2.5 Ghz to 3 Ghz CPU difference?

[Steve Fogal]

Does 0.5 more GHz on a quad core amount to any significance ?


Ok, my current CPU is an Intel Quad Core Q9300 @2.5 GHz
Motherboard is an ASUS P5K-C

I believe my motherboard's highest rated CPU recomendation is an Intel Quad Core Q9650 @ 3 GHz.

On ebay, a used Intel Q9300 quad @2.5 Ghz CPU typically sells from around $80 to over $100 ...while a used Intel Q9650 quad @3 Ghz typically sells from $180.00, to more often well over $200. People are buying up both these used CPU's like crazy, but especially on the higher rated Q9650, there are more heavy bidding wars.

So, my 1st question ... At more than double the price, and the difference between 2.5 Ghz to 3. Ghz worth bothering to upgrade? BTW, and the L2 cache on a Q9300 is '6' ... while L2 cashe on a Q9650 is '12'. Not sure of any other benefits.

2nd question. Am I correct in believing that a CPU can be upgraded to an existing machine without having to do a fresh install of anything?

[Steve Fogal]

No thoughts on how much benefit there is between 2.5 Ghz to 3 GHz?

[JCschild]

cant see wasting the money on a system that old

[JCschild]

have you over clocked your system? thats the best thing you can do for more power

[Steve Fogal]

Hi Scott, thanks ... I'm not in any position for a total upgrade... and was wondering if the extra Ghz difference amounted to that much...? At the prices I've been seeing on a used Intel Q9650, I would surely be waiting a long time before getting a sweet deal, so yeah at those prices I mentioned above, I also feel it's a big waste of money.

And no, I've never overclocked my system before...nor any system before. Currently I don't know how, but I know I can learn by reading for sure. I just really haven't gave it any thought. I wasn't sure my set up, or that with my particular Q9300 CPU, that it was even a good candidate for overclocking..? By chance... I 'thought' I read that a Q9300 quad wasn't some weeks ago...?

So, this is actually very do-able (and safe) with my CPU & mobo combo? If so, then I'll definately want to research the procedures.

[Steve Fogal]

Well, looks like I'll be reading about over-clocking for quite a while...

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/259 ... king-guide

[ZeroZero]

See if you can get a basic core i7 - its a real step up. My i7 is old (920) but it still is the first and only processor I have owned that can actually handle Cubase. Well worth it

[Steve Fogal]

Well, yes ... an i7 would be a step up, but the problem is that my ASUS P5K-C motherboard, from what I've read, will accept at tops, a Q9650 (3Ghz @stock)... an LGA 775. Plus, everything I currently have needs to run on Win XP 32 bit. I'm not looking to upgrade everything from the ground up just now. Nor do I want to reinstall anything at this time.

My original questions were...

1) Will 2.5 Ghz to a 3. Ghz CPU (in my system/see above) make much of a difference?
2) If so, based in ebay prices (see above), is it worth it?
3) Can a Q9300 be replaced by a Q9650 without having to reinstall anything?

According to Scott, his answers appear to be ...
1) marginally
2) not worth the price
3) (?)
+ a Recommendation to overclock what I already have

Sure, I'd love to upgrade everything...and I mean it would have to be litterally everything.... and build the most powerful system possible, and I know I'd be in hog heaven by the difference. But not at this time, for several reasons.

[ZeroZero]

http://compare.ebay.co.uk/like/22118407 ... sbar&cbt=y

I know I am off topic but its worth a look

[ZeroZero]

Ex-Demo] Asus P6T Deluxe V2 Motherboard LGA1366 Intel X58 ATX RAID SATA Dual Gigabit LAN (Refurbished Model) (Opened)

RIDICULOUSLY CHEAP

[Steve Fogal]

Once I get with the program and build an up to date system...it's going have to be from the ground up. I don't believe anything I currently have, computer-wise, will/can be included...aside from one of my Antec cases...maybe. Not even my 17" CRT monitors. That's all going to be a costly transition. Even by going a used cheap (or even free) i7 with a new mobo is going to cost me big time... Which also means I would have to retire my 5 old Aardvarks, then spend nearly a grand just for ONE audio/midi interface... either top of the line firewire Steinberg units, Yamaha n12, or RME's. I've grown used having/using multiple I/O and everything I own, set up, plugged in and ready to go...so I'd require multiples of ASIO compatible interfaces. Would have to have all new software... OS, Cubase, plugs, VSTi's. It's not just a few aspects that will be upgraded, but everything, litterally will cost thousands....just to go 64 bit. That's the price to pay when you're behind with a combination of gear & software of around 10 to 15 years I guess.

So, with all the above considerations...I may want to think about squeezing what I have a little longer, and with the money I don't spend, I may be able to afford to buy a nice used truck for my business to replace my aging 1993 Chevy pick up, and fix my teeth...8 cavities, 2 cracked side teeth, 2 needed crowns... so... Priorities!

Damn, a used Q9650 for $200 or so, which can be over clocked too .... doesn't sound all that bad anymore

Plus, I've already spent money recently on a solution that I currently have in the works, that allows me to have what I really needed the most...just built a 2nd 5/6 year old spec'd quad machine to run all my VSTi's 'off' of my main audio machine...for which I've been all over these foruns about for months

[Wild Bill]

Hi Steve, I've been looking here and at other forums with folks dealing with problems in upgrading their existing DAW platforms, to make them more powerful and faster.

I thought just purchasing a new i7 2600 4 core based, Windows 7 computer would solve my problems. I'd just install all of my older Steinberg programs in the 32 bit x86 program files area and press on. Not So!!

I have learned about "Hardware Security Protection"which is on my original install disks such as Steinberg's "WARP VST" (guitar amps and cabinets) for example. The hardware security protection on the disk will not recognize my new cd/dvd rom drive.

So I'm kinda' in the same boat as you and many other people in deciding if I should keep or dump my old expensive DAW system, or replace EVERYTHING. I'm on a tight budget and I don't expect any hit records to be produced out of my humble abode anytime soon.

So I plan to get the most out the equipment and software that I've already invested in over the years. The only reason I bought a new computer a year ago, is because my nine year old Windows XP machine had died of a hard drive or motherboard failure.

I see you have built an older spec'd quad core machine to run all of your VSTI's off of your main audio machine. I assume you are using System Link to accomplish that? I hope that you can continue to find work-arounds for your existing equipment.

Bill

[Steve Fogal]

Hi Bill, actually I'm just running regular old 5-pin midi from master computer into slave, sending audio from slave back to master via Aardvark audio cards installed in each system. The VSTi slave machine works like any other external midi instrument connected to a computer DAW.

I've had my old original single core DAW connected as the slave while I was figuring out how to make it all work. Worked so well, I decided to build a replica of my quad core machine to replace my old single core as a slave...far more capable as a VSTi machine.

And yes..litterally nothing go's to waste. Everything I have can still be used. In fact, I've added even more, am adding more ... old school stuff, bought used off ebay. Extra Aardvark audio cards, external midi sound modules. All part of my master plan to go slighly backwards, and taking loads off my main audio/midi machine. This, as opposed to building a state of the art machine, and loading THAT to the gills, and dumping EVERYTHING I have to boot. An overall all, less costly solution for my needs of needing a little more in the resource department. This 2nd quad machine will give me more than just a 'little' more...it will double my resources, and for around the price of just ONE expensive modern 6 core intel CPU...so the way I look at it is, I'm going from a 2.5 Ghz quad core with 4 GB ram, to 2.5 Ghz 8 core with 8 GB ram...and I won't be taxing either computer to it's maximum capabilities...plus, I'll still have my 3rd older single core machine which can only run about 5 VSTi's comfortably, if I need more resources. Or... just put my dual core laptop into my system.

I've not tried System Link..I may at some point. But after my 2nd quad machine is put into action, I do plan to experiment with FXTeleport through ethernet and compare my audio/midi connected solution against that.

One thing about if upgrading my CPU on my quad machine(s) to one that is the most powerful my motherboard can accept, is that I can always sell off my Q9300's to help offset the price of an upgraded one.

[Wild Bill]

Hi Steve,
I get what you are talking about in going from the master computer to a slave computer like an external midi instrument. That is actually a great idea! Looks like you've aquired plenty of hardware to accomplish your goals and have a very flexible set up, being able to move and adjust the size of your recording rig at will.

So what the heck are you recording, a full fledge orchestra with that many VSTI's? What kind of music are you recording, a bit of everything?

I don't know how much you would gain that cpu change, but at the right price, it certainly couldn't hurt to get you some more horsepower under the hood for heavy processing sessions.

[Steve Fogal]

Yeah Bill, expanding or adding to my recording capabilities as needed 'at will' while continuing to use everything existing is the point...rather than the usual concept of discarding what's otherwise, still useful. Hey, I have a 1993 Chevy Silverado extra cab that's on it's THIRD engine. $4,000 to have another engine put in is a LOT cheaper than paying $600 per month to finance a new Silverado...not to mention another few thousand needed for my basic set up, because my existing set up won't fit properly to a new model Chevy. Like DAW's It's all about getting the most out of things, as long as it works for you.

No not doing such big projects as you mention, but on some of my projects I was running out of resources on my quad core, 4 GB ram machine. Basically I do rock/pop, and with a drum VSTi, 2 bass VSTi's, 4-5 keyboard/synth VSTi's, and with several stereo & mono audio tracks at a usable low enough latency, my projects & system tends to say "No Mas, pinche cabron"

So, needing just a bit more, and not wanting to discard anything, I'm going through this solution of a dedicated outboard midi/audio VSTi machine solution. I think these 2 identical quad XP 32 bit machines, each with 4 GB of ram should just about cover my needs. Letting my audio machine be just an audio machine again...and back to a point when I had not reached it's limits with a usable latency.

But, I still don't know what improvements I'd expect from going to a 2.5 Ghz quad CPU to say a 3.2 Ghz quad.

[Wild Bill]

I certainly agree! We need to get the most out of what we got. That's why I'm going to try to come up with some work arounds for some my expensive old Steinberg software. I may also rebuild one Windows XP machine. A dear friend gave me his old working XP machine, so I might mix some parts between the two. One machine is Intel, the other is AMD. Of course they have completely different motherboards and use different ram. I have a bad hard drive or motherboard in my dead DAW.

Hey I got to ask you about the truck, is that a big block or a small block engine in your 1993 Silverado? Seems like you should be able to pick up a rebuilt shortblock engine, minus the heads, from a local machine shop for a decent price.

Chevys are one of the most affordable engings to rebuild, because they are so plentiful. Worst case, maybe you can get an engine from a junkyard where you don't know as much about the condition or history of the engine. Sometimes a wreck becomes availible with an engine that's nearly as good as a new crate engine with super low miles on it.

I've been down that road many times in my life, changing out engines and transmissions myself on all makes of cars that I've owned, especially Chevys and Fords, and Chryslers. I went through an engine top end rebuild (heads) and transmission rebuild on my wife's 2002 Jaguar x-type, a little over a year ago. You can't even buy a new or rebuilt engine for them anymore for any price...the engine all aluminum are not made anymore! So oversize pistons, rings, and rods and such are not availible new. This time I didn't remove or reinstall the Jag engine myself. I didn't want to invest in all of the special equipment to accomplish the job. And yeah, the job cost over $7000 because I replaced many other parts on the car too like the alternator, air conditioning compressor, and many other parts, hoses and such.

[Steve Fogal]

Bill, my Silverado has a 6 cylinder 4.3 engine. Not being much of a mechanic myself, beyond doing the more simple things like replacing starters etc, I'm not able to replace entire engines...that's why I paid that much... labor + the engine. I think the guy put in a Delco about 4 years ago. With the price of gas these days and the amount of miles I drive as a sercvice electrician, I would have to reconsider if I had to have another 6 cylinder engine replacement in a full size truck loaded with electrical supplies. Other than that, I'm kinda partial to it.

I guess being partial to things, is yet another reason I hold on to most of my music gear and try to keep using it if I can. It was a thrill to fire up my old 1st single core DAW again, that I had built and then put it into service experimenting with it along side my current one. But I came to realize it's usefulness is limited. I wanted a 2nd machine to be able play all my VSTi's needed per project, not just a few to a handful. The success I had with using my old DAW, and just being facinated with this whole idea, was my own motivation.

I even had this fantasy, of building a large multi-motherboard enclosure/cabinet, each with their own needed components, and interconnect everything inside this one enclosure. But I decided it's better to just build each within a 'normal' computer tower. I can always house any number of towers needed inside a custom, well ventilated cabinet..for the purpose of cutting all that noise down.

[Wild Bill]

Hey Steve, I think I read everything wrong man. You have already had the latest engine change job done, and that was four years ago right? I had assumed that you were sweating an engine change right now. That's why I was trying to help you think about some other options to get your truck going again. With the truck being full size and with the extra cab, I thought (wrongly) that you had a V8 in your truck.

I certainly think you should keep the idea alive about a multi-motherboard enclosure or multiple towers in a large, well ventilated cabinet. Having a need is what drives invention right? I think re-purposing existing equipment is just as important, and maybe more valuable (to me) than merely smashing and recycling the equipment for a few bucks.

[Steve Fogal]

Right on Bill, I got that you thought I was currently contemplating another engine. So far, this 3rd one is still running Did I mention this 93 Silverado has about 300 k mikes? By this time the whole damn truck should be dropping body parts all over the road Nah, actually the body in fair shape ... especially since I spay painted the hood & roof to remedy the sheets of paint coming off that Chevy's are known for...though many, many mechanical.things have been replaced!

The above point being of course, is that I don't perscribe to the throw-away society mentality. Nothing go's to waste...well, to a point. When it comes to my DAW, I have 5 Aardvark cards (3 Q 10's & 2 Aark 24's) that just LOVE Win XP 32 bit, and I'm stubbornly wanting to hold onto them. Not to mention the rest of all of the DAW hardware & software that is pretty much XP 32 bit compatible only, for which it all is still very perfectly usable.

Neccessity is indeed the motherbm of invention. In my case, my song projects had typically become more than my quad core w/4 GB ram machine can handle. Work-arounds, bounce, raising buffers, upping latencies etc, etc... In spite of almost everyone telling me to UPGRADE, UPGRADE, UPGRADE as my solution to my growing needs, I went forward with researching all I could to find add-on solutions that would allow me to use everything I have still. Plus, I've done a whole lot of day dreaming & slipping off into fantasy land with idea's that though were good, but wouldn't work with current computer technology the way I invisioned...not realistically.

In my months of researching what was actually available now, along with constantly drifting off into my own idea's of what 'could be' I was combining various methods in my head...part of my scatter brain way of thinking....Having read what 'is' and thinking what 'could be' and with my somewhat new understanding of how I could use external midi devices that have been around for years... I thought, why couldn't I just use a 2nd computer just like I use my keyboard/synth controller/sound module. Took me MONTHS to configure and actually get it to work. Would have been easier to just UPGRADE for sure, but somehow I akways do things the HARD way

[Steve Fogal]

...ran out of roombin ny Android device...

I researched & thought about adding UAD's.... a Muse Receptor etc... good add-on solutions to existing systems, but very expensive. But in contrast to seemingly most here, I decided to revisit 'Old School' as a way of adding to what I have. So I'm adding & making use of hardware midi sound modules, and computers as sound modules.

My fantasy of the multiple motherboards in one single suitable ventilated encloure, is really just a consolidated method of networking multiple separate computer towers...though there can be advantages and disadvantages to it that have to be weighed in. It's a cool idea maybe, having one big elaborate system, each board & with it's components dedicated to it's own tasks. Hell, one board section could be the dedicated drum & percusion VSTi, another a particular dedicated synth VSTi, another a bass VSTi section, another a piano VSTi's etc. Though one board & it's components can handle more than just one type of VSTi's so...but if that was so, each section should be designed and spec'd accordingly low or high for it's task at hand and possibly consisting of those micro motherboards to save space. All internally housed & networked together for best performance...which then needing to factor in just 'how many' motherboard sections is best...less vs more sections.

Another fantacy of mine in this whole multiple computer idea is... since multiple computers need their own components &
resources & multiple video monitors etc... what if...one were to use several laptops as resource slaves. Everything needed is there all in their own package, each laptop can be adjusted, tweaked right there. Then there's those all-in-one desktops that basically the monitor is also the tower. But there's the noise factor to consider.
...So, it kinda go's back to regular towers again where they can be housed inside an enclosure & quieted down, and use less systems that are more powerful. Then, one can argue to use just ONE powerful computer...then we are back to 'discarding' again. There has to be a happy medium, and that medium currently is using 2 quad machines... as a start...maybe a 3rd...? After building a highly desired replica of my quad machine, I could have very well bought a used 2nd hand andvonly comperable spec'd machine, tweaked, or even bastardized it for even less money.

[Wild Bill]

Hi Steve, I thought buying a new i7 2600 spec'd machine with x86 (32 bit) capability was all I needed to get all of my old software and hardware going again. But with the new cd/dvd drives not recognizing the old software, and the new computers having PCIe slots instead of the old style PCI slots, it's making things a nightmare to try to utilize my older hardware that still works too good to throw out.

So you must have known about these issues, and so far have avoided these problems by holding back a bit. At least the Cubase 5 VST/32 program is working well on the Windows 7 computer in the X86 realm. That's now one less headache I have to deal with, thanks to the Steinberg folks here.

[Steve Fogal]

Yeah, I was aware that having new computer specs meant not being able to re-use my existing hardware & software, though didn't realize a simple CD/DVD drive would matter For this reason, is why I decided to build the 2nd older spec quad-core 32 bit XP machine - though I almost was going to invest & build an up to date machine recently instead. The crieteria in my above posts won over...for now.

My one and only real need was, and is to have a little more resources for doing what I already do, for running more VSTi's, and without compromising resources by competing with audio resources needed. Not start fresh from the ground up. The two are separate now...each having their own set of resources. Will this 2nd quad-core machine be enough now...time will tell. If not, what and where will this lead me to

As suggested early on, overclocking the two machines is still an option that won't cost extra. If replacing my 2.5 Ghz Intel Q9300's with say, 3 Ghz Q9650's, this would only be a total gain of 1 Ghz combined...before overclocking them too that is. I have a lot of experimenting to do with what I have still.

But hey Bill, I have a question for you that I've been barely understanding...How do you run Cubase VST 5/32 within a new spec'd machine, with Win 7 ...and YET make use of all 8 GB ram? I believe there is a wrapper of some kind available to use 32 bit software within a 64 bit OS, though I thought THAT meant you CANNOT use all that ram. For sure I wouldn't be able to use my Aarkvark audio cards, as they need Win XP 32 bit.

[Wild Bill]

But hey Bill, I have a question for you that I've been barely understanding...How do you run Cubase VST 5/32 within a new spec'd machine, with Win 7 ...and YET make use of all 8 GB ram? I believe there is a wrapper of some kind available to use 32 bit software within a 64 bit OS, though I thought THAT meant you CANNOT use all that ram. For sure I wouldn't be able to use my Aarkvark audio cards, as they need Win XP 32 bit.

That's a very good question Steve. You were understanding right about being not able to use all of that 8 gb of ram. I was researching this very same topic and jotted down some notes on the subject. I've learned that Windows 7 x86 (32bit) only addresses 4 gb of ram. Windows 7 (64 bit) allows much more ram, the maximum, I still don't know, 6 or 8 gb or above? How much ram can Cubase address with Windows XP? 4 gb?

So one bottle neck in addressing more ram is the Windows version that one has on their computer, regardless of how much physical ram one might have installed. For example...My Intel 17 2600 cpu machine is currently limited to a maximum installation of 16 gb of physical ram because I have Windows 7 Home Premium installed. If I went to Windows 7 Pro or Ultimate (as a lot of folks here do) I would be able to install a maximum of 32 gb of ram on my computer, per my dell computer setup guide. Addressing that much ram using Cubase and VSTI's with the Windows limitations is another story that I have yet to learn about.

[Steve Fogal]

Right, Win XP 32 bit can only use 4 GB ram, while Win XP 64 bit I believe can use something like 64+ GB ram, much like Win 7 64 bit can buttloads of ram....that is of course throughout the entire system, which the OS itself, and each program is all competing for the installed/usable ram.

As for just how much ram any Cubase version uses, or whatever VSTi's installed actually uses... ... not 100% sure myself but I 'thought' that it was more or less automatic...?... that is, what ever ram the OS can handle, and the motherboard can support, is the amount of ram that is available to use. Of course, it all depends on what you're doing in Cubase, and how many VSTi's...I don't know what Cubase actually needs in ram, just being open...and I'm betting each version uses more or less. I'm betting Cubase VST uses much less resources than the current Cubase 7.

Being all my hardware & software is dated, I'm unfortately limited to 3.25 GB usable ram (4 GB installed) ... well, at least PER system anyway Besides the 'no discarding' of still very usable software & hardware theme, for which I can't stress enough, I'm also just very interested in experimentation with this Frankenstein multi-machine stuff. It's forcing me to learn a lot too. Almost as fun as making music itself. Also in that previous mentioned school of thought that even 'up to date' computer systems can be overloaded, bottlenecked etc. I have to think that ultimately, systems designed to have individual proccessing, ram & other resources PER task at hand, and then 'channel' all that together, would be a better with almost endless possibilities solution. That's why I had that multi-motherboard concept...but at odds with distinguishing that with using multiple towers in an 'ordinary' networking solution. But there can be a difference I guess.... having it ALL in one big box, consolidating/sharing certain components.