laptop or lug around G5

[bigbaby987]

manning.. i appreciate your response.. however, i would love a simple nutshell answer. no graph or really any performance quotes.. i just don't understand which is like a "celeron" type processor or lower class or a powerfull processer. it's getting crowded in the pc world(no foul intended), and i don't get it. i looked at some machines but don't know a "barn burner" from a "dump truck". that's all. thanks in advance.

[stag]

Allow me to cut in .
I´m not a technician , perhaps ,my language could be less confusing to you.

Celeron are CPU with a 256 Kb secondary cache , is the lowest spec CPU from Intel, the others have at least 1024 , with the exception of the Centrinos, which have 2Mb and the P4 EE wich has 4mb , The CPU cache has the purpose to help the processor to "guess" more efficientelly the loads it has to take , it´s also what dictates the overall performance and price, at least at Intel a Celeron costs half the regular P4 , wich costs 5 times less the P4 EE, it has also 5 times less cache.
Albeit i´m a Intel guy all the way , i have to admit , their last processors are not quite good at music production, not by lack of power but because of the extreme heat they generate, ence the big fans and a lot of noise to deal with .
Never the less i can see my self getting a P4 EE, run it at it´s lowest multiplier, to avoid heat and noise , I guess i end up with a super charged Centrino!!!...or maybe not .

[manning1]

Bbaby.
i'll try and keep it simple.....
(FYI ...stay away from celerons would be my advice.)
sempron is amd's answer to the celeron. imho - sempron is a better performer.
amd have now introed the TURION to compete with the centrino.
the turion is brand new. but the centrino IS quite an impressive performer.
I believe due to its cache size.
AMD 64 is meant to compete with the p4 level processors.
and many feel (myself included) that its a better performer for audio needs.
if you search the net you'll see lots of daw users have turned to this chip for its price/performance.
dual opteron from amd is meant to compete in high end computing high throughput environments against for example dual xeons from intel.
from reading around it seems a number of hi end studios have gone dual opteron and xeon.

it really depends your NEEDS as to which one is right for you.

If you want the very highest track and plug in counts available with current tech , there is on going debate whether dual opterons or xeons are better.
on the other hand if you dont have the most stupendous needs an amd 64 will prolly do the job. for example 40 tracks lets say for arguments sake.
with some processing safety margin.
with lots of nice plug ins sprinkled around but not huge amounts.

if your needs are modest around 30 tracks lets say with some plugins the sempron might be demoed. But some people argue that as there is not a huge difference in price between the sempron and amd 64.. that one should just go 64.

bbaby...
remember its not just the processor. good hard drives can make a difference
to real performance and other issues like memory and busses and how the whole system is put together. Iys not easy to take a "cut and dried approach".
for example in a recent test i performed a sempron system on some of my noise gate benchmarks was faster than a normal p4 system. BUT maybe the p4 system was poorly set up in all fairness. another example ...an amd 64 like henchmans beat a sempron system noise gating by 4 seconds.
It really depends whether a saving of 4 seconds is important to you.
To someone noise reducing lots of tracks for a client it probably IS.
for example you could match sempron with very fast hard drives and get quite a performer. a centrino probably the same. it really depends on pricing as well.
some shops in my area are advertising one drive semprons for the ridiculous low figure of 290 bucks ! So lets say after 30 tracks she starts pigging out, you could always mix to stereo and re-import to a new session and add another 30 tracks.

maybe it would be easier to ask you what your track/plug in needs are.
hope this helps a tad.
PS...if your seriously considering the pc platform i would suggest you decide on your audio software then test it on various intel and amd platforms and see which platform meets your track/plug in count and processing speed needs.

[o---]

Originally Posted by stag

Allow me to cut in .
I´m not a technician , perhaps ,my language could be less confusing to you.

Celeron are CPU with a 256 Kb secondary cache , is the lowest spec CPU from Intel, the others have at least 1024 , with the exception of the Centrinos, which have 2Mb and the P4 EE wich has 4mb , The CPU cache has the purpose to help the processor to "guess" more efficientelly the loads it has to take , it´s also what dictates the overall performance and price, at least at Intel a Celeron costs half the regular P4 , wich costs 5 times less the P4 EE, it has also 5 times less cache.

OK, some of this post you have here, stag, is quite false and not based in reality. The cache is not indicative of the overall perfromance, The faster transfer rates you have (or faster CPU GHz) the more cache you need, because the cache we are talking about here is ALOT slower than the internal CPU transfer rates. Thi is why Intel uses about twice as much cache as AMD. AMD is like a torquey Cadillac motor, and Intel is like Jay Leno's Jet engine motorcycle (high top speed, but slow getting there, and laggy) AMD is currently making a FAR better Audio chip than Intel (escept the centrino, which is a laptop chip) The reason that AMD is better is because it has a wider bandwidth pipline from the busses to the CPU, and can handle super-low latency with barely any CPU utilization. But go buy Intel, I don't care...

Originally Posted by stag

Albeit i´m a Intel guy all the way , i have to admit , their last processors are not quite good at music production, not by lack of power but because of the extreme heat they generate, ence the big fans and a lot of noise to deal with .
Never the less i can see my self getting a P4 EE, run it at it´s lowest multiplier, to avoid heat and noise , I guess i end up with a super charged Centrino!!!...or maybe not .

They are not bad for DAW's because they run hot, they are bad because they have too long of a pipeline. When overdubbing, you NEED to have low-latency. This is WHY ALLL the recording interfaces boast low-latency. It is true that with more heat you MAY have to have a louder fan, but this is not always the case.

Stag, my goal isn't to make you look stupid, but for some reason I think your devil horns made me angry.

[stag]

You can´t made me more stupid than i already am.
Thanks for the info. As i said i´m not a technician , i buy Intel , i´m only guessing here, cause i think sofware developers still design on such machines.
I don´t mind much what could be the outcome on the next few years , it seems that i have , finally, a machine that is able to handle everything i throw at it.
Well, I can´t run UAD directly on it but i think i will manage with fx-teleport or VST-link.

Sorry about the misinformation, i was talking about Intel, and it seems they evaluate and price their processor depending on the amount of secondary cache, which is the most expensive kind of memory. i have must read not so well the marketing blah blah of Intel´s site.
I´m aware of the superior design of AMD ,a tech guy friend of mine told me that Intel had to go back 10 years ago to mend the pipeline mess they have run into and start all over from there.
using your analogy : if i´m happy with my VW, why change to a Ferrari??? or has they say: if it ain´t broke don´t fix it.
Now seriously, probably my next desktop will have an AMD CPU, meanwhile this evening i´m going to install a 3.6GHZ CPU with 2Mg cache on my old pute , if you care i may be able to tell you, as objectivelly as i can, how it compares to the Centrino Sonoma 2Ghz.

PS: to keep you happy i´m going to change my avatar.

[o---]

Haahahahahaha!

hahahaha, it's Henry Winkler!?

Well, cache DOES dictate price because it takes up most of the die. So it costs more to make (takes up as much or more of the silicon as the CPU transistor circuit.

You should try the noise gate, as they did in this thread to compare your system's speed.

Thanks,
CT

[bigbaby987]

i just have to say...i love you guys.
but
i just need to know in a nutshell what's the a good laptop without spending crazy dollars. i'd buy a powerbook for that. here's what i'm looking for...

sempron=good performer
celeron=crap
amd 64=super hot
ect....

i don't really care about the logistics. just want to get some work done.

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by bigbaby987

i just have to say...i love you guys.
but
i just need to know in a nutshell what's the a good laptop without spending crazy dollars. i'd buy a powerbook for that. here's what i'm looking for...

sempron=good performer
celeron=crap
amd 64=super hot
ect....

i don't really care about the logistics. just want to get some work done.

As I said before. AMD64.

[o---]

The AMD is not expensive. And it's HOT HOT HOT . Even the Sempron is hot, but for Audio it's not really worth cutting out less cache over a couple bucks. There is alot more to your computer than the CPU, but not so much with a laptop.

Centrino is not worth it. Too $$$$$$ expensive.
AMD 64 = Stat and fat, not requiring the wallet to be fat.
Sempron = What's the ****ing point.

Just don't buy anything from Intel (in your situation) and you'll be fine, financially and with your recordings. For instance the eMachines AMD64 is what you want, as henchman said.

[o---]

Originally Posted by Henchman

As I said before. AMD64.

[bigbaby987]

yeah baby!! that's what i'm talking about... thanks you all again very much. now if i could just get emapple to port logic back to the pc side... oh well.. oh well....

pro tools or cubase will work...


thanks again!!

[manning1]

bbaby......
your not going to beat henchmans laptop imho.
from all the tests ive done on laptops to date.
there are loads of software options including the one i use which is very cheap.
Hitsquad.com have a list in the music software section. (search the back threads under my name a few months as i dont want the mods all over me for constant repitition of what i use).
i also recommend you try others that impress me like saw, samplitude and i'll throw out a ringer multitrackstudio.com (ran rock solid when i tried it).
I tend to stay away from anything with dongles, because its one more thing to possibly go wrong. make sure you get a nice heap o' ram.

[bigbaby987]

good lookin manning... samplitude looks hot!!!!! didn't think about that.

[Henchman]

FYI, If you read the DUC, you will see that the Emachines/Gateway AMD64 laptops are the ones that are the most troublefreee using PTLE.

[manning1]

bbaby...
also look at samps little brother. magix music studio 2005.
for 70 bucks it might just do what you need.
dont be like some and assume its junk because of the low price.
its not. ive had it for quite a time.it is truly great and never crashes.
and would propose that a top audio engineer with a great signal chain and convertors would do hit songs just using music studio.
main display and a lot of features are just like big daddy samp.
it'll get you in at a cheap price (also includes lots of midi features via midi studio).
just pointing this out because it'll let you get your feet wet without paying a lot.
THEN - when youve got your feet wet and convinced the samp is for you just buy big daddy samp. worst case youve lost 70 bucks.
well actually you havent - because just as an audio editor with the fx built in its worth the 70 bucks. also has synths.
look at the mixer display sometime. very very nice - just like in big daddy samp.
heres a review of the earlier version i have...
http://www.sonicstate.com/articles/article.cfm?id=43
you might find a retailer puffing it out for 30 bucks or so.
or go to magix.de to review the specs on the latest version.
ps...you want MUSIC STUDIO , NOT MUSIC MAKER.
but i think you can try demos of each.
i'm not sure but i think you should check whether it allows multiple input sound cards. records at 16bit, dont know if24 is allowed now. peace.
just foundthis deal for 40 bucks.
dont know if still on....just google for prices...
http://www.compusa.com/products/prod...WSE&tabtype=rb

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by o---

The AMD is not expensive. And it's HOT HOT HOT . Even the Sempron is hot, but for Audio it's not really worth cutting out less cache over a couple bucks. There is alot more to your computer than the CPU, but not so much with a laptop.

Centrino is not worth it. Too $$$$$$ expensive.
AMD 64 = Stat and fat, not requiring the wallet to be fat.
Sempron = What's the ****ing point.

Just don't buy anything from Intel (in your situation) and you'll be fine, financially and with your recordings. For instance the eMachines AMD64 is what you want, as henchman said.

You talkin' temperature...?

Nothin's worse than when the aux fans kick on in your hot, hot, hot laptop right when you're recording a celtic harp player in her otherwise silent parlour...


Pentium M chips (the CPU part of the the old "Centrino" name plate) run really cool and give long battery life under normal circumstances. (Not to be confused with the older Pentium 3M and 4M chips. Intel needs to hire someone with half a brain to do their product line naming.)

Anyhow, battery life is probably not that big an issue if you're mostly concerned about typical recording. But in some uses -- it can make or break you. (I use my 'book for a lot of different uses. Everything from running my database business to audio production. That's not the textbook way to do it, of course, and, honest, it was never the plan. But... well, you know.)

[stag]

I hold back the P4 36Ghz and i´m going to order a AMD64 FX.
Now i have a question to you all: which is the best MoBo to run it???
Please, take in consideration i have 4 UAD cards installed, they are quite picky about PCI´s.

I´m thinking the ASUS SK8N , but i´m only guessing here.
If you know of other that offers good performance and compatibility with UAD please tell me which one.

Thank you.

[bigbaby987]

i'm going to pick up the emachines m6811 in a few days... will let you know how it goes. thanks for the info. now i'll have a good pc and a good mac.

i'm really a mac guy, but i definitely can see how a great pc laptop can make some things easier for me. i'll be doing many different things with if from studies, to writing, to audio, so i want to have a future proof laptop that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. now i can't wait until the 64 bit windows to see how this thing is really supposed to cook.

thanks again for your help.