New recording PC - any benefit to going quad core?

[thegide]

I'm on a budget here... but trying to decide whether to go for something like a Core 2 Duo E8400 or Core 2 Quad Q6600.

Is there a major benefit to the multithreading offered by the quad cores for most DAW apps and VSTs?

Or is the situation more akin to the gaming environments where having a Dual Core tends to be better since they run cooler and can be overclocked by larger margins?

[Dime]

I would assume that once you get 90 million plug ins and 50,000 tracks going that more processor may come in handy...

[fmw]

Yes the Quad is faster. More important, in my opinion, is a fast hard drive and enough memory to handle as much as possible off the hard drive. Audio processing is really more I/O intensive than it is computation intensive. That's why you hear recording engineers talking about the importance of hard drive speed. My personal favorite processor for DAW is the Intel Xeon 3000 series which is 3Ghz dual core.

[thegide]

Regarding the hard drives, I was planning on going with a couple of WD Caviar 7200rpm/32MB drives. There's also the 10,000 RPM WD Raptor drives that look pretty sweet.

But maybe we should be clear here on which parts of the recording/mixing/mastering process are most hardware intensive?

Multitrack audio recording I don't suspect will be a big issue with 7200rpm drives. I'm limited to 8 simultaneous inputs with my interface for now... someday I might expand to 16 or 24 but not anytime soon.

There's audio/fx processing which I suspect is more of a CPU issue than anything, but for larger files I guess this is HDD limited also?

And then lets not forget about loading up tons of VSTs which can eat RAM like nothing.

I'm sure a quad core system is overkill for Cubase, but I'm sort of cheating here... My desktop PC is equally out of date and I can only pick one to upgrade for now, so my "dedicated" recording PC will be running a few extras until the next upgrade.

[brandondrury]

Audio processing is really more I/O intensive than it is computation intensive.

Really? What about synths and plugins?

That's why you hear recording engineers talking about the importance of hard drive speed.

I've been using the same 7200 rpm ATA drives since 2003 or so. I've never overloaded a hard drive's bandwidth a single time, but I've certainly maxed our processors.

And then lets not forget about loading up tons of VSTs which can eat RAM like nothing.

Samples yes. I'd assume that synths are very similar to plugins in their needs.

I'm sure a quad core system is overkill for Cubase

Cubase doesn't define your CPU usage. It's all that extra junk you run with Cubase. Just to open Cubase with 3 wav files and hit render uses up practically nothing in modern terms.

Using the original DFH Superior drum kit in mega mode will use up 2GB RAM instantly and running that through a few instances of Altiverb will chew right through most CPUs in a hurry.

So it ultimately depends on your specific needs and not what software you are using.

[fmw]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

Really? What about synths and plugins?

Yes, indeed. Those are very transaction-oriented processes. Sure they require the processor to caclulate but the greater requirement is fetching things from memory. The processor can go nuts going back and forth to memory keeping up with a high volume of tracks and plugins. It can do the calculations required pretty simply in comparison to all that I/O. Graphics are the real poster boy for calculation intensive processing.

If I had to choose between a fast processor or fast memory/hard drive for audio processing, I'd go for the memory/hard drive. Keep in mind, of course that these days a dual core processor at a clock speed of 2ghz is the base line for processors. They go up from there. That's pretty heavy duty when you think about what the computer recordists were using 10 years ago.

[brandondrury]

Sure they require the processor to caclulate but the greater requirement is fetching things from memory.

My synths like FM7, Absynth, Pro-53, etc use practically zero RAM but hit the CPU pretty hard. Samples tend to be fairly light on the CPU but hard on the RAM.

If I had to choose between a fast processor or fast memory/hard drive for audio processing, I'd go for the memory/hard drive.

I'm the opposite. On a typical mix for me, the CPU usage is way up, but most of the time I'm using less than 1GB of RAM on my 2GB rig.

Brandon

[xAvengerX]

i had the same exact questioning about whether getting the E8400 or the Q6660. I always think about what's going to happen in the future, so i always try to get something that would benefit me down the road. i've decided on the E8400 for my new rig for sometime now. But now that i think about it again ..a quad might benefit me in the future? I had another thread about my choices with parts for my new computer. i haven't bought anything yet .. the prices just went up. But those CPUS are relatively the same price. Which would you guys go for? .. for recording..

Most of the people i know are screaming the quad [ cause they're gamers]. But what would it be from a recording perspective?

[BillyShears]

Just to throw in my 2 cents worth

I'm another one who has never maxed out a hard drive - as long as its 7200rpm it doesn't play a big part. Recording a wav file or 8 uses bugger all resources in terms of CPU or memory - it is a very easy thing for a PC. Even when I had a 200MHz P1, I never overloaded a hard drive or CPU just recording a wav. When processing a sound (calculating effects and parameters for modelling) your CPU becomes very important (obviously).

So what is important depends on how you record. If you use your PC as a glorified multitrack and run a few plugs, then you can use any PC. If you use a lot samples, memory as well as the CPU are important. If you were running a sampler using huge wave files then I imagine you might need to look at the hard drive or possibly a RAID setup - I don't so I wouldn't know for sure.

Assuming all that waffle was correct, the hard drive isn't the first or second thing to worry about.

[xAvengerX]

Sorry for taking over with my own problem. i guess it's a quickie =].

What if i were to record guitar, bass and drums. Using maybe like a few effects from the recording program. The maximum tracks i'd use at a time would be around 8 - 10. I might experiment with synths and stuff later. So which CPU mentioned before would be more suitable. Im sure they can both do it, but is a quad really nessesary [sp?]. I'd have to fork out alittle extra for it. just want to make sure =/