Is it even worth persevering with these specs?

**Firedance** · 07-26-2012, 12:46 PM

HI

OK, so this is what I'm struggling with: Pentium 4 3gb processor, 1 gb RAM, 150 gb memory.

Cubase stutters/crackles & getting ASIO overload warnings fairly often but I can manage-ish in the end.

Typically, as a minimum, a project would include 4-6 audio tracks, 4-6 vsts and probably 20 or so instances of effects plugs.

Am I pissing into the wind here or is it workaroundable?

A friend might offer a quad core/4gb RAM - should I ask for a good price or consider an even higher spec than this?

**adorian** · 07-26-2012, 01:05 PM

My guess would be your USB card is really the culprit, I haven't been able to do well with USB cards on the specs that you mention. Depends on what you're moving to as far as system - are you staying on the same audio card/software and just moving to a quad running the same OS or?

**dizzydog** · 07-26-2012, 01:22 PM

get a multi-core machine with plenty of RAM. it will make life so much easier

**Firedance** · 07-26-2012, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by adorian

My guess would be your USB card is really the culprit, I haven't been able to do well with USB cards on the specs that you mention. Depends on what you're moving to as far as system - are you staying on the same audio card/software and just moving to a quad running the same OS or?

You mean my Tascam as per the sig? really? I would intend on staying with the software/interface unless there is a good reason not to.

Originally Posted by dizzydog

get a multi-core machine with plenty of RAM. it will make life so much easier

OK, thanks - so do you think the proposed spec I quoted would make a big difference?

**brandondrury** · 07-27-2012, 11:28 PM

Your computer was a big dog in 2003. Now it's an old dog. My current recording comp has 6x 3.2Ghz processors in it...just to give you some comparison and I built it for under a grand 1.5 years ago.

Everyone's needs are different, but there is a tremendous amount of CPU power out there compared to what you have often for prices that are quite reasonable. The slowest I'd go is Core 2 Quad. That's what I had in my previous recording computer before I retired it to the office. It was fine, actually. I built it for $400 back in '08 and went with a budget motherboard that couldn't expand like I needed. So it was demoted.

A friend might offer a quad core/4gb RAM - should I ask for a good price or consider an even higher spec than this?

If you are positive it's a "good" price, a quad core Intel is a great way to go. The i7 Intels are quite a bit of a step up from the early Quad Core Intels/AMDs so keep that in mind.

Brandon

**Firedance** · 07-28-2012, 09:35 AM

OK thanks guys

**garww** · 07-28-2012, 01:25 PM

I have a p4 and xeon from that era and they are outdated when it comes to newer software. You can do alright if you keep plugs within spec for machines like these. The min req. for my DAW is 700mHz processor and 256Kb RAM, for example. If you are using modern vst/i and the like, you will be drowning in a sea of vomit : )

**bozmillar** · 07-28-2012, 03:22 PM

You can get a huge upgrade from what you have for very little money. I got a low end quad core barebone kit from tiger direct a couple years ago for $200. $20 more got me 6gigs of ram total. It's far from a super fast machine, but it rarely gives me troubles. The only reason I ever have to freeze tracks is to keep my cpu cool, but that's more an issue with the cpu fan being sucky. I rarely hit over 30% cpu usage on my mixes. recording is just so much less stressful with a faster machine. You could upgrade to a slow computer by todays standards that would be cheap and blow your current machine out of the water.