More memory or Better Processor?

Ive been struggling with Sonar 5 on what I would call a fairly robust machine...however, Im wondering if I need to upgrade the processor or the RAM. Currently, Ive a Pent IV 2Ghz |FSB 100mhz (most likely 400), 758 M RAM| . Ive read various suggestions..such as more RAM or faster Processor. I can say, with more than 8 tracks SIMUL, I start to max out the CPU and start getting dropouts. I have the machine tweaked vigourously down to just as basic as I can get.

Any ideas?

Both!

Your weak point is definitely your processor.

ORIGINAL: quanah

Ive been struggling with Sonar 5 on what I would call a fairly robust machine...however, Im wondering if I need to upgrade the processor or the RAM. Currently, Ive a Pent IV 2Ghz |FSB 100mhz (most likely 400), 758 M RAM| . Ive read various suggestions..such as more RAM or faster Processor. I can say, with more than 8 tracks SIMUL, I start to max out the CPU and start getting dropouts. I have the machine tweaked vigourously down to just as basic as I can get.

Any ideas?

Don't forget to ask yourself what your motherboard's maximum processor speed is, too. If it turns out that you've maxed your mobo out already then new processor == new motherboard. Personally, even though it's more expensive, I always save my pennies until I have enough for a new processor, mobo, and some new RAM and I just give my whole system a facelift all at once. You might not be in a position to do that, and might just need a quick fix, but I find that if I do it that way I make really large leaps in computer power while keeping all of my components in the same generation. It also makes me re-install the OS, which means that I end up with a clean install, and a more-or-less new computer and that usually makes all of my current computing problems go away.

Just a thought.

More memory or Better Processor?

Yes.

The answer also depends on what types of sounds you're working with. If you have MIDI tracks that you're rendering to audio, then be aware that:
-- samplers tend to want more RAM for holding the sample buffers
-- synthesizers tend to want more CPU power to do all the calculations, especially a chip with a heavy-duty floating point engine.

If you're mostly recording layered audio (live instruments and vocals), then I'd add more CPU power before upping the RAM.

Given the monetary resources to buy both, the definitely go for it.

John

it's not apples and oranges it's more like calculators and Crays?

Or are you suggesting that the modern software is more inefficient than the older stuff by an order of degree?

Child

Or are you suggesting that the modern software is more inefficient than the older stuff by an order of degree?

If that's how you want to look at it. I think it's an improper viewpoint, but there's a grain of truth.

Most software today is written with object-oriented languages, in an object-oriented fashion. This method of development emphasizes ease of development and reliability of software over processor efficiency. In other words, programmers let the machine do the part it's good at, while they concentrate on what they have to. The tradeoff is well worth it. The more-CPU-efficient "old style" of development could never create software of the complexity we've now grown accustomed to, at least not in any reasonable time frame.

Every layer of abstraction causes a decrease in raw performance, at an increase in ease of programming, an increase in capability and feature set, and a reduction in the number of possible bugs that can be created during devlepment. The net result is more-powerful and (hopefully) more-reliable software that needs a more-powerful computer.

Windows used to run on an 16-bit machine with less than 1MB of memory, but remember how many features it had?

ORIGINAL: sinc

Or are you suggesting that the modern software is more inefficient than the older stuff by an order of degree?

If that's how you want to look at it. I think it's an improper viewpoint, but there's a grain of truth.

Most software today is written with object-oriented languages, in an object-oriented fashion. This method of development emphasizes ease of development and reliability of software over processor efficiency. In other words, programmers let the machine do the part it's good at, while they concentrate on what they have to. The tradeoff is well worth it. The more-CPU-efficient "old style" of development could never create software of the complexity we've now grown accustomed to, at least not in any reasonable time frame.

Every layer of abstraction causes a decrease in raw performance, at an increase in ease of programming, an increase in capability and feature set, and a reduction in the number of possible bugs that can be created during devlepment. The net result is more-powerful and (hopefully) more-reliable software that needs a more-powerful computer.

Windows used to run on an 16-bit machine with less than 1MB of memory, but remember how many features it had?

Yeah, I have to second that. For instance, I do alot of work in Matlab even though it's an interpreted language and not fast by any stretch of the imagination. I work on real world problems, funded by the military, so it's not because I'm some kind of ivory tower academic who can afford to ignore efficiency (in actuality, there aren't many of those guys in computer engineering anyway). Still, Matlab has alot of great algorithms built in and the development time is greatly sped up. Since an efficient solution that's finished past the deadline is absolutely useless, the power of modern computers is relied upon to speed up the dev time. If I ran this stuff on a windows 98 machine, it would take the rest of my life. As it is, some of the stuff I work on is written in C++ and it takes days, sometimes weeks, to finish. This is the type of stuff that couldn't have been done 20 years ago on any computer anywhere.