PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Hi everyone,

I'm considering buying an old Creamware Pulsar 2 card or some kind of Sonic Core card (the 14 DSP card looks nice ). The XITE-1 looks very nice too but will probably be too expensive for me. I'm as well planning to get me a new studio computer, which will be a stationary PC. So, PCI, PCIe, firewire... it's all good.

I've spent some time reading through some threads at this forum and I've seen people recommending a PC setup based on an Intel processor + suitable motherboard. Is this just out of personal preference or is Intel in fact to be recommended when using Creamware/Sonic Core cards? How about when it comes to audio processing in general? Is Intel to be preferred there as well for any reason? Anyone got any facts? All I know right now is that a couple of years ago there was a family of Intel processors that performed very badly in audio applications such as Cubase due to problems computing very small float numbers (which is common in audio software environments). Is this ancient history and Intel is just as a good alternative as AMD or even better when it comes to high-end audio processing?

Since I'm going to get me a new studio computer and would like to get me as much performance as possible it would be nice if the best performing processor+motherboard out there also would be compatible with Creamware/Sonic Core cards. So I wouldn't have to choose some lesser processor+motherboard just because the Creamware/Sonic Core card works better that way. Any comments on this? Any families or particular models of processors+motherboards that I definitely should stay clear of? Intel Core2Duo? Intel Core2Quad? AMD Athlon 64? AMD Athlon 64 X2?

Just some general concerns. All help is appreciated.

Thanks,
Tomas

Intel generally is more stable and easier to setup with a Scope card, but there are a number of users who have been extremely happy with AMD machines. both offer similar performance. it IS, however, a myth that AMD processors outperform Intel offerings. both companies have had successes and failures, but performance in the REAL WORLD has always been close enough that both systems would do about the same amount of work.

i recommend a Core2 Duo processor with a genuine Intel motherboard. you'll find this to be less expensive than you might think(the dp35dp motherboard is just over $100 and works flawlessly). Intel wrote the specifications that all the software uses.....

the 8000 series Core2 seem to be the hottest choices right now.

Well, iff you want the best performance, AMD is far out of the equation these days, so dont worry about it.
a new 45nm intel quadcore with one of the recommended boards, would be about as good as you can get for a single CPU. most people arte happy with a cooler and more quiet running E8x00

Thanks a lot for the info !

I was just wondering which processor manufacturer to go for . Seems like this gives Intel the winning edge. So a Core2Quad would be the way to go then?

//Tomas

yes.

Core2 Duo will probably be a better choice though since few, if any, apps can really take advantage of the quad.

Does the Core2Quad have any drawbacks compared to the Core2Duo? Price? Heat? Current consumption? Of course there's no point in getting hardware that isn't used, but still...

//Tomas

I know that native Intel motherboards (such as the dp35dp) have already been recommended in this thread, and for this I am grateful. However, I have gotten a rather good deal on a computer setup which includes an Asus P5E3 (Intel X38) motherboard. According people I know this should work just as fine. Any comments on this? Anything suggesting that this motherboard would not suffice?

When it comes to the dp35dp it's really not that cutting edge anymore, which is a problem. For example, it only supports DDR2 memory and not DDR3. I would need something more up to date.

If the Asus board is not up to snuff compared to a genuine Intel board, could you recommend an Intel board comparable to the Asus board in terms of number of slots (at least 2 PCI slots), bus capacity, memory support (DDR3) , chipset support etc. Generally it seems like it's hard to find new motherboards with more than 2 PCI slots and DDR3 support at the same time. Anyone know a new motherboard with >2 PCI slots and DDR3 support which would work nicely with Creamware/Sonic Core cards?

Thanks,
Tomas

do you really expect a significant jump in performance with the newer board just from ddr3? do you want a stable music production machine or a nifty toy? if it's the former, a current sequncer with the dp35 will be a great tool for at least the next ten years, otherwise, the asus board should work just fine.....

Well, it's nice to get good performance overall. A Creamware card can run nice DSP plugins in hardware and has a hardware accelerated mixing and routing environment (Scope) but when it comes to VSTs a Creamware card can't help me very much performance-wise. And since I run a lot of VSTs I need that performance. And DDR3 memory would improve performance in comparison to DDR2, wouldn't it? Maybe not. I guess I'll have to look into that.

Are there any reports that DDR3 memory or Asus boards in general jeopardize stability together with Creamware cards? Or are we just talking about using older setups, choosing older components since these have undergone more testing in Creamware setups? Of course, if noone here uses very up to date setups it would be hard for me to tell how my setup would behave.

Thanks,
Tomas

yeah, the only reason i said it in that way is because one system is proven and the other hasn't been. there's nothing wrong with being the guinea pig! also, several users have had problems with the architecture of some of the newer asus boards. since they are optimized for graphics and games, they often are not the best DAW boards.

i find that performance gains from the newest technology are usually more theoretical than real in the DAW world. apps are slow to be optimized. that's no reason NOT to buy the latest tech, however. one thing to remember, when it comes to actually producing music, having the latest technology has nothing to do with it in the end, though the latest technology can be a useful tool. the only problem is that the latest tech can be quite a distraction, too. once again, it all depends on what you want. i'd tend to say that if you can produce your music with a current sequencer and a 3ghz Core2 duo and a dp35dp AND a Scope card or three, then you just can't produce music, but then i'm not you or doing your work. it's possible you need 3 or 4 machines to accomplish your goals....

Thanks for the input and clarification!

Yeah, I know that technology is distracting (I've experienced this myself before) but I'm currently in the process of finding out what tools I need and what limitations I want to impose on myself (no limitations = too much choices = no results in the end). Thus I feel that I want to start out from as an unlimited position as possible. I can very much understand that newer motherboards are optimized towards gaming and graphics and I do need to look closer at what relevant advantages the newer generation of motherboards can offer me to the price of potential instability.

Thanks,
Tomas

sure, well many of the newest motherboards should work quite well indeed. you'll just be the tester. stick with intel for best results. i usually suggest an intel brand board. they are always rock stable when set up properly.

Seems like I'll be going with a P35 chipset after all. And the DP35DP seems okay too. Now when I get into trouble you can't say I picked the wrong hardware at least ;D. Now all I need is three Pulsar 2 cards \o/.

Thanks for everything guys. I'll be back .

//Tomas

elfan wrote:Now all I need is three Pulsar 2 cards \o/.

this usually turns into "Now all I need is three Scope Professional cards " after a while...

Yeah, well, if I can get a Scope Professional card for like $200 and it performs better than a Pulsar 2 then I could certainly go for a couple of those instead ;D. When talking about such powerful hardware for such a low price then it's really a no-brainer .