Something to keep in mind: One 2Ghz processor is faster than a machine with 2 1Ghz processors because of the overhead involved. I'd suggest getting a faster single processor. On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 20:45, Peter Groves wrote: > I'm planning on building a new machine and would like some advice. Right > now I think the main application of it's "power" will be in > recording/mixing in linux. People have been saying that a dual processor > is something to consider, but there's currently a problem: the amd > athlon's that would be at my price point (the 2600 - 2800's) have no > dual processor motherboard support, and it looks like there won't be any > b/c companies are just going to go straight to supporting the > new 64-bit opterons (which aren't in my price range). So if anyone can > comment on any of the following things, it would really help me out. > > Front Side Bus speed: how important is this for recording? i could just > get two bargain athlon's with a slower FSB, would that work? > > Would any of the sound apps out there, or even linux in general, make > any use of a 64 bit opteron anytime soon? (no i won't have more than 4GB > of memory) > > Hyperthreading - the new fancy P4's have it. Does it do anything on > linux? I saw some benchmarks where it really sped up video encoding (on > windows), how similar to sound processing is this? > > In general, intel chips seem to do better in benchmarks on floating > point stuff (games and video) while amd's do better on integer heavy > apps (office software). I would think that sound stuff would therefore > run better on intel's but lots of sound people say they prefer amd's. > Any reason for this? > > How fast does a system really need to be before it can handle recording > with practically no limits? (let's say fewer than 10 tracks at a time > such as with a delta1010) > > thanks for any help, i'd be happy if i got responses to only a few of > these questions. > > Peter -- greg <gval@xxxxxxx>
