Processor Speed

[LMTC]

Since there seems to be a plethora of IT folks around at the moment I would like to try to take advantage of your collective knowledge & experience. I need to make a decision between two PCs.....one I will keep on my desk, one I will be giving to a local church (whose use will be primarily Word docs, one small Access db, and email). My primary usage is Office software, in particular Word, Excel, Access, and Powerpoint. Upon occasion I do some editing of audio files, but relatively simple stuff using Wavepad. No video editing, and I am not a gamer. I watch movies, email, and listen to mp3s with it as well. I will add RAM to the max (4GB) for whichever PC I keep; currently each has 2GB.

OK...the contenders.
An HP unit with an AMD Athlon 64x2 Dual Core processor 4200+ 2.20 GHz

A Dell Optiplex GX280, P4 hyperthread, 3.00 GHz

Comparable HDs and other features. The HP is running XP Media Center, version 2002, SP3, while the Dell is using XP Pro, version 2002, SP3. I have used the HP for a while and I have found it runs hotter than our other PCs. (compared to my other PCs...we have 4 in the office, 2 on my desk). The Dell just came to me, but I have three others exactly like it in a local church where I volunteer time to help with their PC needs (I'm good with software, but as this thread attests, my hardware knowledge is very limited). Those three Dells seem to me to run the Office software more quickly and fluidly than this HP dual core, but I have no way to document that perception.

I appreciate any experiential or data input about these two units.

 

[dmccarty]

Not sure if adding 4GBs is going to help you since you are running a client XP. Depending on who you believe XP is only going to see AROUND 3GB of memory even if you put in 4GBs. Some of the laptops I was looking at would ship with a maximum of 3GB if using XP.

I have a 64 bit Vista Quad core with 4GB of memory. I use it for photo processing which is a memory and CPU pig. With at least six browsers running, the photo software and a bit of this and that I have never seen the system go above 3 GB. Usually its around 2.0-2.5 GB.

For the work you are discribing 3GB should be enough.

Later,
Dan

 

[MossRoad]

That's a tough call. We're a Compaq/HP shop. We have maybe 50 of their servers and 350 of their desktops active. We also have about 50 of their laptops in the field. I'm personally responsible for the maintenance of these machines. We have another 200+ older units(3-10 years old in storage that still work). We get fine warranty service from HP, however, I can honestly say that we rarely use it. We have had maybe 2-3 units out of those 500+ machines that the motherboard has croaked on after 3-4 years of service, which was well out of warranty anyway. The rest still work fine. Hard drives croak. We had maybe a dozen in warranty over the years. We lose about 1 a month now. We used to lose about 1 a week several years ago. Hard drives are made by other manufacturers and used by many PC makers.

We do have a few Dell boxes. 4 old servers that have been rock solid. However, we have a half a dozen of their desktops that are in the scrap pile for various reasons. Also, at our kid's school we had about two dozen identical model desk tops that had un-identical parts inside. Three different NIC drivers and a couple different video drivers were required depending on the unit. That turned me off to them. However, I will say that those machines are over 5 years old, so maybe things have changed.

That being said, a machine that runs hot will probably not last as long. Maybe the hot runner is just doing a better job of evacuating the internal heat while the cooler feeling ones are just cooking internally (I said I am biased ).

 

[/pine]

If you really want the definitive answer the only way to find out is install the new memory and run some benchmarking software that tests under applied loads...

Crucial offers a free (for download) application that will determine how effective a memory upgrade will be to a particular system

There are some online benchmarking apps but they are not as accurate as those running on the native system.

 

[Mickey_Fx]

I have an HP that is very sim to the one you report. My CPU is a little slower a 3800 model.

Run (2) DVD drives, (2) HD's, all expansion slots are full & 3G of memory.

Running a util called core temp I'm seeing core temp of no more than 95ｰ F with just the browser putting an extra load on the cpu. My USP a 500va capacity model is reporting load of 32%. Air temp a couple inches aft of PS fan is within a couple degrees of room temp. Don't see a large rise in temp when doing video editing.

If you are running a lot hotter than this, you might want to start looking at source of heat.

 

[LMTC]

First, thank you to all of you for your responses.

When I say running hot, I am referring to internal temps as measured by SpeedFan.

I've been to Crucial to determine memory type; I wasn't aware that site could tell you how much improvement you would see from additional memory, so I will look there again.

I would love to find a site that would give me some benchmark measurements from each system.

I've been told (by the ubiquitous non-identifiable "they" ) that the true advantage of the dual core Athlon is in video apps, either editing video or playing games that are video-intense, and that the P4 HT is actually more effective for Office software. Any input on that?

 

[Scooby074]

Old processor thread detected......

Back in the day the AMD was a wicked processor.

I still have a P4 3.0 from that era. My friends ran the AMD's and were faster and cooler than my P4.

Did i mention that the P4 was one of the hottest processors made? It should be quite a bit hotter than the AMD, at least in my experience.

If it was me id go for the AMD assuming all other things were equal.

 

[Soundguy]

i'd say that dual core athlon may be a hair faster / better processor too.

soundguy

 

[2manyrocks]

If any of you are still looking at this thread, I could use some help with a sound editing problem. We video taped a children's choir back in the summer and just got the rough edit DVD back. During the performance, the choir was naturally loud enough to cover over one of the kids on the front row who was basically yelling and not singing.

On the DVD, it appears that one of the solo mics recorded the yeller too well.

The sound track for the DVD was a straight mono feed out of the mixer into the video tape unit. So we don't have separate tracks to pull this kid out of the mix.

Any help for this? Right now, we have a good video with a horrible soundtrack.

 

[MossRoad]

If any of you are still looking at this thread, I could use some help with a sound editing problem. We video taped a children's choir back in the summer and just got the rough edit DVD back. During the performance, the choir was naturally loud enough to cover over one of the kids on the front row who was basically yelling and not singing.

On the DVD, it appears that one of the solo mics recorded the yeller too well.

The sound track for the DVD was a straight mono feed out of the mixer into the video tape unit. So we don't have separate tracks to pull this kid out of the mix.

Any help for this? Right now, we have a good video with a horrible soundtrack.

If it was recorded with only one sound source, you are pretty much stuck with it, unless you want to pay someone with some pretty sophisticated expertise that can isolate the frequencies that the "yeller" is generating and then toning just those frequencies down. Kinda like an episode of CSI where they eliminate all the noise on the ransom call except for that engine rumble of the 1946 vintage tugboat that has been retrofitted with a 1972 caterpillar engine down at the docks!

 

[2manyrocks]

We don't have any budget to pay for that. It's all donated.

Maybe we'll add another audio track of the recorded track music onto the DVD and cut back on the audio level of the performance DVD except for the individual solo performances when the kid wasn't screaming along. We may have some sync issues here--

Or look for some close up footage of the kid screaming and make it into his own solo performance for the DVD.

Next post may be on the subject of resisting the impulse to wring a kid's neck.

 

[Soundguy]

That's why multi-track recording is so popular... all the tracks are preserved, and can be dealt with individually.

A guy with a pro-tools setup could help you.. but for a free job.. I think you are stuck.

next time, have the guiy on the sound mixer solo the 'tape out' or aux out line he is sending you.. and if one source is bad.. adjust it accordingly.. he's already doing it for the house.. not to hard to twist another knob in addition to the fader he's already tweaking.

soundguy

 

[2manyrocks]

We made several rookie mistakes. In the six years we've done this, we've never had any screamers before. We've had a kid or two go off key, but never any screamers. So we were totally caught off guard.

For the performance, we are using a community center that isn't set up for sound or lights. We use the community center because the performance has outgrown the church facilities--and it's a community kids choir anyway. Everything has to be hauled in for each performance. Some of these problems would have been discovered if we had recorded a rehearsal, but we're pressed for time as it is. The entire performance came together in one week. And we only had the community center on a limited basis for two of those days. In between those two days, we had to tear down and move out for a senior citizens dance.

The sound board operator should have muted the solo mikes except when a solo performer was using them. Then we wouldn't have recorded this kid in the front row so well. Or we should have put the solo mics off to one side of the choir.

For future use, is there an inexpensive way of doing a multitrack? What I have to work with right now is a PC with a M Audio 1212 two channel sound card, but I'm not so keen on hauling a PC around, too. Whatever we get will probably have to come out of my pocket.

 

[Soundguy]

setup and teardown daily is no big deal.. I setup and tear down my gigs daily.

cheap and easy? not really. Best bet is to have an attentive soundguy .. that's the 'easiest' way to handle this if you are just tracking it down to mono without using multi tracks.

other option is to use those 2 tracks as solo and group.. have the soloists go to one track... and everything else to the other.. thus you can control those hot solo mics that way. If someone has a laptop.. you can get a cheap usb audio adapter from behringer. a u-control / uca202.. 2 in / 2 out... cost less than 50 bucks.. comes with recording software to 2 track on hdd.. just about -ANY- windoes xp+ laptop will handle it.

soundguy

 

[2manyrocks]

Thanks. That is certainly inexpensive. Will a netbook with something like the 1.6 speed atom processor work for recording in this application or do I need a more powerful laptop with a faster processor?

Keep in mind that I do this about once a year. By the time the next year rolls around, it takes me a while to remember how it all connects.

 

[Soundguy]

here's the sys req right from the manual ( I have one of these on my laptop I carry to my gig to make quick 'test' burns.. etc.. )

PC req's

intel, or amd cpu, 400mhz or higher

minimum 128mb ram

usb 1.1 interface

windows xp or 2000

An intel atom.. I believe is sold as low as 1.6ghz / 533mhz bus. Even if it is about as half as slow as a celeron 220.. or somewhere around an athlon 64 single core.. I think it *beats* the 400mhz requirements that old 2006 usb audio hardware wants..

soundguy

 

[2manyrocks]

I just ordered a netbook and the audio interface.

If for nothing else besides curiosity, maybe I will try using the noise removal tool or compression in audacity to see if I can cut back on the screaming. There are also some filters in some of the video editing softwares, but I have no clue if they will help this or not.

Thanks very much for all the suggestions.

 

[Soundguy]

good luck.. I'd just group all the soloist mics on one side.. and everything else on the other.. that way using ballance controls you can bring out or bury the soloists.

soundguy

 

[2manyrocks]

The UCA 202 arrived today and I've just barely started trying it with a Dell mini 10. Behringer has free sound editing downloads on its webside for Audacity, Kristal audio engine and another one called energyXT 2.5.

I didn't have much luck editing the screaming in Audacity. It will let me reduce the overall volume of the entire audio track, but otherwise I haven't found anything else helpful with this specific problem.

Generally, what would be a good (cheap, too) sound editing program for future use to make a second audio source? Is there a relatively cheap program that might work on the screaming or is this strictly a job for something pricey like Protools?

 

[Soundguy]

yep.. audio editing is expensive if you want it to be featured. there are things like wavelab that give you some hands on controls, .. but mostly.. it is track volume... like I said.. put the soloists (screamers ) on one channel (left) and the rest on the other (right).. and then you can just turn down the screamers channels till needed.... 1 minute of handwork will preclude the need of hours of editing...

soundguy