| Author
|
help with cpu power.... please comment.
|
Quantum Leap
Quantum Leap
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
371
Posted : Mar 11, 2004 10:20
|
Doesn`t matter if you have dual Intel Xeon cpu`s, if you`r low on RAM and have a weak soundcard you`r doomed!!!!!!!
Upgrade computer memory to 1Gb DDR 333mhz (minimum) and DON`T mix DDR with SDRAM ... if you mix both types of memory the DDR`s modules assumes the SDRAM frequency and you don`t take full advantage of your DDR`s modules.
Buy a new sound card, forget Creative Labs sound cards (Audigy, Audigy Platinum, etc, etc), you need a trusty sound card (try M-Audio for is quality/price). About the CPU .... well if you buy a 2,4 Intel Celeron you save money and be happy in your home studio.
Boom Boom
  http://www.facebook.com/quantumleaptrance |
|
|
|
Input
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
24
Posts :
456
Posted : Mar 11, 2004 10:23
|
Everything's fine but no celeron for music creation
Not only slower but the celeron is lack of cache memory which is crucial for music production
Space is the place
http://www.megabit.co.il |
|
|
|
Quantum Leap
Quantum Leap
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
371
Posted : Mar 11, 2004 10:34
|
Choose a RISC or CISC processor:
RISC
The concept was developed by John Cocke of IBM Research during 1974. His argument was based upon the notion that a computer uses only 20% of the instructions, making the other 80% superfluous to requirement. A processor based upon this concept would use few instructions, which would require fewer transistors, and make them cheaper to manufacture. By reducing the number of transistors and instructions to only those most frequently used, the computer would get more done in a shorter amount of time. The term 'RISC' (short for Reduced Instruction Set Computer) was later coined by David Patterson, a teacher at the University of California in Berkeley.
The RISC concept was used to simplify the design of the IBM PC/XT, and was later used in the IBM RISC System/6000 and Sun Microsystems' SPARC microprocessors. The latter CPU led to the founding of MIPS Technologies, who developed the M.I.P.S. RISC microprocessor (Microprocessor without Interlocked Pipe Stages). Many of the MIPS architects also played an instrumental role in the creation of the Motorola 68000, as used in the first Amigas (MIPS Technologies were later bought by Silicon Graphics). The MIPS processor has continued development, remaining a popular choice in embedded and low-end market. At one time, it was suspected the Amiga MCC would use this CPU to reduce the cost of manufacture. However, the consumer desktop market is limited, only the PowerPC processor remains popular in the choice of RISC alternatives. This is mainly due to Apple's continuous use of the series for its PowerMac
CISC:
CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) is a retroactive definition that was introduced to distinguish the design from RISC microprocessors. In contrast to RISC, CISC chips have a large amount of different and complex instruction. The argument for its continued use indicates that the chip designers should make life easier for the programmer by reducing the amount of instructions required to program the CPU. Due to the high cost of memory and storage CISC microprocessors were considered superior due to the requirements for small, fast code. In an age of dwindling memory hard disk prices, code size has become a non-issue (MS Windows, hello?). However, CISC-based systems still cover the vast majority of the consumer desktop market. The majority of these systems are based upon the x86 architecture or a variant. The Amiga, Atari, and pre-1994 Macintosh systems also use a CISC microprocessor.
RISC Vs. CISC
The argument over which concept is better has been repeated over the past few years. Macintosh owners have elevated the argument to a pseudo religious level in support of their RISC-based God (the PowerPC sits next to the Steve Jobs statue on every Mac altar). Both positions have been blurred by the argument that we have entered a Post-RISC stage.
RISC: For and Against
RISC supporters argue that it the way of the future, producing faster and cheaper processors - an Apple Mac G3 offers a significant performance advantage over its Intel equivalent. Instructions are executed over 4x faster providing a significant performance boost! However, RISC chips require more lines of code to produce the same results and are increasingly complex. This will increase the size of the application and the amount of overhead required. RISC developers have also failed to remain in competition with CISC alternatives. The Macintosh market has been damaged by several problems that have affected the availability of 500MHz+ PowerPC chips. In contrast, the PC compatible market has stormed ahead and has broken the 1GHz barrier. Despite the speed advantages of the RISC processor, it cannot compete with a CISC CPU that boasts twice the number of clock cycles.
CISC: For and Against
As discussed above, CISC microprocessors are more expensive to make than their RISC cousins. However, the average Macintosh is more expensive than the WIntel PC. This is caused by one factor that the RISC manufacturers have no influence over - market factors. In particular, the WIntel market has become the definition of personal computing, creating a demand from people who have not used a computer previous. The x86 market has been opened by the development of several competing processors, from the likes of AMD, Cyrix, and Intel. This has continually reduced the price of a CPU of many months. In contrast, the PowerPC Macintosh market is dictated by Apple. This reduces the cost of x86 - based microprocessors, while the PowerPC market remains stagnant.
http://www.facebook.com/quantumleaptrance |
|
|
|
Quantum Leap
Quantum Leap
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
371
Posted : Mar 12, 2004 06:25
|
|
WAVELOGIX
Wavelogix
Started Topics :
136
Posts :
1214
Posted : Mar 12, 2004 12:04
|
quantun leap i honestly didnt understand enuff of RISC and CISC ...
so pls tell us what the bottomline is ??? |
|
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Mar 12, 2004 15:23
|
I happened to write an article about this subject when NEC tried pushing RISC processors for it's high end PCs in the early 90s and study some electrical engineering now, so I'll add.
RISC stands for Redused Instruction Set Computer. The basic idea is that the processor is optimized for the most important instructions, and drops out all of the less used ideas in favor of new ones (it can run many commands in the same time, can do 2-3 simple instructions instead of 1 complex one in the same time and get faster results). This is definately a good idea for highly mathematical processes (among them, sound processing).
CISC stands for Complete Instruction Set Computer - it has backwards compatability with everything as each processor there are more and more commands added, and then everything is optimized to work faster. This is great for the less mathematical processes (for instance word processors), but also promotes very bad coding as it does have so many low level commands that no one can follow them all (I doubt that one out of one thousand engineers in Intel know what EVERYTHING does on the p4).
The RISC chips are much better suited for music production and graphics, and are generally more stable and easier to work with for programmers (some simple optimisations on code for RISC processors can lower the CPU usage by half, for instance Logic 6 for mac has EQs that you can literally use hundreds of without system instability). The main problem is of course - compatability. If you want to work with all the software you want without emulation that'll kill the speed advantage of RISC processors, CISC is the only way (even though there are many plugins also available in the mac Audio Units standard which is a bit more powerful than VST technology, they are not close to the bulk of wintel VSTs).
CISC processors today are basically based on the x86 architecture with a lot of outdated technologies that slow this processor down to about 70% of it's potential - especially with lots data to process, which is the case in most multimedia applications. Of course - MMX technology was supposed to solve this. It didn't. BUT, this technology has had a lot of time to mature, a lot of it's problems have been patched up, it is fully compatible with all software designed for x86 machines, and of course, windows runs on it.
RISC technology is definately the future, as it does NOT use outdated technology, is much more easily upgradeable, and offers basically everyone an easier way to work with that has much less place for errors. CISC is the technology of now, because as long as most software is made for wintel platforms, that will be the standard. AMD have delayed the advancement to RISC technology by Intel - when Intel tried pushing it's chips without the backward compatability, people just bought the high end AMDs for less and kept running everything like they used to. At this time, in the last 3-4 years Apple has taken it's media software to a level above what is available for PC, as it's high end processors and OS are very stable and fast with these processes and optimising for a platform with one CPU architecture, one (very stable) OS, and closely supervised standards for all external additions (external boards for instance). Unfortunately, this is not close enough to break the wintel platform's dominance in the market.
Both sides have their advantages. If everyone would by their computers according to which is the better one - we'd have at least 50% of the computer market controlled by Apple, but as long as the PC market is not controlled by Apple, you will have more software developed for PC.
http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Mar 13, 2004 13:10
|
|
Also - added note on why the G5 took a wrong turn engineering wise - they elected to lengthen the pipeline in that chip, similar to what happens in the p4, something that leads away from simple and quality engineering in the long run but will give a performance boost very fast (while it is still a much better chip than the p4 engineering-wise, Intel's Itanium processor already has a more powerful architecture, unfortunately, not used in any audio software that I know).
http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
|
