Some questions before I build my next computer

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. Hi there all!

    ....hectic time, but technology and science go constantly ahead...

    I've got some questions before I build my next computer.
    I'll use it for recording and processing music.
    I'll be thankful for all the feedback.

    ABOUT PROCESSORS:
    I've opted to chose between these Intel models:
    Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz
    (Socket 775 - 3.0GHz - Bus 1333 MHz - 65 nm - 4MB L2 cache - Intel
    Virtualization Technology)
    or
    Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz
    (Socket 775 - 2.4GHz - Bus 1066 MHz - 65 nm - 8MB L2 cache - Intel
    Virtualization Technology)?

    Is there a big advantage of Quad over Dual cores, now that we're only few
    months from the Quad core release ? (And how it comes the higher and newer
    Quad Q6600 be slightly cheaper than the older and lower Duo E6850?)

    ABOUT SPEED AND CORES:
    -Finally... does the dilemma 'more cores, or more clock speed' really exist?
    In other words, does a Dual Core with 3.0GH clock speed work 2x3.0GH
    for each core which will result in a double summary clock speed =6.0GH?
    Or is it that each of the cores works in 3.0GH, thus working separately on
    different tasks, which just augments the overall processing speed ?

    ABOUT OS AND SOFTWARE:
    -Will my OS (Windows XP Pro) and my software (like Microsoft Office 2003,
    Finale music notation, Cubase SX3 music recording etc.) support and function
    with the so called Thread-Level-Parallelism (TLP) or Hyper-Thread
    technology,
    or Simultaneous Multi-threading Technology (SMT) which is required by the
    Dual or Quad cores?

    ABOUT MOTHERBOARDS:
    I must chose between the following:
    =>Asus P5K
    (Socket 775 - Intel® P35 chipset ICH9R - Intel® CoreT2 Quad / CoreT2 Extreme
    / CoreT2 Duo / Pentium® Extreme / Pentium® D / Pentium® 4 Processors -
    Dual-channel
    DDR2 1066/800/667 MHz - 4*SATA/1*SATA on the Go/ 1394 - Gigabit LAN -
    8-channel
    HD Audio)

    =>Asus P5KC
    (Socket 775 - Intel® P35 chipset ICH9R - Intel® CoreT2 Quad / CoreT2 Extreme
    / CoreT2 Duo / Pentium® Extreme / Pentium® D / Pentium® 4 Processors -
    Dual-channel
    DDR2 1066/800/667 MHz or DDR3 1333/1066/800 - 2x1394 - 12xUSB 2.0 - Gigabit
    LAN -8-channel HD Audio)

    =>Asus P5W DH Deluxe (this one doesn't support the Quad Core or further)

    =>Asus P5N32-E SLI
    (Socket 775 - NVIDIA SLI Technology - NVIDIA Quad-SLIT Ready - NVIDIA
    nForce® 680i SLIT - Dual-channel DDR2 800/667/533 - Support Intel® next
    generation
    45nm Multi-core CPU - Intel® Quad-core CPU Ready - Intel® CoreT2
    Extreme/CoreT2 Duo
    Ready - 1333**/1066/800/533MHz - 8 Phase Power Design SATA Raid - External
    SATA - Dual Gigabit Lan - Audio 8 channels - IEEE 1394 - Fanless Design)

    (Does the symbol 'P5' for the mothers stand for Pentium 5 ?)

    ABOUT MEMORY:
    -Can I use my previous computer's stick of (1GB) DDR 400MH memory
    together with new DDR2 1066/800/667MH memory sticks in the other slots,
    or it's a crap idea?
    -With Double channel architecture, can I leave one pair of slots with
    only one stick, or I must always put two sticks?

    ABOUT HDs:
    I plan to make a RAID0 configuration for faster, fastest... at
    7200 (or 10,000 rpm but they're more noisy and heat up).
    Top brands are Western Digital and Seagate of what I hear.
    But what about Maxtor which is manifactured by Seagate?
    And is Samsung also ok, I heard they're silent ?

    Huh.... lot of questions... anyway thanks a lot to those who'll have
    the courage for feedback.

    Bad Disciple
    'EN EIDA OTI OYDEN EIDA'
    'One thing I know is that nothing I know'. (Sokrates)

    Globalization, climate changes, disasters, illnesses, terrorism, wars,
    famine...
    all and more frequent and intensive, drive the humanity to more hectic time,
    but technology and science go constantly ahead. Will this help us to avoid
    the end? Or will we perish, holding the mouse and the keyboard of our
    many-core-brains-almost-reaching-human-intelligence computer, all sinking
    in the abyss?
     
    Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx, Aug 15, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx

    TechGuru Guest

    the quad core is a bettter option for you..since it sounds like u might
    be using programs that would use more then 1 core and doesn't sound like
    your a gamer

    > Asus P5N32-E SLI <--get this one


    no you have to get new DDR2 and it should be DDR2 800(6400+) OR HIGHER
    with that motherboard
    I recommend the OCZ/CORSAIR and make sure you get dual channel (2x of
    the same stick of memory ... ex: 2x512=1gb)

    go with seagate with the 16mb caches ...5 year waranty...




    Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx wrote:
    > Hi there all!
    >
    > ...hectic time, but technology and science go constantly ahead...
    >
    > I've got some questions before I build my next computer.
    > I'll use it for recording and processing music.
    > I'll be thankful for all the feedback.
    >
    > ABOUT PROCESSORS:
    > I've opted to chose between these Intel models:
    > Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz
    > (Socket 775 - 3.0GHz - Bus 1333 MHz - 65 nm - 4MB L2 cache - Intel
    > Virtualization Technology)
    > or
    > Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz
    > (Socket 775 - 2.4GHz - Bus 1066 MHz - 65 nm - 8MB L2 cache - Intel
    > Virtualization Technology)?
    >
    > Is there a big advantage of Quad over Dual cores, now that we're only few
    > months from the Quad core release ? (And how it comes the higher and newer
    > Quad Q6600 be slightly cheaper than the older and lower Duo E6850?)
    >
    > ABOUT SPEED AND CORES:
    > -Finally... does the dilemma 'more cores, or more clock speed' really exist?
    > In other words, does a Dual Core with 3.0GH clock speed work 2x3.0GH
    > for each core which will result in a double summary clock speed =6.0GH?
    > Or is it that each of the cores works in 3.0GH, thus working separately on
    > different tasks, which just augments the overall processing speed ?
    >
    > ABOUT OS AND SOFTWARE:
    > -Will my OS (Windows XP Pro) and my software (like Microsoft Office 2003,
    > Finale music notation, Cubase SX3 music recording etc.) support and function
    > with the so called Thread-Level-Parallelism (TLP) or Hyper-Thread
    > technology,
    > or Simultaneous Multi-threading Technology (SMT) which is required by the
    > Dual or Quad cores?
    >
    > ABOUT MOTHERBOARDS:
    > I must chose between the following:
    > =>Asus P5K
    > (Socket 775 - Intel® P35 chipset ICH9R - Intel® CoreT2 Quad / CoreT2 Extreme
    > / CoreT2 Duo / Pentium® Extreme / Pentium® D / Pentium® 4 Processors -
    > Dual-channel
    > DDR2 1066/800/667 MHz - 4*SATA/1*SATA on the Go/ 1394 - Gigabit LAN -
    > 8-channel
    > HD Audio)
    >
    > =>Asus P5KC
    > (Socket 775 - Intel® P35 chipset ICH9R - Intel® CoreT2 Quad / CoreT2 Extreme
    > / CoreT2 Duo / Pentium® Extreme / Pentium® D / Pentium® 4 Processors -
    > Dual-channel
    > DDR2 1066/800/667 MHz or DDR3 1333/1066/800 - 2x1394 - 12xUSB 2.0 - Gigabit
    > LAN -8-channel HD Audio)
    >
    > =>Asus P5W DH Deluxe (this one doesn't support the Quad Core or further)
    >
    > =>Asus P5N32-E SLI
    > (Socket 775 - NVIDIA SLI Technology - NVIDIA Quad-SLIT Ready - NVIDIA
    > nForce® 680i SLIT - Dual-channel DDR2 800/667/533 - Support Intel® next
    > generation
    > 45nm Multi-core CPU - Intel® Quad-core CPU Ready - Intel® CoreT2
    > Extreme/CoreT2 Duo
    > Ready - 1333**/1066/800/533MHz - 8 Phase Power Design SATA Raid - External
    > SATA - Dual Gigabit Lan - Audio 8 channels - IEEE 1394 - Fanless Design)
    >
    > (Does the symbol 'P5' for the mothers stand for Pentium 5 ?)
    >
    > ABOUT MEMORY:
    > -Can I use my previous computer's stick of (1GB) DDR 400MH memory
    > together with new DDR2 1066/800/667MH memory sticks in the other slots,
    > or it's a crap idea?
    > -With Double channel architecture, can I leave one pair of slots with
    > only one stick, or I must always put two sticks?
    >
    > ABOUT HDs:
    > I plan to make a RAID0 configuration for faster, fastest... at
    > 7200 (or 10,000 rpm but they're more noisy and heat up).
    > Top brands are Western Digital and Seagate of what I hear.
    > But what about Maxtor which is manifactured by Seagate?
    > And is Samsung also ok, I heard they're silent ?
    >
    > Huh.... lot of questions... anyway thanks a lot to those who'll have
    > the courage for feedback.
    >
    > Bad Disciple
    > 'EN EIDA OTI OYDEN EIDA'
    > 'One thing I know is that nothing I know'. (Sokrates)
    >
    > Globalization, climate changes, disasters, illnesses, terrorism, wars,
    > famine...
    > all and more frequent and intensive, drive the humanity to more hectic time,
    > but technology and science go constantly ahead. Will this help us to avoid
    > the end? Or will we perish, holding the mouse and the keyboard of our
    > many-core-brains-almost-reaching-human-intelligence computer, all sinking
    > in the abyss?
    >
    >
     
    TechGuru, Aug 16, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx

    Paul Guest

    Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx wrote:
    > Hi there all!
    >
    > ...hectic time, but technology and science go constantly ahead...
    >
    > I've got some questions before I build my next computer.
    > I'll use it for recording and processing music.
    > I'll be thankful for all the feedback.
    >
    > ABOUT PROCESSORS:
    > I've opted to chose between these Intel models:
    > Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0GHz
    > Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz


    E6850 - 65W dissipation. Known to overclock higher than Q6600, but
    needs more voltage to get there.

    Q6600 - 95W dissipation for G0 stepping. Someone estimates that >10,000
    were sold near the launch date, and Q6600 is a favorite of enthusiasts
    and overclockers. It will be years, before applications will catch
    up to the bonanza of cores.

    If you were a gamer, I'd get the quad solely "for future consideration".

    Since you're not a gamer, the choice will be determined by the characteristics
    of the software you use. And since I've had very little success getting info
    like that on any software, this is something that the buyer will have to figure
    out. For example, over the years, I've learned that Photoshop has multiprocessing
    capabilities. But in fact, not all filters use it. Only some filters use it.
    Depending on which exact filters a Photoshop user likes to use, will determine
    how much speedup comes from buying a multicore processor.

    For my own usage, I'd prefer a dual core at 3Ghz, versus a quad core at 2.4Ghz,
    because most of the time, I'd be using one core to update the desktop, and that
    core would be running 25% faster than a single core on that quad. If I spent all
    day running Cinebench, then I'd want the quad.

    (This link may not seem related, but it is intended to show that more cores is
    not always better. The current MacPro platform is basically a dual Xeon with
    server chipset and FBDIMMs, very much a "PC". But the same issues seen here,
    can also appear on a Windows box, for the same reasons.)

    http://www.barefeats.com/octopro1.html

    >
    > Is there a big advantage of Quad over Dual cores, now that we're only few
    > months from the Quad core release ? (And how it comes the higher and newer
    > Quad Q6600 be slightly cheaper than the older and lower Duo E6850?)
    >
    > ABOUT SPEED AND CORES:
    > -Finally... does the dilemma 'more cores, or more clock speed' really exist?
    > In other words, does a Dual Core with 3.0GH clock speed work 2x3.0GH
    > for each core which will result in a double summary clock speed =6.0GH?
    > Or is it that each of the cores works in 3.0GH, thus working separately on
    > different tasks, which just augments the overall processing speed ?
    >
    > ABOUT OS AND SOFTWARE:
    > -Will my OS (Windows XP Pro) and my software (like Microsoft Office 2003,
    > Finale music notation, Cubase SX3 music recording etc.) support and function
    > with the so called Thread-Level-Parallelism (TLP) or Hyper-Thread
    > technology,
    > or Simultaneous Multi-threading Technology (SMT) which is required by the
    > Dual or Quad cores?


    Microsoft Office is complicated enough, without having multicore support.
    For the other tools, you probably would be paying enough money, to deserve
    an answer from pre-sales support or tech support, at the respective companies.

    >
    > ABOUT MOTHERBOARDS:
    > I must chose between the following:
    > =>Asus P5K
    > (Socket 775 - Intel® P35 chipset ICH9R - Intel® CoreT2 Quad / CoreT2 Extreme
    > / CoreT2 Duo / Pentium® Extreme / Pentium® D / Pentium® 4 Processors -
    > Dual-channel
    > DDR2 1066/800/667 MHz - 4*SATA/1*SATA on the Go/ 1394 - Gigabit LAN -
    > 8-channel
    > HD Audio)
    >
    > =>Asus P5KC
    > (Socket 775 - Intel® P35 chipset ICH9R - Intel® CoreT2 Quad / CoreT2 Extreme
    > / CoreT2 Duo / Pentium® Extreme / Pentium® D / Pentium® 4 Processors -
    > Dual-channel
    > DDR2 1066/800/667 MHz or DDR3 1333/1066/800 - 2x1394 - 12xUSB 2.0 - Gigabit
    > LAN -8-channel HD Audio)
    >
    > =>Asus P5W DH Deluxe (this one doesn't support the Quad Core or further)
    >
    > =>Asus P5N32-E SLI
    > (Socket 775 - NVIDIA SLI Technology - NVIDIA Quad-SLIT Ready - NVIDIA
    > nForce® 680i SLIT - Dual-channel DDR2 800/667/533 - Support Intel® next
    > generation
    > 45nm Multi-core CPU - Intel® Quad-core CPU Ready - Intel® CoreT2
    > Extreme/CoreT2 Duo
    > Ready - 1333**/1066/800/533MHz - 8 Phase Power Design SATA Raid - External
    > SATA - Dual Gigabit Lan - Audio 8 channels - IEEE 1394 - Fanless Design)
    >
    > (Does the symbol 'P5' for the mothers stand for Pentium 5 ?)


    P5 stands for LGA775 socket motherboards. The previous P4 boards had S478 sockets.
    So the socket was the naming convention. The third letter might suggest a chipset
    or chipset company.

    Some chipsets have native FSB1333 support. That means the chips were designed
    on purpose to run that speed, and they will run faster. Previous generation
    boards had native FSB1066 support. A chip that happens to run one notch faster,
    might not have much headroom available above that. So 1333** means you may or
    may not be able to go much faster. It is best to look up other people's overclocking
    results, to see how good a given chipset is.

    The customer reviews on Newegg are a convenient resource, there is also
    http://vip.asus.com/forum/topic.aspx for Asus motherboards. Sites like
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/ cover all manner of enthusiast issues.

    The main attraction of the Nvidia chipsets, is their support for SLI and two
    video slots. Since you're a non-gamer, the large slots would only be of
    interest if you wanted to purchase a $1000 Areca RAID controller. If you
    wanted 100's of MB/sec read/write bandwidth, that is how you get it.

    >
    > ABOUT MEMORY:
    > -Can I use my previous computer's stick of (1GB) DDR 400MH memory
    > together with new DDR2 1066/800/667MH memory sticks in the other slots,
    > or it's a crap idea?


    Memory types don't mix. SDRAM, DDR, DDR2, DDR3 are designed not to fit
    one another's sockets. SDRAM = 3.3V, DDR = 2.5V, DDR2 = 1.8V, DDR3 = ???.
    All different voltages and pinouts.

    > -With Double channel architecture, can I leave one pair of slots with
    > only one stick, or I must always put two sticks?


    Motherboards now, are highly flexible, and will allow you to do stupid
    things to your memory configuration. And they will still work, and unless
    you are a fanatical benchmarker, you might not even notice your mistake.

    The rules change a bit from chipset to chipset, but a good guiding rule
    is to buy memory in matched pairs. In terms of resale (dumping stuff
    on Ebay), you'd have better luck if you had a pair of tested identical
    modules to offer a buyer. A collection of random speeds, timing settings,
    capacities, is not nearly as enticing. On some chipsets, all you need
    in fact, is matching memory quantities on each channel. That means you
    can put 512+512 on one channel, and 1GB stick on the other channel, and
    the BIOS will declare "dual channel" during POST. But buying memory
    on purpose that way, would just be dumb.

    >
    > ABOUT HDs:
    > I plan to make a RAID0 configuration for faster, fastest... at
    > 7200 (or 10,000 rpm but they're more noisy and heat up).


    Raptor 10K RPM, 150GB drive - uses less power than my current drive.
    You may want to find a review, to see how noisy they are.

    Power Dissipation
    Read/Write 10.02 Watts
    Idle 9.19 Watts

    The reduction in seek time is the main advantage. Few real
    applications benefit from more bandwidth. For example, if you
    were handling uncompressed HD video content, then constructing
    a special array makes sense. If instead, the video format is
    compressed, your processor is choked doing the compression,
    and even a 5400RPM drive could handle it.

    Seek time optimization helps when doing a search where nothing
    is yet cached. Or perhaps, low seek times would help if you were
    a software developer and you had thousands of small header files
    to read during a compile/build.

    Sure, enthusiasts will tell you how snappy their RAID is, but
    like, big deal :) When the RAID fails and all their data is
    lost, my single disk is still working.

    One kind of config you can do, is a Raptor for the boot disk,
    and a big 7200RPM for archived data. Your music collection
    probably does not need 80MB/sec read speed, and could safely
    live on a 7200RPM. The Raptor could have your programs on it,
    as long as you can afford a big enough Raptor.

    > Top brands are Western Digital and Seagate of what I hear.
    > But what about Maxtor which is manifactured by Seagate?
    > And is Samsung also ok, I heard they're silent ?
    >
    > Huh.... lot of questions... anyway thanks a lot to those who'll have
    > the courage for feedback.


    I think you already have a good idea of what you're doing.
    You just need to do the research to finish the job.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Aug 16, 2007
    #3
  4. Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx

    TechGuru Guest

    I already answered him dude...no need for extra info that just repeats
    what I said

    > If you were a gamer, I'd get the quad solely "for future consideration".
    >
     
    TechGuru, Aug 16, 2007
    #4
  5. Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx

    Bad Disciple Guest

    "TechGuru" <> wrote in message
    news:WYNwi.60819$_d2.5175@pd7urf3no...
    > the quad core is a bettter option for you..since it sounds like u might be
    > using programs that would use more then 1 core and doesn't sound like your
    > a gamer
    >
    >> Asus P5N32-E SLI <--get this one

    >
    > no you have to get new DDR2 and it should be DDR2 800(6400+) OR HIGHER
    > with that motherboard
    > I recommend the OCZ/CORSAIR and make sure you get dual channel (2x of the
    > same stick of memory ... ex: 2x512=1gb)
    >
    > go with seagate with the 16mb caches ...5 year waranty...


    Hi, and thanks for replying.
    I'll use your wisdom.

    Have health.

    Bad Disciple
    'EN EIDA OTI OYDEN EIDA'
    'One thing I know is that nothing I know'. (Sokrates)
    also known as
    ( *)> Hi-Fly
    /{ }\ Archaeopteryx
    ''' '''
    "F o r m o s t s e a g u l l s
    t h e i m p o r t a n c e
    i s n o t i n f l y i n g
    b u t i n e a t i n g"
     
    Bad Disciple, Aug 16, 2007
    #5
  6. Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx

    Bad Disciple Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message news:fa12hs$3co$...
    .... ... ...
    > I think you already have a good idea of what you're doing.
    > You just need to do the research to finish the job.


    Hi and thanks for your detailed light thrower reply which is so complete.
    I'm not a computer tech wizard, I'm a musician but also good in maths,
    and I understand the principles and the practice constantly made
    all and more sense to me.

    Well, computing tech goes damn quick and what I do for the last 12
    years, is every 2-3 years I build a next computer (and give my older one
    to my son who gives his to my daughter, who gives her to my wife, who
    gives her to my sister, who gives her to the poor neighbour... ...). So,
    if I do it now, I want a machine that will be valuable for the following
    2-3 years, and not one that is almost same as the one I give away.

    I work with music production, meaning recording and processing.
    Especially music PROCESSING (as opposed to music recording) is
    a processing hungry process! If you recorded 10 or 20 music tracks
    and then put several plug-ins on each (for effects) and if in addition
    you have several MIDI tracks each of which triggers virtual machines,
    then you might get your system out of breath.

    I use CUBASE SX-3 as an Audio & MIDI music production software,
    one of the top in music industry, you may know it. What I'm not sure now
    is, does it support the so called Simultaneous Multi-threading Technology
    (SMT) which is required by the Dual or Quad cores? That I must check

    About RAID0, the issue I'm interested in is that RAID0 would work
    faster, because of dispatching the tasks on two discs working together,
    instead of only one. Now, if the system crashes anyway, whether it's RAID0
    or a single drive, in both cases it'll go lost, so restoring or
    reinstalling...
    But for my data storage I always use a different HD AND another HD
    to backup my storage (and which is switched off the rest of the time).
    Otherwise, backing up is the solution that's even written in the bible!
    But I'm wondering if the faster HDs should go to the RAID0 or also
    for the data storage HD, or could I use an older slower HD there?

    It was useful to read you anyway, thanks again.
    Have health.

    Bad Disciple
    'EN EIDA OTI OYDEN EIDA'
    'One thing I know is that nothing I know'. (Sokrates)
    also known as
    ( *)> Hi-Fly
    /{ }\ Archaeopteryx
    ''' '''
    "F o r m o s t s e a g u l l s
    t h e i m p o r t a n c e
    i s n o t i n f l y i n g
    b u t i n e a t i n g"
     
    Bad Disciple, Aug 16, 2007
    #6
  7. Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx

    Paul Guest

    Bad Disciple wrote:
    > "Paul" <> wrote in message news:fa12hs$3co$...
    > ... ... ...
    >> I think you already have a good idea of what you're doing.
    >> You just need to do the research to finish the job.

    >
    > Hi and thanks for your detailed light thrower reply which is so complete.
    > I'm not a computer tech wizard, I'm a musician but also good in maths,
    > and I understand the principles and the practice constantly made
    > all and more sense to me.
    >
    > Well, computing tech goes damn quick and what I do for the last 12
    > years, is every 2-3 years I build a next computer (and give my older one
    > to my son who gives his to my daughter, who gives her to my wife, who
    > gives her to my sister, who gives her to the poor neighbour... ...). So,
    > if I do it now, I want a machine that will be valuable for the following
    > 2-3 years, and not one that is almost same as the one I give away.
    >
    > I work with music production, meaning recording and processing.
    > Especially music PROCESSING (as opposed to music recording) is
    > a processing hungry process! If you recorded 10 or 20 music tracks
    > and then put several plug-ins on each (for effects) and if in addition
    > you have several MIDI tracks each of which triggers virtual machines,
    > then you might get your system out of breath.
    >
    > I use CUBASE SX-3 as an Audio & MIDI music production software,
    > one of the top in music industry, you may know it. What I'm not sure now
    > is, does it support the so called Simultaneous Multi-threading Technology
    > (SMT) which is required by the Dual or Quad cores? That I must check
    >
    > About RAID0, the issue I'm interested in is that RAID0 would work
    > faster, because of dispatching the tasks on two discs working together,
    > instead of only one. Now, if the system crashes anyway, whether it's RAID0
    > or a single drive, in both cases it'll go lost, so restoring or
    > reinstalling...
    > But for my data storage I always use a different HD AND another HD
    > to backup my storage (and which is switched off the rest of the time).
    > Otherwise, backing up is the solution that's even written in the bible!
    > But I'm wondering if the faster HDs should go to the RAID0 or also
    > for the data storage HD, or could I use an older slower HD there?
    >
    > It was useful to read you anyway, thanks again.
    > Have health.
    >
    > Bad Disciple
    > 'EN EIDA OTI OYDEN EIDA'
    > 'One thing I know is that nothing I know'. (Sokrates)
    > also known as
    > ( *)> Hi-Fly
    > /{ }\ Archaeopteryx
    > ''' '''
    > "F o r m o s t s e a g u l l s
    > t h e i m p o r t a n c e
    > i s n o t i n f l y i n g
    > b u t i n e a t i n g"
    >


    Cubase SX-3 does list support for multiprocessing. So I guess that is your
    SMT and your good reason to using the Quad.

    http://www.steinberg.net/552_1.html

    RAID0 with two disks, doubles the failure rate. If either disk fails,
    the array fails. So if a single disk fails once in three years, the two
    disk RAID0 fails on average, in one and a half years. (That is not the
    exact failure rate, and is intended to show the trend.) RAID0 can
    actually use more than two disks, and using an expensive add-in card,
    you can use eight or sixteen disks in RAID0 if you want. But with a
    failure rate to match.

    The alternative, is to use one disk, and have a second disk as a cold
    standby (backup disk). You can place the second disk in a USB enclosure,
    a Firewire 400 or 800 enclosure, an ESATA enclosure, and plug it in when
    you want to do a backup. Another way of doing it, would be to backup over
    a network. Depending on the value of the project, and the low dollar cost
    of drives, you could even use more than one drive, or have more than one
    copy of projects.

    There are other RAID types that can help. This Wikipedia article
    describes "nested arrays", and that uses four disks. The types are
    called 0+1 or 1+0.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

    The disks are put in pairs, and then the pairs are combined in another
    level of RAID. The benefit of the four disk setup, is you get the speed
    of a two disk RAID0, and you can also have any one disk fail without
    losing any data. One of the two schemes is actually slightly better than
    that. What I don't like about schemes like this, is I have yet to see
    an example of an array taken offline (a maintenance mode if you will),
    and have all disks scanned for accumulated bad blocks. I've seen a couple
    reports for RAID, where a user didn't know how bad their array was getting,
    and when one disk failed, there were other problems waiting to bite them.
    (I.e. They couldn't add a replacement disk and get the array to rebuild
    the redundant part. Rather than being degraded, the array was effectively
    failed.) Maybe a real RAID card has provisions for this, but motherboard
    RAIDs tend to be simpler in design. What a motherboard RAID is good at,
    is normal operation. What separates the good products from the bad, is
    how they behave under fault conditions. (Even the speed of recovery can
    be an issue, for example say a rebuild operation took five days and
    only happened while the array was offline, you'd be mad as hell.)

    To give another example, a guy had a SIL3112 running a RAID1 mirror
    of two SATA drives. One of the disks failed, and the other disk
    was not up to date (stale data). It seems the pair had not been
    mirroring for some time, and yet the RAID software didn't say
    anything. Again, if there was some kind of maintenance mode, where
    the user could manually take the array off line and check the state
    of the disks, a silent failure would be less likely to get you. In
    the case of mirrors, you could take them offline and compare them
    against one another, sector by sector.

    Can single disks fail ? Of course they can. But if you have good
    backup software, that is capable of doing full and incremental backups,
    and you have a media rotation strategy, backups don't have to take a
    lot of time. The first one, that backs up everything, is expensive,
    but if you have a five day work week, you can always arrange to do the
    full backup on the weekend. I guess I'm just a fan of simplicity when
    it comes to storage. If I was an IT guy, maybe I'd like a complicated
    setup.

    I think you can still safely use your RAID0 idea. But I hope what
    I've instilled in you, is the notion that you should backup at the
    end of every day. There are ways you can automate that, so you don't
    need to hang around to do it. Some backup software has scheduling.
    As long as the backup device still has space on it, you can let the
    backup continue unattended.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Aug 16, 2007
    #7
  8. Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx

    Bad Disciple Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message news:fa1mg5$nat$...
    > Bad Disciple wrote:
    >> "Paul" <> wrote in message news:fa12hs$3co$...
    >> ... ... ...
    >>> I think you already have a good idea of what you're doing.
    >>> You just need to do the research to finish the job.

    >>
    >> Hi and thanks for your detailed light thrower reply which is so complete.
    >> I'm not a computer tech wizard, I'm a musician but also good in maths,
    >> and I understand the principles and the practice constantly made
    >> all and more sense to me.

    .... ...
    > Cubase SX-3 does list support for multiprocessing. So I guess that is your
    > SMT and your good reason to using the Quad.
    >
    > http://www.steinberg.net/552_1.html
    >
    > RAID0 with two disks, doubles the failure rate. If either disk fails,

    ....
    > I think you can still safely use your RAID0 idea. But I hope what
    > I've instilled in you, is the notion that you should backup at the
    > end of every day. There are ways you can automate that, so you don't
    > need to hang around to do it. Some backup software has scheduling.
    > As long as the backup device still has space on it, you can let the
    > backup continue unattended.
    >
    > Paul


    Yeah, thanks again.
    I just came back from the Steinberg's Cubase site. It says that "Cubase SX3
    supports Extended Multiprocessing and is tweaked to take advantage of the
    added power provided by systems with more than two processors, including
    the latest DualCore processors from AMD and Intel". But this still doesn't
    mean
    it will take advantage of the Quad Core. So, I've put the question in Cubase
    related forums and I wait. So, my dilemma to chose between Core 2 Duo E6850
    and Core 2 Quad Q6600 becomes a less dilemma, as the Quad has almost the
    same price as the Duo, even slightly cheaper (!?).

    About RAID0, I know about the combinations. In fact, I had my last computer
    with RAID0 with two Maxtors (8MB cache) and it worked for 3 years without
    any failure. Of course, this doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But what seems
    to me
    a little extreme, is that you point too much on the accident. I agree that
    RAID0,
    or combined 1+0, 0+1 is more complex but the multiplicated danger of failure
    might be compensated by the better drive speed. On the other hand, all I'll
    lose
    is just the OS and software installations, not my data, which I store on
    another
    drive as I said. So, what you say about a single disc is valid for RAID too,
    which is the God blessed backup. But I must read some more about backing up
    my system with all its programs and configurations which takes time in case
    I must re-install everything.

    Now, after all the research I did, one question remains without answer.
    It's not clear to me if Windows XP is also able to take advantage of the
    Hyper-thread, or Similtaneous Multi-thread offered by the Dual and Quad Core
    technology, or it will recognize only one core?
    It seems I must go in the Microsoft's jungle website to search for it.

    So thanks.

    Bad Disciple

    EN EIDA OTI OUDEN EIDA

    "One thing I know is that nothing I know." (Socrates)
     
    Bad Disciple, Aug 16, 2007
    #8
  9. Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx

    babaloo Guest

    You have to understand that to some degree multi core processing is actually
    more hype than technical advantage because of software limitations.
    Quad cores are faster than equivalent dual cores, at least on test benches,
    because they have a massive amount of cache, 8mb of ultrafast ram, available
    to any of the cores on the cpu dye itself.
    A few programs, like Photoshop, have processes that can run on more than one
    core at a time, but not the entire program. The programs you are considering
    are stuctured similarly. There are serious technical difficulties to
    programming for multiple cores such that complete meltdown is the more
    frequent result than faster processing. In the real world only a limited
    number of tasks lend themselves to multicore processing given the current
    state of progamming and compilers.
    Windows XP and Vista are compatible with dual and quad cores. The ability to
    use more than one core supersedes the meaningless hype about hyperthreading,
    which was a marketing ploy and not a real technical advantage. XP/Vista can
    assign processes and programs to different cores, which is of less than is
    generally thought, benefit for multitasking. In the real world it means is
    that if you try to run two (forget about three) CPU intensive programs at
    the same time your computer should slow down less and be less likely to
    freeze with a multi core processor.
    Windows, like all OSes, has difficulty, and physical limits, tracking what
    is being done when multiple complex tasks are being performed
    simultaneously. This is independent of the amount of physical RAM you have
    or the number of processors.
    The hardware is generations ahead of the software. What looks good on a test
    bench often has little practical benefit for most real world computing
    tasks.
     
    babaloo, Aug 17, 2007
    #9
  10. Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx

    TechGuru Guest

    > Bad Disciple

    are u in winnipeg?
     
    TechGuru, Aug 17, 2007
    #10
  11. Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx

    Bad Disciple Guest

    "TechGuru" <> wrote in message
    news:j69xi.63336$_d2.34835@pd7urf3no...
    >> Bad Disciple

    >
    > are u in winnipeg?


    Apparently no. Do you mean the town in Manitoba, Canada?
    Or is this a forum too?
    Why? I'm in Europe, Belgium.
     
    Bad Disciple, Aug 17, 2007
    #11
  12. Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx

    Bad Disciple Guest

    "babaloo" <> wrote in message
    news:0J7xi.58230$...
    > You have to understand that to some degree multi core processing is
    > actually more hype than technical advantage because of software
    > limitations.
    > Quad cores are faster than equivalent dual cores, at least on test
    > benches, because they have a massive amount of cache, 8mb of ultrafast
    > ram, available to any of the cores on the cpu dye itself.
    > A few programs, like Photoshop, have processes that can run on more than
    > one core at a time, but not the entire program. The programs you are
    > considering are stuctured similarly. There are serious technical
    > difficulties to programming for multiple cores such that complete meltdown
    > is the more frequent result than faster processing. In the real world only
    > a limited number of tasks lend themselves to multicore processing given
    > the current state of progamming and compilers.
    > Windows XP and Vista are compatible with dual and quad cores. The ability
    > to use more than one core supersedes the meaningless hype about
    > hyperthreading, which was a marketing ploy and not a real technical
    > advantage. XP/Vista can assign processes and programs to different cores,
    > which is of less than is generally thought, benefit for multitasking. In
    > the real world it means is that if you try to run two (forget about three)
    > CPU intensive programs at the same time your computer should slow down
    > less and be less likely to freeze with a multi core processor.
    > Windows, like all OSes, has difficulty, and physical limits, tracking what
    > is being done when multiple complex tasks are being performed
    > simultaneously. This is independent of the amount of physical RAM you have
    > or the number of processors.
    > The hardware is generations ahead of the software. What looks good on a
    > test bench often has little practical benefit for most real world
    > computing tasks.


    Yeah, thanks for your feedback.

    Hmm... I presumed that most important software makers will not be late to
    make updates/upgrades in their softwares and that in 6-8 months we could be
    in a better reality related to Multicore processors. Is this an illusion
    then?

    I just came back from the Steinberg's Cubase site. It says that "Cubase SX3
    supports Extended Multiprocessing and is tweaked to take advantage of the
    added power provided by systems with more than two processors, including
    the latest DualCore processors from AMD and Intel". But this still doesn't
    mean it will take advantage of the Quad Core. So, I've put the question in
    Cubase related forums and I wait. So, my dilemma to chose between Cores
    Duo E6850 and Quad Q6600 remains, but it's also strange that the Quad
    has even slightly lower price than the Duo(!?).

    About Windows XP/Vista should we deduce that it is Multicore compatible
    just in a way that there might be less freeze ups? And should we definitely
    consider that all OSes suck when it comes to multitasking?... What about
    Mac fans who thump their chest saying that nothing can beat a Mac?
    Saying that hardware is generations ahead of the software, isn't it all
    about
    thinking? Or thinking of hardware is simpler than thinking of the software
    to match it?

    Well... I often like saying that computing is still in its baby-age... ain't
    it?

    Fresh air!

    Bad Disciple
    'EN EIDA OTI OYDEN EIDA'
    'One thing I know is that nothing I know'. (Sokrates)
     
    Bad Disciple, Aug 17, 2007
    #12
  13. Hi-Fly Archaeopteryx

    TechGuru Guest

    LOL...your half way across the world...

    Bad Disciple wrote:
    > "TechGuru" <> wrote in message
    > news:j69xi.63336$_d2.34835@pd7urf3no...
    >>> Bad Disciple

    >> are u in winnipeg?

    >
    > Apparently no. Do you mean the town in Manitoba, Canada?
    > Or is this a forum too?
    > Why? I'm in Europe, Belgium.
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    TechGuru, Aug 17, 2007
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jess Q Rius

    I want to build my next PC

    Jess Q Rius, Jun 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    373
    Toolman Tim
    Jun 12, 2004
  2. vvcd
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,332
  3. matt r

    Before Sunset & Before Sunrise

    matt r, Nov 24, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    564
    matt r
    Nov 25, 2004
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    275
    Rudy Benner
    Nov 27, 2006
  5. jimmy

    To build or not to build

    jimmy, Feb 23, 2009, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    554
Loading...

Share This Page