heat sink -Scythe Ninja II
Re: Q9450 Quad or E8500 Duo, which is best in my situation?
MD69 is exactly correct. Cache, RAM, basically all memory subsystem optimizations for the CPU and the apps has not matured yet.
Nehalem will solve this for most apps including games. Right now games seem to get the benefits.
Instead of seeing only a 20% increase when using the same speed CPU ( Quad or Duo ), Nehalem w/ audio apps should show a substantial increase in productivity.
I used a Q6600 way back when and it couldn't compete w/ a fast Core 2 Duo, but the most recent Quad's and especially the Nehalem should probably seal the coffin on Dual Cores once and for all.
Nehalem will solve this for most apps including games. Right now games seem to get the benefits.
Instead of seeing only a 20% increase when using the same speed CPU ( Quad or Duo ), Nehalem w/ audio apps should show a substantial increase in productivity.
I used a Q6600 way back when and it couldn't compete w/ a fast Core 2 Duo, but the most recent Quad's and especially the Nehalem should probably seal the coffin on Dual Cores once and for all.
Re: Q9450 Quad or E8500 Duo, which is best in my situation?
Right You Are.
I don't see a reason for getting one until they get cheap a year from now. I can load enough content w/ 32bit and 4GB's of RAM now.
I think more Core's and 64bit should go hand in hand just fine by then.
I wonder if Scope 5.0 and XITE-1 will benefit from 64bit. More RAM for reverbs and samples?........that would be so sweet.
I don't see a reason for getting one until they get cheap a year from now. I can load enough content w/ 32bit and 4GB's of RAM now.
I think more Core's and 64bit should go hand in hand just fine by then.
I wonder if Scope 5.0 and XITE-1 will benefit from 64bit. More RAM for reverbs and samples?........that would be so sweet.
Re: Q9450 Quad or E8500 Duo, which is best in my situation?
Hi,
You have to take care about nehalem expectation in audio. It's a virtual 8 cores (4 reals, 4 hyperthreadeds), so performance increase will be closer to 1.2 than 2. The benefit we'll get from the new architecture will benefit to Xeon owners which will observe a better scaling per number of CPU slot.
About Dual versus Quad, people tend to forget lessons learned: Remember the PIV days where below 2.6 Mhz, the CPU spent too much time in context switch (for 48Khz sampling rate). this is still right, the CPU clock cannot be burried that easily. Adding core brings more power to the overal audio processing but is less effective for the "real time" part.
You have to remember how the audio app work:
An interupt source (input and outputs buffers processing) is processed by a single core, and when its interupt processing is terminated it signal (buffer swith callbak) the audio app. The interrupt processing is serial not parralel (well at least for 1 audio card, with multiple manufacturers, interrupt from a card can/could be processed by a core).
Nowadays, the benefit we get from dual or Quad depend of the audio project "geometry". The more parrallel audio streams, the better for the Quad (a lot of light Vsti, large number of Fx bus, ...). If you have just a few heavy VSTi (or requiring high level of polyphony per instrument) and a small number of FX bus, a Fast Dual core will be better. The performance increase observed is no longer constant and is affected by the host. This is something I observed when I upgraded from a E6700 to a Q6700. Depending of the project I got 10 to 30% decrease of the vst meter.
cheers
You have to take care about nehalem expectation in audio. It's a virtual 8 cores (4 reals, 4 hyperthreadeds), so performance increase will be closer to 1.2 than 2. The benefit we'll get from the new architecture will benefit to Xeon owners which will observe a better scaling per number of CPU slot.
About Dual versus Quad, people tend to forget lessons learned: Remember the PIV days where below 2.6 Mhz, the CPU spent too much time in context switch (for 48Khz sampling rate). this is still right, the CPU clock cannot be burried that easily. Adding core brings more power to the overal audio processing but is less effective for the "real time" part.
You have to remember how the audio app work:
An interupt source (input and outputs buffers processing) is processed by a single core, and when its interupt processing is terminated it signal (buffer swith callbak) the audio app. The interrupt processing is serial not parralel (well at least for 1 audio card, with multiple manufacturers, interrupt from a card can/could be processed by a core).
Nowadays, the benefit we get from dual or Quad depend of the audio project "geometry". The more parrallel audio streams, the better for the Quad (a lot of light Vsti, large number of Fx bus, ...). If you have just a few heavy VSTi (or requiring high level of polyphony per instrument) and a small number of FX bus, a Fast Dual core will be better. The performance increase observed is no longer constant and is affected by the host. This is something I observed when I upgraded from a E6700 to a Q6700. Depending of the project I got 10 to 30% decrease of the vst meter.
cheers