Windows laptop computer question.

[RABid]

I think it is time for me to upgrade my 4+ year old laptop. It is a P4 1.7 maxed out with 384 meg of memory. I did not realize that my knowledge of processors is so outdated. I'm looking at an HP with a P4 3.6, 1 Gig of memory and 17" wide screen. But then I noticed the Intel Core Duo T2300 processors in other computers. These chips are rated slower but the "duo" makes me wonder, are they an upgrade to a P4? Am I better off with one of these new chips?

 

My budget is $1500 - $1700.

 

Robert

[JeffLearman]

The Centrino, while based on P3, is considerably faster than a P4 with the same MHz rate. It's the best way to go on a laptop, unless you consider the Athlon's premier laptop chip, which supposedly screams. The Centrino costs quite a bit extra but consumes far less power, meaning less fan noise (on a well-built laptop) and it's also faster than the other Intel chips.

 

However, I don't know about the dual core laptops. I don't remember seeing any when I was investigating for my wife's new laptop, which we got end of last year. I doubt they're cheap.

 

IIRC, Flavio mentioned something about taking advantage of dual processor architecture in n-Track. (Check the "new features" details on the download page.) If so, it probably means you could run nearly twice as many plugins before pegging the CPU meter. It shouldn't have any effect on number of tracks (w/o FX) or latency.

 

Happy hunting, and be sure to let us know what you end up with and how it works out.

 

For that budget, you can get a veritable screamer.

 

BTW, be sure to get the least possible memory built into the computer, and then upgrade using a reputable on-line memory dealer (be sure it's lifetime warranty, and get recommendations for a good company). If you go for 2GB, you'll save serious bux.

 

For example, for the computers I looked at, which included Sone, HP, IBM, Dell, and a couple others, the price difference between 256M and 1G systems was over $500, while a single 1GB chip only cost about $100 (leaving room for another GB chip later -- which the 1GB solution from the manufacturer would NOT do). Huge savings. It's a "non-nerd surcharge", and probably where most manufacturers make their real profits.

[soundscape]

Clock speed isn't directly related to performance--the Pentium 4 line was more or less engineered with the marketing goal of achieving the highest clock speed. Of course, heat/power consumption starts becoming a huge problem, so Intel have now backtracked. The Core Duo is more efficient than the P4 per clock cycle. And the Core Duo is a 'dual core' processor, basically two CPUs in one.

 

Originally posted by Rabid:

I'm looking at an HP with a P4 3.6, 1 Gig of memory and 17" wide screen.

The P4 was never designed for laptop use. What you end up with is a brick with poor battery life; Intel's laptop predecessor to the 'Core' line the Pentium M. The Pentium M is as much as twice the speed as the P4 per clock cycle; the 'Core' line is a development of the Pentium M.

 

No surprise then that the Core Duo laptops are, by all accounts, very fast, so I'd go with one. (Personally I'd go with a MacBook Pro, especially since they can, with a few hacks, run Windows XP! But that's just me.)

 

Here's some benchmarks:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=10

 

 

This said, huge considerations for laptop are hard drive performance, and for any computer, stocking up on RAM.

[ITGITC]

This article may help...

 

web page

[Loufrance]

Originally posted by Rabid:

I think it is time for me to upgrade my 4+ year old laptop. It is a P4 1.7 maxed out with 384 meg of memory. I did not realize that my knowledge of processors is so outdated. I'm looking at an HP with a P4 3.6, 1 Gig of memory and 17" wide screen. But then I noticed the Intel Core Duo T2300 processors in other computers. These chips are rated slower but the "duo" makes me wonder, are they an upgrade to a P4? Am I better off with one of these new chips?

 

My budget is $1500 - $1700.

 

Robert

Almost anything is an upgrade over the P4 (In terms of power consumption etc.)

Nowadays you CAN'T pay too much attention to the clock speeds, you have to understand the efficency of the chip.

 

The Intel Core duo is just a dual-core Pentium M chip, to know whether or not you should get a dual -core system over a single core Pentium M you have to figure out. If you run multiple programs at once then consisder it(also consisder the fact the laptops in your price range have ONE hard-drive)

If you don't run multiple programs at once very often just go with a faster Intel Pentium M single core chip.

 

Keep in mind though that a Pentium M (and most Athon 64 chips) consume MUCH much less power then a Pentium 4, If I were you I'd avoid P4's and keep in mind that I.E if you had a Pentium M and a Pentium 4 chip clocked at the same speed the Pentium M would be faster. Don't let seeing the Pentium M clocked at 1.7 or more GHZ put you off as compared to a 3.0 or whatever clocked Pentium 4. I must also point out one more issue, in most cases DDR2 IS NOT faster then DDR when DDR has tighter memory timeings. They fool most people because they think "wow they have DDR-2 now! that must be faster! )

 

If you have any other questions or need more info just ask.

 

-Loufrance

[Loufrance]

P.S no one will appear on your lap if you buy a "Centrino" laptop.

[soundscape]

Originally posted by learjeff:

IIRC, Flavio mentioned something about taking advantage of dual processor architecture in n-Track. (Check the "new features" details on the download page.) If so, it probably means you could run nearly twice as many plugins before pegging the CPU meter.

Some software simply can't take advantage of more than one CPU. Trying to keep things simple, one program (or to be specific, thread) can only run on one CPU at a time (since a program is a list of sequential instructions), but since most programs are effectively more than one program (they run more than one thread) they can be split up. However, there are some nasty cases. I have a 3D graphics program that does the rendering in one thread, so two processors is no gain over one. So it still takes all night to do a high quality render!

 

Since we use lots of plug-ins in audio software, they are multiple programs (threads) and should split up nicely among multiple CPUs. Probably not twice as many, but certainly lots more headroom.

 

Certainly Logic can use multiple CPUs on the Mac. And actually, via an Ethernet connection, Logic Pro can distribute the load among networked computers.

 

BTW, be sure to get the least possible memory built into the computer, and then upgrade using a reputable on-line memory dealer (be sure it's lifetime warranty, and get recommendations for a good company). (snip) It's a "non-nerd surcharge", and probably where most manufacturers make their real profits.

ROFL!

 

I'll go with that. Crucial (http://www.crucial.com/) seem to have a good reputation. Cheap/cr*p RAM=instability.

[ITGITC]

Of course, you will want to consider the hardware implications that Microsoft's newest operating system will require.

 

Here's yet another good article:

 

 

web page

 

 

I'm starting to purchase items to build my next PC, so I'm watching this very carefully.

 

Tom

[RABid]

Hey, thanks for all the good info. Now I am considering an HP nx9420 - Intel Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz Notebook.

 

Intel Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz, 1GB DDR2, 100GB, ATI Radeon X1600, 17" WSXGA+ BV, DVD+/-RW, 802.11a/b/g, Bluetooth, Gigabit, 56K Modem, Integrated Fingerprint/Smart Card Reader, Windows XP Professional

 

It is pushing the top end of my budget. I can do without the fingerprint/smart card reader but do not see something comprable without it. I do think Bluetooth may come in handy at some point. My current software locks me into Windows and I prefer XP Pro. Some time back I seem to remember reading that Sonar now supports dual processors. The laptop will be running Sonar, Acid, Live and Reason along with some VSTi's. What I really want is a careful configuartion that makes it easy to move projects from the laptop to my desktop PC. Luckily I have a couple of 300 Gig USB2/Firewire drives that will take the load off of the slow laptop HD. Battery life is not very important. Neither is size. I'm really looking for portable but powerful.

 

Robert

[soundscape]

Originally posted by Is There Gas in the Car?:

Here's yet another good article:

 

 

web page

Looks like the Mobility X1600 is fine with Vista. (PCI Express, DirectX 9 Shader Model 3.)

[JeffLearman]

Oops, sorry about the n-Track stuff -- forgot what board I was posting in (was paying more attention to the meeting I was in at work -- won't make that mistake again).

 

Audio work is a classic case where multiple processors can help (but as mentioned above, only if the program is written to take advantage of it). For example, when running more than one plugin (FX or instrument), the load should be distributed over the available processors -- assigning each plugin to one or the other in this case.

 

I don't know enough about the standards for plugins to know whether they're inherently individual threads or not, but I do know that it can be done that way.

 

So, find out about the key programs you use and see whether they're multi-processor friendly.

 

Intel Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz, 1GB DDR2, 100GB, ATI Radeon X1600, 17" WSXGA+ BV, DVD+/-RW, 802.11a/b/g, Bluetooth, Gigabit, 56K Modem, Integrated Fingerprint/Smart Card Reader, Windows XP Professional

How uch less does it cost with 256MB RAM? You'll pay the stupid tax if you buy it with 1GB built in. Don't believe me? Try the numbers. Not only will it save you money now, it'll save you later when you want to upgrade to 2GB.

 

Installing RAM is easy. Just make sure you get a wrist static strap. Your friendly neighborhood nerd is likely to have one, or send me a SASE and I'll send you one.

[RABid]

I have not seen an option to get this one with less than standardly configured memory. At least in this model the memory seems to be 1 chip instead of split between two chips.

 

I'm still looking but this is the model I will use as a basis.

[ITGITC]

Robert, I looked all over Cakewalk's web site but couldn't find a mention about it being optimized for duo core processors. There is a 64-bit version, however.

 

The last laptop I bought from Dell came with 256M RAM and I bought a 1 Gig module from Crucial.com to add to it. That saved me a pretty good amount of money. Two Gigs of RAM seems like a lot, but XP and Vista should run well with that much playspace.

[JeffLearman]

I think it's worth asking -- handling multiple processors might just be as simple as following the spec for DX, in which case they wouldn't have to do anything special.

 

(Does Cakewalk support VST? Too bad if it doesn't, there sure are a lot of nice VST plugins. But it has that "Steinberg" connection.)

[mildbill]

i wish i would have known about the P4 thing before i bought one a while ago.

 

it still has decent specs, but the damn thing overheats to the point of shutting down very impolitely all the time.

[Bill Heins]

Cakewalk Sonar has been optimized for dual processor and 64 bit systems...not that it doesn't run well on single processor rigs.

 

Sonar supports DX, DXi, VST, and VSTi, as well as Rewire

 

Darkon the Incandescent

[Mode_Fan]

If you're using it for music, dont make the mistake most people do, including myself the 1st time around.

 

Get a Mac, http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/6064003/wo/0E3meJSXs9v525Bv0nkRuazMO9X/2.?p=0

 

it's in your price range.

And if you don't you'll regret it later. trust me I worked in the PC industry for 10 years, until recently getting a job working on a Mac, I'll never go back, Unfortunately my new Laptop is Windows based, but definately not P4, or Intel for that matter. my next however will be a MAC.

[RABid]

If starting from scratch I would consider Mac. Right now I have way too much invested in a MS Windows desktop DAW and progrmas.

[JeffLearman]

Plenty of folks do just fine using a PC, and there's a lot more cheap and free software available for PC than Mac.

 

Furthermore, I spent some time at the GarageBand forum, and found the same kinds of problems and issues with Macs as with PCs. Of course, with fewer hardware options, there were fewer variables to consider when working problems out.

 

For a PC, it used to be that it was important to choose a MOBO chipset that is known to work well for audio. These days I think that the majority of the MOBO problems are behind us. However, Intel MOBO chipsets are usually the best to get because soundcard manufacturers do the most testing with Intel MOBO chipsets.

 

The best bet with PC is to get something that works well for others. Go to homerecording.com and ask around for more info on this.

[Loufrance]

Originally posted by Is There Gas in the Car?:

Of course, you will want to consider the hardware implications that Microsoft's newest operating system will require.

 

Here's yet another good article:

 

 

web page

 

 

I'm starting to purchase items to build my next PC, so I'm watching this very carefully.

 

Tom

LOL! No offense but do you know how many times Vista has been delayed? and even when it does come out it's best to wait until service pack 1(Unless M$ gets it right the first time .

[ITGITC]

Originally posted by Loufrance:

LOL! No offense but do you know how many times Vista has been delayed? and even when it does come out it's best to wait until service pack 1(Unless M$ gets it right the first time .

No offense taken.

 

However, it doesn't matter how long Vista is delayed, it will still be extremely important for those who are considering which components to choose in building a PC. Everything builds upon the operating system foundation. Therefore, if the recommendations include 2 Gig of RAM and a discrete video card, that's important to know.

 

Also, if SONAR is optimized for dual-core processors, I surely couldn't find it on their web site. One would think it would be all over their marketing literature. EDIT! I stand corrected. I found new information in their brochure here: web page

 

And if applications are not already optimized for the new dual-core processors, they will be soon. The benefits are very real. web page

[soundscape]

Originally posted by Loufrance:

LOL! No offense but do you know how many times Vista has been delayed? and even when it does come out it's best to wait until service pack 1(Unless M$ gets it right the first time .

Vista is a major release. It's more like Windows 3.1->Windows 95 than Windows 95->Windows 98 or Windows 2000-> Windows XP.

 

It has a lot great new technologies, I have no doubt it'll be an enormous improvement over XP.

[keynote]

Everybody is talking processor speed and which chip is best, but another thing you should keep in mind is the Hard Drive. Most Laptops sold today have Hard Drives with spindle speeds of either 4200 or 5400 RPM. If you are going to use any type of audio recording software you may want to consider getting a Laptop that has a faster 7200 RPM Hard Drive installed. Or if you do get one with a slower Hard Drive you could theoretically swap it out for a faster 7200 RPM drive. That is, if you don't mind spending more money for a faster drive and you don't mind getting your hands dirty swaping it out yourself, because you would spend even more money if you have someone do it for you.

 

Chip processor speed and RAM speed is just part of the equation. Hard Drive speed should be right up there with the rest of those considerations, especially if you are using it for audio recording.

[JeffLearman]

Good point keynote, if you'll be doing more than a dozen or so tracks. Even 4500 RPM is fine for relatively simple projects. (I know because I did it).

 

But I doubt you'll be sorry if you go for the 7200 RPM drive.

 

Also, simpler video is better. Avoid a system that emphasizes super hot video. On the other hand, it is very nice to be able to drive laptop and external monitor at the same time -- you can find plenty of use for that extra screen space.