help Athlon 64 X2 3800+ vs Athlon 64 4000+

[whizerbyte]

I make music mainly on my PC,

and im going to upgrade but im not sure what direction to go in single or double core, i want a fast beast of a CPU that allows me to load songs faster, use more processor hungry VST plugin instruments and effects, and keep sound card lantency low without getting problems plus render mixdowns quicker(not so important)

i've seen a couple benchmarks on both CPU's but there on game graphics, dvd encoding and with benchmark tests and i dont know how they relate to music making performance

so what do you think Athlon 64 X2 3800+ or Athlon 64 4000+?

 

[jaguarskx]

Benchmarks for Audio:

Mother of All CPU Chart, Page 37

Mother of All CPU Chart, Page 38

The single core 4000+ is clearly faster than the X2 3800+. While the X2 3800+ is slower, having two cores will be beneficial if you are doing something that is CPU intensive without much of a performance drop if many. But, on the single core 4000+ if there 2 or more CPU hungry programs running then you will see a performance drop.

Also, if any of the audio programs are multi-threaded then they will benefit from a dual core CPU. Dual core is the future, both Intel & AMD are going devote more production capacity to dual core chips than single core chips. Single core chips will be soon fall into the value segement of the market.

No need to worry about sound card latency since both 4000+ and x2 3800+ are pretty powerful CPUs.

You main concern should be to choose the correct sound card for your programs. The Soundblaster X-Fi is great for games and general music, but you may want to consider M-Audio or Terratec thatare more appropriate for music.

 

[whizerbyte]

thanks jaguarskx and prozac26

i forgot to mention some stuff

i have EMU 0404 soundcard
1gb corsair ddr400 (2x512)
120gb + 80gb Maxtor 7200rpm HHD's (getting a 74 Gb WD740GD Raptor10krpm soon)
Asus A8V Dlx (because i didn't need PCI-e, still dont yet)
Amd athlon 64 3000(venice,1.8ghz) oc@2.0ghz

and i only run one program(not multi-threaded) when i make music, theres know need to run anything else,

thanks for the 'Mother of All CPU Chart' link but thats audio rendering not production, im ok with the audio mixdown(rendering) speed i currently get.

i could get either cpu with my budget,
but is the dual core still the best one to get?

 

[jaguarskx]

thanks for the 'Mother of All CPU Chart' link but thats audio rendering not production, im ok with the audio mixdown(rendering) speed i currently get.

i could get either cpu with my budget,
but is the dual core still the best one to get?

Yes, I know it's music compression, not music production, but that's the closest you're going to get unless you look at websites and magazines that are geared towards music production.

Getting a single core now is clearly better than getting dual core, but getting a dual core now may be better because you will be hedging your bet. Yes, both CPUs are better than your current one, but getting dual core now will be beneficial in the future IF audio production software will be multi-threaded. You will have to rearch the programs used for audio production to determine this.

If you are going to update again in 2 years or so then get the 4000+ because that will dramatically increase performance now rather than hoping multi-threaded software for music production will come out in the near future.

 

[whizerbyte]

thanks Jaguarskx
i think you may be right about the single core
and from what im aware i dont think they'll be releasing my audio production program with multi-threading for a while


IS THERE ANY PEOPLE HERE THAT USE THE PC'S FOR MUSIC PRODUCTION (do you know where any are)

 

[RajivHighfeather]

Wouldn't jump to any conclusions until you're sure that VST plugins don't directly communicate with your system making them act like independent programs. In wich case the dual core would yield better results.

Ohw and, I use my pc for music production.
I'm no veteran but my room is slowly starting to become a studio.