Bandwidth Place 2

palmboy5 wrote:it IS 1GB RAM total, right? that and i dont like maxtor (AND its refurbished??)... otherwise it looks good.

1GB is enough to run all the audio editing programs I need, right?

mannyace wrote:yo i should tell u that e-mu software is confusing once u start but ull get it, plus u can ask me for help, theres actually whole forums jus by e-mu users...

That won't be a problem, I have a way of being able to figure stuff out. But thanks for offering help if and when I need it.

As for the operating system thing.. well. I never intended to pay for Windows, but the programs I want to use require it. Are you sure that there's no way I can have it running on Gentoo or something? It'd be nice to have a dual boot and run audio editing stuff on both OS's.

the OS issue... when u get ur soundcard, u install the hardware and drivers, at this point the computer understands ur soundcard is there or whatever

to actually use all the features, u must install an e-mu program called PatchMixDSP, its a win 2k/xp program

http://ren.vis.ne.jp/img/PatchMixDSP.png or just google images patchmix dsp and you can see its a mixer (left) and it controls all the features such as effects, inputs, outputs (right) and volumes/levels (bottom half), plus more, without it you cant do anythin

i guess in ur other OS you wont be able to even do sumin like listen to music...

Oh well, there's always Wine.

does it work...?

what is wine?

wine is an app that allows you to run pc things on mac if I remeber correctly.

@PB... there isnt much point in having a 64bit cpu if you dont have a 64bit OS. Its like buying a car that can do 400 mph and then driving it around the local highways at 65 mph... its total overkill on a 32bit os. There are tons of debates (arguements really) on the pros and cons of the 64bit os.

does wine ever not work? or is it just like u had windows as ur actual os?

i cant imagine the sound stuff runin on anythin but a real windows...

Wine runs on Linux, too.

@2005
so basicly... you would rather pay more, for less performance, just so you can get something that only meets what you need?

Um, I dont understand that post... how am I paying more for somthing that gives less performance??????

first of all, i dont understand why you think you need 64bit software to make it worthwhile, you know the current benchmarks you see where AMD owns intel? well those are all in 32bit, yes thats right, the AMDs are running 32bit ONLY. there is no 64bit. why? intel cant get theirs right.

so because the processors that are still 32bit only are either no longer being produced, or are intel CPUs. are you telling me intel isnt overpriced? seriously? wow!
here:
Intel Pentium 4 540J, 3.2GHz w/1MB L2 cache
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819116201
$212.00
and upgraded version at the same speed
Intel Pentium 4 640, 3.2Ghz w/2MB L2 cache
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819116197
$266.99

then the DIRECTLY competing 32bit AND 64bit processor is:
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice, their newest architecture so far)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819103535
$190.00

last time i checked, 190 < 212 < 266.

now lets check their actual performance:
since hes doing audio...
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004122 ... ts-21.html
Lame MP3 benchmark:
oh LOOK! all three processors i mentioned are lined right up with each other, all three are 1:40, how convenient of tomshardware to let intel be above -_- but you know whats funny? that CPU is a fucking BARTON, its a Socket A piece of shit that even I have, its not even a so-called 64bit, when i first looked i only checked for the "3200+", so im sorry i compared the precious intels to an old AMD of yesteryear that still seems to be able to tie the new intels anyway. you can find the newcastle getting 1:37.

but since that isnt that big of a difference, and i like games..
here are for games:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004122 ... #directx_9
FarCry benchmark:
notice how the highest of the mentioned intel CPU is getting 158.0, whereas the 3200+ winchester is getting 175.7 and winchester is the version BEFORE venice, by looking at the other 3200+, notice how newer versions perform better.

again, EVERYTHING THERE is in 32bit, there is no 64bit benchmark shown, so in summary, intel has zero advantages; it takes more power, poor performance, no futureproof 64bit capability, and they cost at least $22 more. so you're saying you'd rather buy an expensive slow intel than spend less on an AMD with considerably higher performance. thats like buying a Geo Metro for $100,000 while a Skyline is $70,000. smart, isnt it?

back to topic, the processor restin is getting is 32bit ONLY, its a sempron that has no 64bit. in fact, he NEVER chose a 64bit capable processor. yet you go ahead and offer an overpriced (by tigerdirect) 32bit P4 telling him to stay with 32bit. HUH??

so what now?


lol i edited and added a lot of things, its not as big of a slap in the face as the simpler original was

2005 wrote:http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications ... pNo=914142

Id sooner go with a processor like this one. I wouldnt go AMD unless you wanted to go 64bit, which I cant see why you would... because in then you would need the 64 bit edition of windows xp which is extra money. I would say just got with a 200-300$ P4 in this case.

Now what I meant was that he could get something cheap like a celeron or even a lower end P4 for under 200$

I understand that benchmarks are not done on a 64bit OS because well Intel doesnt have a processer out the supports 64bit windows yet. I dont think you NEED a 64bit OS but thats what the processor was designed for and I would bet my bottom it performs better in a x64 enviroment. Im not an Intel freak either, my new computer will have a A8N mobo with SLI because I want to pickup two 6800 GTs and run them together. And everyone knows AMD is the better gamming processor, its simple... a intel processor takes up to 30% more power under a full workload. My intial post was purely to say that I wouldnt go AMD unless he wanted a 64 bit capable one... which I couldnt see why he would. I thought that ole Semprom was a peice of utter shit, I could find no benchmarks for it whatso ever.

SLI sucks, look up about ATI's crossfire, noticably more.. compatible.

and the sempron hes getting being an AMD64 with 64bit turned off, it doesnt necessarily have low performance.

Yea, me and PB talked about that.

SLI literally decreases performance for some games (over non SLI), just because they don't have the technology for it. Pretty sad.

No SLI dosent decrease performance for some games... the processers of today cannot work hard enough to give to top end Nvidia cards the ammount of data they need to be effiecent. I will agree that when two cards are configured in SLI mode but one is disabled that it will drop performance vs a single card in another machine. It was all over tomshardware guide... I havent heard anything about this crossfire configuration so I dont know. Either way I like the ATI cards better, its not that im SLI nuts but the idea seems cool. I would be willing to bet that two 300-400$ cards outperform the Geforce 6800 Ultra 512Mb version.