GaryWalker
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 144
- Joined: 2004/12/02 08:32:00
- Location: Hertfordshire, England
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/27 17:29:37
(permalink)
GaryWalker
derFunkenstein
GaryWalker
That said, I fear that while my current install of Sonar 8.5 LE works like a charm on my five year old Athlon 64 3200 single core machine, Sonar X1 will "choke". Bearing this in mind, would I need to replace the machine to run the "Essential" edition of Sonar X1?
That depends on the motherboard. Is that a Socket AM2 3200 or a 939/754? If it's an AM2 motherboard and if the board has had BIOS updates to support Phenom/Phenom II CPUs you could probably get off as cheaply as $100 for an Athlon II X4 at 2.9GHz or so. This is the CPU I'm using with 8.5.3 Producer and it runs great for what I do. So the answer is a definite "maybe".
It's a S939 board, so will upgrade to an Athlon 64 x2 4600 - will this have enough "juice", I wonder?
Good news - Sonar X1 (with patch A) runs like a charm on my older S939-based machine with my existing projects. Admittedly my project tend to be on around 16 audio tracks with a few plugins. I'm a very happy bunny...
Cheers, Gary. Current configuration: Core i3 Laptop / 8GB RAM; Sonar Platinum (replaced with REAPER); Roland Quad Capture interface; Alesis Micron; Roland XP30; Akai Mini MPK; Akai S2000
|
planetearth
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 763
- Joined: 2004/12/26 14:22:32
- Location: Tampa, FL
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/27 22:56:25
(permalink)
GaryWalker
GaryWalker
derFunkenstein
GaryWalker
That said, I fear that while my current install of Sonar 8.5 LE works like a charm on my five year old Athlon 64 3200 single core machine, Sonar X1 will "choke". Bearing this in mind, would I need to replace the machine to run the "Essential" edition of Sonar X1?
That depends on the motherboard. Is that a Socket AM2 3200 or a 939/754? If it's an AM2 motherboard and if the board has had BIOS updates to support Phenom/Phenom II CPUs you could probably get off as cheaply as $100 for an Athlon II X4 at 2.9GHz or so. This is the CPU I'm using with 8.5.3 Producer and it runs great for what I do. So the answer is a definite "maybe".
It's a S939 board, so will upgrade to an Athlon 64 x2 4600 - will this have enough "juice", I wonder?
Good news - Sonar X1 (with patch A) runs like a charm on my older S939-based machine with my existing projects. Admittedly my project tend to be on around 16 audio tracks with a few plugins.
I'm a very happy bunny...
Just because you have a 939-socket motherboard, that doesn't necessarily mean you can drop the top-of-the-line Athlon X2 processor into it. All 939 mobos aren't the same, and even with a BIOS update, you may only be able to upgrade so far. Your mobo may not support the type of RAM a high-end CPU should have, and there may be voltage-related issues, too. Two years ago, I updated my BIOS and replaced the original, single-core 2200+ CPU with a dual-core 3200+. It works well for SHS 6 (considerably better than the single-core CPU did), but I couldn't get the top-of-the-line CPU because of my motherboard. It's a 939 socket, but there are two types; you'll want to check AMD's Website to see what your options are. You can't easily find AMD dual-core CPUs slower than a 3600 right now, so it may be difficult to compare your existing CPU architecture to the new one you'd like to put onto the motherboard. Unfortunately, unless you're sure the mobo will support the new CPU, you could just be wasting your money--and a lot of time and effort. Steve
SONAR Platinum ▪ NI Komplete, Korg DLC, Arturia V5 Collection, Dimension Pro, IK Multimedia & other synths ▪ Les Paul, Peavey and Yamaha guitars. Listen to some of my stuff here: https://soundcloud.com/shadowsoflife . Comments from other SONAR users are always welcome!
|
seedmuse1
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3
- Joined: 2009/05/03 08:53:20
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/28 09:33:31
(permalink)
Susan G,
Wanted to reply to you asap. I downloaded the upgrade last night and ran it for the first time this morning. I've followed your work trying to get Cakewalk to upgrade their notation facilities and appreciated the advice re: How To MIDI-OX Finale and Sonar?
I have, at least by this current forum's standard an ancient machine:
Intel D915GEV Socket 775 Motherboard
Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.20GHz
Memory 2x1024 533MHz DDR Corsair Total: 2046MB
Hard Drive C:500 D:500 E:500 Total:1500GB 7200RPM
ATI Radeon X1950 Series 256MB (pci express slot)
Samsung SyncMaster, 20.2" Monitor
Windows XP Pro Service Pack 3
Audigy pci slot
RME pci slot: Multiface (first generation)
Zalman 500W PSU
Zalman VF900 GPU cooler
Zalman CNPS9500
Antec Sonata II ATX Case
(Sorry about the excessive detail.) Its quiet, it works and I take care of it. For my needs, until I find I will need more it is enough. I use it every day to write and record professional demos and finished recordings. Granted, my needs are relatively modest, but with some creative juggling, the limitations of the machine have only been an asset.
A typical session for me will be 8 - 10 tracks of audio all with Waves Renaissance EQ and Comp or PSP MicroWarmer, Kontact running with 2 - 4 tracks of midi, rgc:audio sfz 2 - 4 tracks, 3 Mix busses, 1 Lexicon Native Reverb buss and a Master with some flavor of EQ and Comp. I usually write the midi tracks to audio before the final mixdown to eq and comp to taste.
Anyway, on to your question. X1 is absolutely beautiful and runs very smoothly! Even the notation is nicer to look at regardless of the lack of upgrade in that department. The $99 is an absolute give away just to be able to use a tool that is nicer to look at and more streamlined than ever. First "wow factor" impressions are the Multitool and the Screensets.
My recommendation is to get the credit card out and enjoy it today.
- Matthew
|
GaryWalker
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 144
- Joined: 2004/12/02 08:32:00
- Location: Hertfordshire, England
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/28 11:10:54
(permalink)
planetearth
GaryWalker
GaryWalker
derFunkenstein
GaryWalker
That said, I fear that while my current install of Sonar 8.5 LE works like a charm on my five year old Athlon 64 3200 single core machine, Sonar X1 will "choke". Bearing this in mind, would I need to replace the machine to run the "Essential" edition of Sonar X1?
That depends on the motherboard. Is that a Socket AM2 3200 or a 939/754? If it's an AM2 motherboard and if the board has had BIOS updates to support Phenom/Phenom II CPUs you could probably get off as cheaply as $100 for an Athlon II X4 at 2.9GHz or so. This is the CPU I'm using with 8.5.3 Producer and it runs great for what I do. So the answer is a definite "maybe".
It's a S939 board, so will upgrade to an Athlon 64 x2 4600 - will this have enough "juice", I wonder?
Good news - Sonar X1 (with patch A) runs like a charm on my older S939-based machine with my existing projects. Admittedly my project tend to be on around 16 audio tracks with a few plugins.
I'm a very happy bunny...
Just because you have a 939-socket motherboard, that doesn't necessarily mean you can drop the top-of-the-line Athlon X2 processor into it. All 939 mobos aren't the same, and even with a BIOS update, you may only be able to upgrade so far. Your mobo may not support the type of RAM a high-end CPU should have, and there may be voltage-related issues, too.
Two years ago, I updated my BIOS and replaced the original, single-core 2200+ CPU with a dual-core 3200+. It works well for SHS 6 (considerably better than the single-core CPU did), but I couldn't get the top-of-the-line CPU because of my motherboard. It's a 939 socket, but there are two types; you'll want to check AMD's Website to see what your options are.
You can't easily find AMD dual-core CPUs slower than a 3600 right now, so it may be difficult to compare your existing CPU architecture to the new one you'd like to put onto the motherboard. Unfortunately, unless you're sure the mobo will support the new CPU, you could just be wasting your money--and a lot of time and effort.
Steve
Hi Steve, I haven''t upgraded the CPU, and that's the point (although I may have muddied the waters including my quoted post from before). Sonar X1 is more CPU efficient with my existing setup (see sig.) than 8.5 LE was, even with the same (now unsupported) single-core CPU I have now.
Cheers, Gary. Current configuration: Core i3 Laptop / 8GB RAM; Sonar Platinum (replaced with REAPER); Roland Quad Capture interface; Alesis Micron; Roland XP30; Akai Mini MPK; Akai S2000
|
planetearth
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 763
- Joined: 2004/12/26 14:22:32
- Location: Tampa, FL
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/28 14:07:36
(permalink)
Ah, well that's good news then, Gary.
From what I'm seeing in these posts, many people aren't having any serious problems with performance after upgrading--in fact, several have reported overall improvements. It does seem odd since Cakewalk hasn't stressed that they've "overhauled" the audio engine (though I know they tweaked it a bit), but it's welcome news, anyway.
I was just throwing in my 2¢ to let those with 939 sockets know that they may not be able to go as far as they'd like with an upgrade. Then again, if you don't really even need one, it's even better.
Steve
SONAR Platinum ▪ NI Komplete, Korg DLC, Arturia V5 Collection, Dimension Pro, IK Multimedia & other synths ▪ Les Paul, Peavey and Yamaha guitars. Listen to some of my stuff here: https://soundcloud.com/shadowsoflife . Comments from other SONAR users are always welcome!
|
StarTekh
Max Output Level: -55 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2007
- Joined: 2004/03/09 12:02:20
- Location: Montreal
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/28 14:19:39
(permalink)
Susan G
Hi-
The processor requirement for X1 is posted as Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 2.67 GHz/AMD Phenom Quad Core 9750 2.4 Ghz. I have an Intel Core 2 Duo 6300 @1.86 GHz processor, so I won't be able to run X1, correct?
It doesn't say if that's minimum or recommended here.
Thanks-
-Susan
>> Susan .. it will runn .. you might not be able to run.. >> big projects though.. if you tell me the make and.. >> model of your motherboard, i could tell you CPU >> options.. and for the record X1 has not glitch'd once >> here.. and is a total pleasure to work in.. jon
|
Ham N Egz
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 15161
- Joined: 2005/01/21 14:27:49
- Location: Arpadhon
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/28 18:30:18
(permalink)
I had the same concerns as Susan and Billy. I have a core 2 duo 2.13 running WinXP pro 32 bit
Sonar 8.5 ran Ok , I do get some crackle with X1 unless I freeze tracks and unload synths.
I was thinking about upgrading to a Conroe 2.67 or a quad core 2.4.. they are both about the same price.
I tried overclocking the 2.13 to 2.4 and had too many issues.
Green Acres is the place to be I dont twitter, facebook, snapchat, instagram,linkedin,tumble,pinterest,flick, blah blah,lets have an old fashioned conversation!
|
StarTekh
Max Output Level: -55 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2007
- Joined: 2004/03/09 12:02:20
- Location: Montreal
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/28 19:25:25
(permalink)
musicman100
I had the same concerns as Susan and Billy. I have a core 2 duo 2.13 running WinXP pro 32 bit
Sonar 8.5 ran Ok , I do get some crackle with X1 unless I freeze tracks and unload synths.
I was thinking about upgrading to a Conroe 2.67 or a quad core 2.4.. they are both about the same price.
I tried overclocking the 2.13 to 2.4 and had too many issues.
>> post the make and model of your motherboard and il >> show you bios and cpu options....!! and X1 .. my cpu >> usage near dropd in 1/2..jon
|
S.Wallis
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 269
- Joined: 2010/08/22 17:37:41
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/28 19:59:10
(permalink)
I havn't read the whole discussion yet, so i apoligise if someone has the same specs as me and said it works ok, but i have a core 2 duo E5200 2.5GHz CPU and X1 actually runs better than 8.5 did. Not that i had any problems with 8.5, but i've noticed with X1 i can keep adding VSTs without having to freeze tracks, or raise the buffer size. However, i do have 3GB of RAM (still the same i had for 8.5), and Sonar recommends just 2 GIG minimum, so maybe my extra GIG helps to smooth things out, i don't know. I don't know if it works like that. But i've also got 2 large(ish) hard drives that are both more empty than full (which i do know makes a difference). A recent magazine review (Computer Music Magazine) said they we're using a duel core 2.4 GHz CPU and could run up to 30 tracks with Pro Channels (including compression, all eq bands activated, and tube saturation without any drop outs or problems. I think there's been chenges under the hood to make the most out of duel core CPUs with this upgrade aswell. Which might explain why i can run move VSTs before having to raise the buffer size.
post edited by S.Wallis - 2010/12/30 15:29:36
|
Ham N Egz
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 15161
- Joined: 2005/01/21 14:27:49
- Location: Arpadhon
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/28 20:09:30
(permalink)
StarTekh
musicman100
I had the same concerns as Susan and Billy. I have a core 2 duo 2.13 running WinXP pro 32 bit
Sonar 8.5 ran Ok , I do get some crackle with X1 unless I freeze tracks and unload synths.
I was thinking about upgrading to a Conroe 2.67 or a quad core 2.4.. they are both about the same price.
I tried overclocking the 2.13 to 2.4 and had too many issues.
>> post the make and model of your motherboard and il
>> show you bios and cpu options....!! and X1 .. my cpu
>> usage near dropd in 1/2..jon
Jon thank you for the offer, its a dell xps410 so it limited the MB model is a dell OWG855 based on the P965 chipset 1066 FSB i have flashed the Dell Bios to 2.5.3 according to the dell users forum there is a laundry list of processors I can choose from the fastest ones seem to be the following KU345 Conroe E6600, 2.40G, 4MB, 1066FSB, B2 PN416 Conroe E6700, 2.66G, 4MB, 1066FSB, B2 WM543 Conroe XE X6800, 2.93G, 4MB, 1066FSB, B2 HU585 Kentsfield Quad Core Q6600, 2.40G, 8MB, 1066FSB, B30 MP626 Kentsfield Quad Core Q6600, 2.40G, 8MB, 1066FSB, G0 i would only be stepping up a little in speed if I went with the quad cores, vs the E6700 core 2 duo does this information coincide with yours ?
Green Acres is the place to be I dont twitter, facebook, snapchat, instagram,linkedin,tumble,pinterest,flick, blah blah,lets have an old fashioned conversation!
|
StarTekh
Max Output Level: -55 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2007
- Joined: 2004/03/09 12:02:20
- Location: Montreal
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/28 22:15:17
(permalink)
musicman100
StarTekh
musicman100
I had the same concerns as Susan and Billy. I have a core 2 duo 2.13 running WinXP pro 32 bit
Sonar 8.5 ran Ok , I do get some crackle with X1 unless I freeze tracks and unload synths.
I was thinking about upgrading to a Conroe 2.67 or a quad core 2.4.. they are both about the same price.
I tried overclocking the 2.13 to 2.4 and had too many issues.
>> post the make and model of your motherboard and il
>> show you bios and cpu options....!! and X1 .. my cpu
>> usage near dropd in 1/2..jon
Jon thank you for the offer, its a dell xps410 so it limited the MB model is a dell OWG855 based on the P965 chipset 1066 FSB
i have flashed the Dell Bios to 2.5.3
according to the dell users forum there is a laundry list of processors I can choose from the fastest ones seem to be
the following
KU345 Conroe E6600, 2.40G, 4MB, 1066FSB, B2
PN416 Conroe E6700, 2.66G, 4MB, 1066FSB, B2
WM543 Conroe XE X6800, 2.93G, 4MB, 1066FSB, B2
HU585 Kentsfield Quad Core Q6600, 2.40G, 8MB, 1066FSB, B30
MP626 Kentsfield Quad Core Q6600, 2.40G, 8MB, 1066FSB, G0
i would only be stepping up a little in speed if I went with the quad cores, vs the E6700 core 2 duo
does this information coincide with yours ?
S.Wallis
I havn't read the whole discussion yet, so i apoligise if someone has the same specs as me and said it works ok, but i have a core 2 duo E5200 2.5GHz CPU and X1 actually runs better than 8.5 did. Not that i had any problems with 8.5, but i've noticed with X1 i can keep adding VSTs without having to freeze tracks, or raise the buffer size.
However, i do have 3GB of RAM (still the same i had for 8.5), and Sonar recommends just 2 GIG minimum, so maybe my extra GIG helps to smooth things out, i don't know. I don't know if it works like that. But i've also got 2 large(ish) hard drives that are both more empty than full (which i do know makes a difference).
A recent magazine review (Computer Music Magazine) said they we're using a duel core 2.5 GHz CPU and could run 20 something (i'll edit when i check) tracks with Pro Channels without any problems.
I think there's been chenges under the hood to make the most out of duel core CPUs with this upgrade aswell. Which might explain why i can run move VSTs before having to raise the buffer size.
>> even a used Q6600 would be far better bout 75.00 >> I dont overclock, but that processor o/c's well..Go >> stepping.. should you require a new system.... >> workstation feel free to ask ..jon
|
Divinit
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 75
- Joined: 2003/11/14 16:27:17
- Location: Texas
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/29 00:32:01
(permalink)
I don't have the suggested requirements, but it's running quite nicely, even though mine is just a dual core 2.2ghz processor.
They probably say that because so many folks still use consumer PC's and leave all the bloatware on them. I strip it down and have a dual boot, one of which is totally dedicated to SONAR and music applications.
I think you'll be fine with a lesser machine, but hey, why not use it for an excuse to upgrade? Works for me!!
Best of luck!
When one is doing the process of self-analysis, One should make sure that the Self that is doing the analysis is, in fact, sane. Sonar X3 (always patched to current) Win7X64 8gb RAM Quad Core AMD 3.6mhz TASCAM USB interface EMU 1616m PCIe interface w/breakout Rapture, Dimension Pro, Studio Instruments, Zeta 2, tons more of Cakewalk's software Tons of IK, NI Camel Audio and other softsynths, plugins M-Audio Keystation Pro 88
|
SoundBank
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 150
- Joined: 2007/10/28 02:39:18
- Location: West Kelowna
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/29 00:53:23
(permalink)
Intel Core2 Duo T5250 @ 1.5GHz 1.5Ghz
Windows 7
4.00 GB RAM
32 Bit operating system
Way below Requirements.
Have X1 installed and it seems fine.
I have only used 5 tracks at once, so far, but it runs fine.
|
rscain
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 784
- Joined: 2004/03/23 09:52:29
- Location: Kentucky
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/29 02:40:21
(permalink)
Probably a little late to be jumping in here, but what the hey... My pc is comparitivly ancient, it's a Pentium 4 @ 3gHz w/4 GB of RAM I'm running X1 and it's working well for me....kind of. If I want to use the Pro Channel on more than 2 tracks I have to freeze some tracks, but that's really no biggie for me, I just freeze Session Drummer and any other midi tracks I'm using and go on with it.... Of course most of my stuff is no more than 12-16 tracks and mostly audio, maybe a little True Piano or Dim Pro... But, I have to admit I've spent a lot of time online the last few days shopping for a new pc, heh.
post edited by rscain - 2010/12/29 02:41:25
My Tunes On SoundClick AMD FX9350 @4 gHz, 16 gb ram, 240 gb SSD, 2 1Tb SS/Hybrid HDs, 1 Tb Fantom External HD, Windows 10 64 bit, Sonar Platinum 64 bit, Studio One 4 Pro, Harrison Mixbus, Izotope Neutron 2 Advanced and Ozone 8 Advanced, ARC 2, NI Komplete 11 Ultimate, TC-Helicon VoiceLive 3, Focusrite Saffire Pro 24 DSP, Focusrite Octopre MkII, KRK Rokit 8 monitors, Sennheiser HD 280 pro headphones, MidiMan Oxygen 8, Behringer X-Touch, guitars and stuff
|
Susan G
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12016
- Joined: 2003/11/05 22:49:26
- Location: Putnam County, NY
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/31 10:53:50
(permalink)
@Matthew - thanks!  @jon- >> Susan .. it will runn .. you might not be able to run.. >> big projects though.. if you tell me the make and.. >> model of your motherboard, i could tell you CPU >> options.. and for the record X1 has not glitch'd once >> here.. and is a total pleasure to work in.. jon It's an Asus P5B-E, thanks for the offer. I'm looking forward to trying the demo. This is the first time I haven't jumped right on board with a new version. I want to see how it looks on my system, too, based on some comments I've read about graphics issues. I seem to remember Brandon saying they were going to try to release the demo earlier than usual this time around -- some time in January? Or did I just imagine that? I can't find the post, but I could (almost) swear I saw it somewhere. Thanks- -Susan
2.30 gigahertz Intel Core i7-3610QM; 16 GB RAMWindows 10 x64; NI Komplete Audio 6.SONAR Platinum (Lexington) x64
|
kelsoz
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 235
- Joined: 2007/06/16 19:09:06
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/31 11:04:48
(permalink)
Hey rscain - I wish my system was as modern as yours. With my XP/SP3 and but 1 GB RAM to back it up, I can run X1 like you - pretty well - sort of. Lot's of audio and plugs take their toll though.
But, for those who want to know, X1 runs well and fully on my system.
kelsoz Dell Desktop PC / Win7 HomePrem 64 / Core i5 760 (quad, 2.8GHz) / 8GB / 1 TB / E-MU1616 PCI+Realtek PC Audio / Event 6 Pro Monitors / BIAB 2012.5 / Sonar X3c/64 Bld 216
|
ohgrant
Max Output Level: -35.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3966
- Joined: 2007/03/27 22:53:01
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/31 11:47:01
(permalink)
I was pretty convinced that my system couldn't handle X1, but I gave it a try anyway. I was delighted to find it runs much better on my system than 7 Studio and 8.5 Pro. I still need to manage my resources wisely and freeze what I can, but X1 is running my larger projects with quite a few active synths running like EWQL's play and Miroslav's Philharmonic along with Dim Pro. I've just been using Sonar for a few years and was just getting a work flow going with 7 and received 8.5 as an early gift and to be honest I wasn't warming up to the 8.5 interface at all so X1 seems like a big improvment to me.
Specs are.
P4P800-E mobo
P4 3.2 EE 800fsb singlecore with HT
3.3 GB ram
M-audio delta 1010lt
7950GT
|
pzay
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13
- Joined: 2009/01/08 15:35:33
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/31 12:18:53
(permalink)
I am very interested in upgrading from my 8.5 Producer to X1 Producer, but cannot swing for a hardware upgrade at this time (I imagine many others might be in the same position). My 2003 vintage (and very dependable) Carillon music-specific low-noise system runs 8.5 Producer flawlessly with the limited (usually under 10) audio tracks and limited plug-ins I use per song. The sense I get from your posts is that, generally speaking, X1 should perform equally as well on my existing system as 8.5 does, but I'd like to confirm given the higher "official" "requirements" that have also been discussed. Here is my configuration:
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 3.06 GHz Processor 800MHz FSB, Hyperthreading
Motherboard: Intel D875PBZ DDR400 800 MHz FSB
Memory: 4x 512MB 400Mhz DDR RAM
Boot drive (several other internal and external drives installed in addition): 80GB Seagate MarkV Ultra Quiet 7200RPM ATA 100
Windows XP Professional SP3
ATI Radeon 7000 64 MB Dual Video Card
Thank you for your guidance. My desktop has the same system specs and processor (less memory though) as you and I am not having any trouble running all the same 8.5 projects. I haven't tested very carefully yet but it might even be an improvement in system resource usage. I wouldn't worry about the upgrade at all. That being said, inevitably a computer upgrade is in order down the line but what you stated, "with the limited (usually under 10) audio tracks and limited plug-ins", shouldn't be a problem.
post edited by pzay - 2010/12/31 12:26:38
|
StarTekh
Max Output Level: -55 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2007
- Joined: 2004/03/09 12:02:20
- Location: Montreal
- Status: offline
Re:Just to confirm CPU requirement
2010/12/31 12:39:08
(permalink)
Susan G
@Matthew - thanks!
@jon-
>> Susan .. it will runn .. you might not be able to run.. >> big projects though.. if you tell me the make and.. >> model of your motherboard, i could tell you CPU >> options.. and for the record X1 has not glitch'd once >> here.. and is a total pleasure to work in.. jon
It's an Asus P5B-E, thanks for the offer.
I'm looking forward to trying the demo. This is the first time I haven't jumped right on board with a new version. I want to see how it looks on my system, too, based on some comments I've read about graphics issues.
I seem to remember Brandon saying they were going to try to release the demo earlier than usual this time around -- some time in January? Or did I just imagine that? I can't find the post, but I could (almost) swear I saw it somewhere.
Thanks-
-Susan
susan thank you.. there is updated bios for your board that offers you 1333 fsb support..that lets you run the Quads 8200 8400- 9550 9650- E8400's Version 1601 P5B-E BIOS version 1601 1. Enhance memory compatibility under FSB1333 mode susan i dont suggest you flash the bios unless you know what your doing.. id be happy to help you do it or have a shop do the bios when u buy a new processor..and you could get a used one .. jon.. il be here till midnight.then im off the fourm.. till the next x1 patch.. good luck youall..
|