Multicore CPUs & their desktop boards: Any risk to high def audio quality?

jkff

New Member
With the end of the Window XP security updates, among other factors,
I needed to take some time to replace my ancient tower pc, possibly with one that runs either an Intel Ivy Bridge 4 or 8 core or the latest Haswell 4 core processor.

To minimize fan and/or electrical noise, the better choice appears to be the low power versions of the Ivy Bridge processor family
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#Xeon_E5-2xxx_v2_.28dual-processor.29 )
E5-2630 v2 (6 core, 2.6GHz, LGA2011 socket, 80w), E5-2630L v2 (6 core, 2.4GHz, LGA2011 socket, 60w), E5-2428L v2 (8 core, 1.8GHz, LGA1356 socket, 60w)-or the new Haswell processor family.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#.22Haswell.22_.2822_nm.29 ) E3-1285L v3 (4 core, 3.1GHz, LGA1150 socket, 65w)

and

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Haswell_(microarchitecture)#Desktop_processors ) i7-4770S(4 core, 3.1GHz, LGA1150 socket, 65w), and i7-4770R(4 core, 3.2GHz, LGA1150 socket, 65w).

Needless to say, my chief priority will always be audio signal quality (i.e. editing of uncompressed wav files of music CD tracks for playback via USB or a balanced AES card feeding a high performance external DAC). But I also would like to eventually use this computer for DVD as well as more demanding BluRay movie disc editing.

Though presently having no hands on experience and minimal knowledge
of computer video editing, I do know that the most time consuming phase
of the process is recompression of the edited video back into the BluRay movie disc format. Depending on the software and hardware resources, recompression could take anywhere from 45 minutes to well over 90 minutes.

So I thought that a new pc with one of the above six or eight core model processors and 16GB of RAM, together with the right software apps, might significantly reduce BD compression time-perhaps to as little as 30 minutes.

Again, however, my primary concern is audio quality. Therefore, compared to the ubiquitous dual core processors, could using four, six or eight core Ivy Bridge or the new Haswell four core processors somehow pose any degree of risk to audio quality, in one or more ways?

And, of course, of particular interest would be any related incidents involving any of the specific (low power) processors listed above, and/or desktop boards they were used in.

Before I make this computer purchase, any advice or referrals would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
 
Go linux on your old machine

OR

go new.

64 bit is better because it handles more ram efficently.

New boards are great for having obnboard HD audio at least. Mine is capable of 7.1 without using GPU ( media ram only )

Check out Ubuntu Server http://www.ubuntu.com/server

Its all free; in cost and intellectual property, safe, and secure.
 
Last edited:
In answer to your question regarding the multicore processors you listed, no, audio quality could not possibly be negativly affected by any of those. Embrace the the new CPU speed. :thmbsp:
 
In answer to your question regarding the multicore processors you listed, no, audio quality could not possibly be negativly affected by any of those. Embrace the the new CPU speed. :thmbsp:

This. If you're worried about noise via the motherboard, I'd highly recommend looking into a dedicated Sound Card, or even a USB DAC to resolve the issues may run into with onboard audio.
 
..................Therefore, compared to the ubiquitous dual core processors, could using four, six or eight core Ivy Bridge or the new Haswell four core processors somehow pose any degree of risk to audio quality, in one or more ways?

......................

Before I make this computer purchase, any advice or referrals would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
No.

There are only a handful of applications that can/do actually take advantage of multicore processors. Most, if not all of them deal primarily with 3D design, video and/or photo editing. If that's in your wheelhouse and you have (will acquire) the necessary multi-thread capable applications...then go for it. Your audio will live and prosper just fine amongst all those cores regardless. :yes:
 
Last edited:
Your biggest friend is going to be lots and lots of very fast ram and perhaps a big solid state hard drive.

It's been 2 or three years since I built my home PC but I'm sure RAM has moved forward a bit since then.

I think there are a lot of MBs out there now that will run 32 and 64 G Bytes of ram.

I'm using the 16GB version of these guys with a 4 core 3.4 Ghz Intel i7 , Non overclocked, and it is runs very smoothly. The larger types would probably be helpful with huge audio and video files.

http://www.corsair.com/en-gb/memory/vengeance
 
I would be more concerned with the noise all smps make. a multi-core cpu operates in the ghz range well above the human hearing point.
 
Put there as much memory as you can. This will make a real difference. Add at least 500G solid state disk. This will make another huge difference. I suggest separate SSD for boot and most work, and then two 4TB disks in mirrored pair to keep all data. Most image and video processing will use multi core CPU. Even ripping CD or SACD will use multiple cores while compressing file to FLAC or whatever. Four cores usually is enough.
 
gigabyte makes a couple motherboards with audio enthusiast friendly features

such as this new G1.sniper Z97 board.

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4952#ov


it has a number of things listed for the audio minded.. swappable opamps and a dedicated low noise /clean power usb port designed with USB DAC's in mind.


if anything fast multicore cpu's and a bunch of ram should help by having a ton of horse power to avoid bogging down while doing playback (in fairness any fairly modern cpu shouldn't bog down doing this) but if you are using the computer (multitasking or whatnot.)

It is next to impossible to bog my i7-4770K out.. doing any real world activity ..
 
Put there as much memory as you can. This will make a real difference. Add at least 500G solid state disk. This will make another huge difference.

Stay as far away from solid state drives whenever possible.

1.) They fail,,, A LOT!!
2.) They are NON RECOVERABLE
3.) They dont like to be partitioned.
4.) They are faster than 99.9% of people really need.
&
5.) NASA, Fermilab and CERN wont even use them for their calculations (re #1-4)

Just get a decient motherboard, with ample RAM (DDR3 is best now).

Your OS will make the biggest difference. Windows is slower than Linux. Plainly said...
Look into something like Linux Mint. It is media ready and smart as all hounds of hell.

if anything fast multicore cpu's and a bunch of ram should help by having a ton of horse power to avoid bogging down while doing playback (in fairness any fairly modern cpu shouldn't bog down doing this) but if you are using the computer (multitasking or whatnot.)

It is next to impossible to bog my i7-4770K out.. doing any real world activity ..


intels are generally 32 bit, which means they cant handle large RAM requests. 64 bit processors are almost limitless when it comes to piling on "usable" RAM.

AMD All The Way ! ! !
 
Last edited:
I dunno where you got your info, but there's a lot of it that is just plain wrong. If another 'puter savvy AK'er would like to dissect your post, I'll let 'em have at it. I got work to do or I'd do a point-by-point.
 
Stay as far away from solid state drives whenever possible.

1.) They fail,,, A LOT!!
2.) They are NON RECOVERABLE
3.) They dont like to be partitioned.
4.) They are faster than 99.9% of people really need.
&
5.) NASA, Fermilab and CERN wont even use them for their calculations (re #1-4)

Just get a decient motherboard, with ample RAM (DDR3 is best now).

Your OS will make the biggest difference. Windows is slower than Linux. Plainly said...
Look into something like Linux Mint. It is media ready and smart as all hounds of hell.




intels are generally 32 bit, which means they cant handle large RAM requests. 64 bit processors are almost limitless when it comes to piling on "usable" RAM.

AMD All The Way ! ! !

please don't take this the wrong way but have you been in some sort of Cryostasis for a number of years?? :scratch2:

?????? there was some FUD when SSD's came out but they are reliable and they are fast... and better yet if using them in an audio setup they are silent. Shortly after the introduction of SSD's improvements to wear leveling and garbage collection began appearing increasing SSD longevity and endurance.

sure all hard drives will fail eventually so having some sort of disaster recovery plan is key .. backups are necessary (or smart at least) for mechanical hard drives or SSD's.

I would encourage you to go look around some remotely recent SSD articles and reviews before spreading such arcane FUD from the gen one days of SSDs.



as far as the 32bit thing???? Intel has 64bit desktop processors since 2004 .. since Pentium F soooo yeah.. that is completely outdated and inaccurate information.
 
Last edited:
LOL While I am not a huge believer is ssd's for an audio device, dennismbird's post is pure FUD.
I use ssd's in production equipment all the time and have not had any failure rates greater than hdd's. As for the 32bit processors thing, holy cow get with the times man. My DB server has 256GB ram and Intel processors and it does fine LOL.
 
NP; Hey go solid state if you want.

SSDs are like recharge batgeries. There's only a finite number of RW / IO actions before they quit. then your information is GONE. not simply unreadable, but garbage.

And as for incorrect, I'll switch to SSD as soon as CERN does. Proper RAM will always outstage HDD space; It will pre stage / pre pull information just like ancient swap partitions.

Till then, if you want a faster and quieter computer. Ditch MAC and Windows and get the stones to go linux. Proven to be quieter and more efficent, in EVERY way.

I have decades older hardware which still outperforms modern Windows 8 machines.
( for AV situations ) One can even 3D game on an Athalon II from the early 2000's.
 
As for the 32bit processors thing, holy cow get with the times man. My DB server has 256GB ram and Intel processors and it does fine LOL.

Just because you cram cards into your RAM slots doesn't mean you can access packets which are large enough to be usefull on Mass.

And of course a DB server will handle greater RAM requests. How many people actually run a Data Base Server to play audio. Thats like using a Ferrari to get groceries. Kinda overkill, no?
 
NP; Hey go solid state if you want.

SSDs are like recharge batgeries. There's only a finite number of RW / IO actions before they quit. then your information is GONE. not simply unreadable, but garbage.

And as for incorrect, I'll switch to SSD as soon as CERN does. Proper RAM will always outstage HDD space; It will pre stage / pre pull information just like ancient swap partitions.

Till then, if you want a faster and quieter computer. Ditch MAC and Windows and get the stones to go linux. Proven to be quieter and more efficent, in EVERY way.

I have decades older hardware which still outperforms modern Windows 8 machines.
( for AV situations ) One can even 3D game on an Athalon II from the early 2000's.

Maybe prebuilt machines from OEMs, but I can promise you a properly built custom PC will have 0 issues with Windows 8. I've been on 8 with my machine and it outperforms just about any computer I've used yet.

For the average user, 10+ years of writes out of an SSD is completely feasible, and by that time, you'll probably be looking into a new computer/storage solution in the first place. Considering a lot of regular HDDs barely last 5 years for a lot of people, SSDs are by FAR a better solution, and the speed is unparalled. Also, if you don't have proper backups and you're keeping all your information on one drive, you're doing it wrong.

And as far as gaming on an Athlon II, maybe games FROM 2000, but anything new won't run even remotely well on it.
 
my head hurts now...

blah blah blah ... please utilize the search engine of your choosing to search "SSD Longevity"

which should clearly show you, for typical desktop workloads your finite RW concerns are total nonsense.. you are correct you can only rewrite the cells so much before they go..

but that is why there is wear leveling and over-provisioning


now how about you Precious 7200rpm mechanical disk.. that is right metal platers spinning on bearings with a electric motor and read/write heads with micron level clearences.. what could possibly go wrong??


oh but no worries as you have a iso 5 certified cleanroom to recover your data when you have a headcrash??

everyone for laughs do some checking on datarecovery prices for mechanical hard drives with mechanical failure / physical damage..then debate if your would pay that to recover your pictures of your cats and or get your .flac encoded Lynyrd Skynyrd back.

whatever .. yes drives fail.. that is why anyone with any sense has important stuff backed up (ideally off site or in a fireproof safe at least).

say i make a perfect drive than will run for ever... no need to worry about data back up... next day my house burglarized - drive stolen (happily it was encrypted so the fiends shall never view my adorable videos of my cat)...NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
 
Just because you cram cards into your RAM slots doesn't mean you can access packets which are large enough to be usefull on Mass.

And of course a DB server will handle greater RAM requests. How many people actually run a Data Base Server to play audio. Thats like using a Ferrari to get groceries. Kinda overkill, no?

I really don't understand what you are trying to say in the first part of your post, it is gibberish.

As for the second point, way to try and deflect the issue. You implied that Intel processors use a 32 bit bus to access memory. A fact that has not been true for over 2 decades. As an example I cited an instance of an Intel processor using a large amount of ram. The fact that it is a DB server is not really relevant and I am sorry you got confused by that detail. In 1995 Intel introduced the Pentium Pro with a 36 bit memory bus allowing it to access 64GB of data. 2003 Intel went 64 bit addressing completely. FWIW both the Atari Jaguar and the Nintendo 64 had 64 bit processors on the early 90's
 
Back
Top Bottom