| |
| Author
|
Putting new system together (i7), Questions on components and setup.
|
orange
Fat Data
Started Topics :
154
Posts :
3918
Posted : Apr 21, 2009 00:51
|
|
shellbound
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
14
Posts :
601
Posted : Apr 21, 2009 16:41
|
Orange, thanks for your suggestions. But going with these components would add about $200-300 over the components i'm looking at. And I think that's pushing it a little too far, especially considering the cheaper components seem to be solid and reliable. I'm trying to build a low high-end. I don't want to cut corners and get sub-par components. But I don't really want to pay for unnecessary bells-and-whistles or some latest "xtreme" stuff geared towards gamers. Right now my build is around $1200 (without monitors which i already have) and that seems very reasonable to me for what i'm getting.
Have you heard of any issues with the things I picked or do you have a particular reason of why I should go with even more higher-end components? I know this is a fairly new technology and not too many people have experience with this, so i probably won't get a lot of responses. But it still doesn't hurt to ask.
Does anybody use trackball mice? I've never used them before, but I want to give it a shot. I'm thinking of going with a design that has the trackball by the thumb. Something cheap like this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16826104156
Or is something like this more comfortable:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16826104108
  https://soundcloud.com/dead-end-dance
https://soundcloud.com/shellbound |
|
|
|
Tomos
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
981
Posted : Apr 21, 2009 17:58
|
I've come in a bit late to this thread and there have already been some excellent suggestions.
Here are some of my musings..
After building PCs day in day out, I've found the main thing that makes a difference to music PCs is the processor and HD speed (the constant loading of plugins, samples and projects really affects workflow - HD speed is essential for the appearance of a responsive PC)
I haven't come close to 3GB RAM usage with my rig with about 100 plugins running. Future proofing with 6GB is harmless and will be great for when 64bit finally becomes standard.
I've always ignored gamers high-performance memory. It's never made much difference to me, get the cheapest you can.
I can't recommend gigabyte mobos enough! They're stable, have great components (a lot of passively cooled onboard parts and solid-state capacitors that allow very fine tuning tweaks like overclocking) and their support is generally good if you ever have to use it.
I recommend getting a board with as many PCI-E slots as possible. I'm desperate for more - I've already filled all my slots with audio stuff like my soundcard, UAD cards etc. I believe a lot more things in the future will use PCI-E.
Graphics card: buy the cheapest passively cooled (no fan) piece of crap you can. If you're not playing games an extremely cheap card - try ebay! Don't forget dual port (support for 2 screens) if you need dual monitors.
I hate trackball mice - but each to their own.
I know a couple of producers that love them. If you can, try one out before you buy. 20 years using a mouse, I can't use anything else!
Fast HD: get SSD if you can stretch to it.
OCZ vertex series is AMAZING for the money. I was going to upgrade to 2 x in RAID 0 for around 300mb/s transfer rate - virtually instant sample and project loading.
But then I saw this...
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?Itemid=67&id=11365&option=com_content&task=view
QUAD RAID! Super speed.. Should be coming out soon. SSD is the future, HD's are a massive bottleneck and when solic-state tech matures a bit, it should be incredibly reliable and fast enough to keep up with modern processors.
Otherwise the cheapest fastest large drive I've found is the Samsung Spinpoint F1, I've got 2x1TB drives and they cost around £85 each.. that is a CRAZY price!
Good luck with your builds guys, let me know what you end up buying 
Tom
|
|
|
|
shellbound
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
14
Posts :
601
Posted : Apr 21, 2009 20:58
|
Thanks for taking the time to answer my request, Tomos.
I just want to make a comment about harddrives. SSD are waaaaay too expensive at this point. And, honestly, I don't really see the need for them or 10K or RAID setup (for me). I'm sure the HD IS the bottleneck in a system like this, but I don't think I will really push it to its limits. When doing electronic music, CPU is maxed the most by hungry plug-ins. When I do guitar-based music, I can't really see myself using more than 10-15 audio tracks at a time, which current 7200 should handle without any issues (in fact, i believe they should be able to handle 50+ without any issues either). I bought into the hype of 10K the last time around and ended up overpaying for 74G drive without any (seemingly) added benefit. It's not like I will be recording a mic'd 18 piece drum set or a full orchestra or anything like that.
1T drives are not really necessary either imo and would only add noise and heat because of more platters and probably increase access time. I know they are probably very economical if you look at them from "price-per-gig" perspective. But that's not the most important thing for me and I simply don't have any needs for that much space. In fact, I will go with a 320G WD Caviar drive for my audio OS/apps drive, since it only has one platter, so that should be better as far as noise, heat, and probably access/read time.
Tomos, have you built any i7 systems yet?
https://soundcloud.com/dead-end-dance
https://soundcloud.com/shellbound |
|
|
|
Tomos
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
981
Posted : Apr 21, 2009 21:22
|
I can achieve peak read speed of 110mb/s on my Samsung Spinpoint 1TB which is incredibly fast for such a cheap drive. The more information crammed into a smaller space, spinning at the same speed will naturally read faster than smaller drives. I think if you compare a 320gb drive to a 1TB, there isn't going to be much in price, and the speed increase is well worth it.
Trust me, these drives are such a good buy.
They don't get hot because it uses 3 platters (a breakthrough, most are using 4 or more) and I don't think its noisy. Access time is good too.
I agree the 10k 74gb drive (I assume you mean raptor) didn't really show me many benefits either. Overpriced for what it is.
I do think space IS a necessity, I've already used 3/4 of 1TB loading all my sample CDs on for easy access and 24bit wave bounces are a space hog.
SSDs *are* way too expensive, but in my opinion a 60gb (enough for Windows XP, the sequencer and all the plugins, save for maybe Omnisphere!) for around £115 is worth it for that fantastic speed boost. While is still takes 10ms to find any file on a hard drive, SSD's find files in 0.1ms, it really does feel faster. They will be the future. They beat spinning platters in every respect except price. While I can see the road map for SSDs overtaking conventional HDs, I want to jump on board now for the genuine benefits it will bring me.
I've built four i7 systems so far this year, I have no need to upgrade myself as I jumped on at the last Intel tick-tock with a Q9450. Which hasn't let me down. I can't max it out at all. The i7's didn't feel any faster to use, but they take more punishment with regards more plugins loaded.
Definite HD bottleneck nowawdays.
My problem now is I can load so much stuff, when my system falls over because of a wonky plugin, I never know which one caused it.
|
|
|
|
shellbound
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
14
Posts :
601
Posted : Apr 21, 2009 21:51
|
Hmm. I guess Spinpoints deserve another look. Thanks for the heads up.
I agree that SSD is the future. But I will definitely wait for them to come down in price.
Going back to the Raptor (10K), since I already have it, what would be the most efficient way to utilize it. Like I said before, I currently have my projects and samples on it. Would it be more beneficial to have my audio OS and apps on it instead? I'm sure it's not really a big deal either way, but I'm curious about this.
https://soundcloud.com/dead-end-dance
https://soundcloud.com/shellbound |
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : Apr 22, 2009 03:55
|
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : Apr 22, 2009 05:12
|
|
orange
Fat Data
Started Topics :
154
Posts :
3918
Posted : Apr 22, 2009 16:07
|
and break alot more!
corsair usually are very solid.
walton chaintech is one of the best!
avoid.. mushkin, ocz, transchend, kingston (dont break but slow.. although cheap)adata,
good ones are corsair, walton, geil,PNY, crucial, and the german made CSX!
a 7-7-7-20 with a 7-8-7-20 difference is the same as me running 100 meters with a t-shirt and than with 2 t-shirts!
http://www.landmark-recordings.com/
http://soundcloud.com/kymamusic |
|
|
|
orange
Fat Data
Started Topics :
154
Posts :
3918
Posted : Apr 22, 2009 16:15
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-22 03:55, Colin OOOD wrote:
What's the current thinking on having your Work in Progress project folders on the outside partition of a hard drive? Does it still give a big enough boost to access time for it to be worth it?
|
|
yes but not much of a difference... its better for faster defragmenting and file access times!
http://www.landmark-recordings.com/
http://soundcloud.com/kymamusic |
|
|
|
Tomos
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
981
Posted : Apr 22, 2009 16:18
|
Colin - depends on the drive, but you're likely to see read speeds approximately double on the outside of the disk. But personally, I've never had much luck configuring a drives partitions like this.
If you want a budget solution to fast project opening, get 2 small drives and put them in RAID0. Very likely to smash read speeds of more expensive drives and cheaper if you're willing to sacrifice space (and security - 2 drive failure rate is a little under twice as likely, but then again you should be backing up to optical media anyway!)
The spinpoint performance deterioration is a familiar looking graph.
http://img.techpowerup.org/081120/HD%20Tach%201TB%20HD%20long%20test%2032mb.jpg
All HDs have this curve.
As for the memory performance, the nanosecond timings don't always equate to speed, because clock cycle (Ghz) must be equal to the timing of the memory or else it will skip a cycle and retrieve the information on the next clock. If they don't match up exactly - no increase.
Anyway, at that speed the differences are so minimal.
Take a look at this (includes 7-7-7-20 timings)
http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_i7_-_choosing_the_best_memory_kit/2
Minimal. I always go for the cheapest RAM. Differences only become apparent after an intensive project, like video encoding, is run continuously. |
|
|
|
orange
Fat Data
Started Topics :
154
Posts :
3918
Posted : Apr 22, 2009 16:21
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-04-22 16:18, Tomos wrote:
Colin - depends on the drive, but you're likely to see read speeds approximately double on the outside of the disk. But personally, I've never had much luck configuring a drives partitions like this.
If you want a budget solution to fast project opening, get 2 small drives and put them in RAID0. Very likely to smash read speeds of more expensive drives and cheaper if you're willing to sacrifice space (and security - 2 drive failure rate is a little under twice as likely, but then again you should be backing up to optical media anyway!)
The spinpoint performance deterioration is a familiar looking graph.
http://img.techpowerup.org/081120/HD%20Tach%201TB%20HD%20long%20test%2032mb.jpg
All HDs have this curve.
As for the memory performance, the nanosecond timings don't always equate to speed, because clock cycle (Ghz) must be equal to the timing of the memory or else it will skip a cycle and retrieve the information on the next clock. If they don't match up exactly - no increase.
Anyway, at that speed the differences are so minimal.
Take a look at this (includes 7-7-7-20 timings)
http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_i7_-_choosing_the_best_memory_kit/2
Minimal. I always go for the cheapest RAM. Differences only become apparent after an intensive project, like video encoding, is run continuously.
|
|
I TOTALY DISAGREE!! (not really just had to say it!  )
http://www.landmark-recordings.com/
http://soundcloud.com/kymamusic |
|
|
|
Tomos
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
981
Posted : Apr 22, 2009 16:30
|
|
shellbound
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
14
Posts :
601
Posted : Apr 22, 2009 17:28
|
Collin, I had the exact same thoughts while researching RAM. It seems like the faster OCZ looks good on paper, but they are nearly not as reliable as Corsairs and I don't think they are worth it just for that minuscule timing difference that I'm sure nobody can even perceive. So at this point I'm pretty set on Corsair XMS3.
I think you know the answer to your outside partition question. Yes, the access time should be faster. But I doubt it's really worth it to be moving your projects back and forth all the time. Unless you are tracking bands or mixing projects with a large audio track count...
I write enterprise apps for a living, so I'm generally obsessed with efficiency. That's just how my brain is wired after all these years. But for something like this, I'm trying to resist the urge to prematurely over-optimize everything, especially considering how powerful these systems are nowadays. Though the urge is still there (for some geeky reason... optimization for its own sake).
Anyway, I'm getting pretty close to pulling a trigger on this. I changed my mind about the PSU and decided to go with CORSAIR CMPSU-520HX 520W:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139001
It's about $20 more than my previous choice, but I found a lot of excellent feedback about it on silentpcreview boards for being very reliable and much quiter than the other models.
For the case, I started leaning toward Antec P182, but now I'm back to Solo. It's about $40 cheaper and it's shipping for free. For my needs P182 seems like an overkill, since I will only have 3 hds, 1 vga, 1 optical drive. Lots of good feedback on Solo both from silence freaks and home DAW builders.
https://soundcloud.com/dead-end-dance
https://soundcloud.com/shellbound |
|
|
|
roigt0r
Started Topics :
2
Posts :
83
Posted : Apr 23, 2009 07:08
|
I've had no problems with OCZ ram, and their customer service is great. They also overclock amazingly, which is the main reason I usually go for them. Not sure how Corsair or Kingston compares in this department but I'm running my 2.66Ghz Quad Core at 3.7ghz with the ram at 1:1 with the fsb. Can't remember what that is right now but well over 850Mhz and they're rated for 800.
As far as timings, I've done my own benchmarks with various types of RAM and the difference is barely perceivable, if at all. If you're into overclocking go with the RAM that's rated for a higher clock rather than latency. You may not notice the difference in RAM clock speed, but you'll certainly appreciate the higher OC ceiling you'll have.
Not sure how well the i7's overclock but I think it's a waste of power not to do it.
Also, I have the Antec solo. Great case! A little tight like most midtowers but it's got good airflow, and getting access to the drives is very easy. No motherboard tray though. The rubber-band mounting for hard drives is also great if you're into a silent PC. |
|
|
|
|
|
