will cpuupgrade help ?

[manician]

hi people ! b4 I start R.I.P. Lou Reed.( will he read it from wherever he is ?).

Anyway, my current cpu is Celeron g530, 2:40 ghz core 2 duo, I was looking at Intel corei3 3220 Dual core, ( as this is within my price range, esp if I need the RAM upgrade also).
I was wondering if this will help me to lower the CPU usage, or , enable me to record more tracks without it showing high readings on the meter ( bottom right ). also looking at increase of RAM from 4GB to 8GB, anyone out there actually know how this will affect recording ?
cheers ears !

[gypsy101]

increasing RAM will help all by itself but the best & cheapest option is to "optimize your system" for audio recording.
type that into a youtube or google search for your OS(xp,vista,W7,MAC..etc.)
there's a couple threads on it here too.

[chibear]

Hi, +1 to gypsy's post.

Processor-wise your upgrade looks, at least on the surface, like a giant step sideways. Increasing the RAM probably won't affect CPU usage unless you are loading samples into RAM rather than streaming them, which isn't very likely with your system. I suggest you save your pennies until you can upgrade to at least a quad core, preferably an i7, then go for your 8GB of RAM.

[manician]

thanks for the tips guys,( sorry it took so long to reply).
I have done the "optimize your system" for audio thing, and that has helped slightly.
So Gypsy, are you saying the RAM upgrade will make a significant difference ?
there's no way I can afford an i7 so what could anyone recommend.
it's confusing when some say get quad core, some say upgrading from a Celeron to an intel is better because they are better processors.

[gypsy101]

http://www.ask.com/question/what-does-a-ram-do
http://icrontic.com/article/dual_core

the OS (xp,vista,7,etc.) is not so important as RAM & the processor for speed & performing multiple tasks smoothly.
the processor handles the jobs, in case of multicore processors-multiple jobs @ once, & RAM handles the speed @ which the jobs are accomplished ie,multi tracks,large vsts,large projects,etc.and how fast those commands can be recalled.

make sense?

note-once you get to over 8Mb RAM you will have to move to a 64 bit OS though,regardless of which one it is & that creates even more confusion w/ bit converters & certain vsts' or even Mixcraft I think.

[outteh]

AMD equivilant proessors to the Intel i7 or i5 are also good and many times cheaper. Would strongly recommend 64 bit OS to take advantage of increased RAM.

[gypsy101]

AMD equivilant proessors to the Intel i7 or i5 are also good and many times cheaper. Would strongly recommend 64 bit OS to take advantage of increased RAM.

but that's where it's going to get expensive & he's trying to avoid that-an OS upgrade.

to the OP- what brand comp do you have?
most manuf's have a diagnose & upgrade tester on their sites so you can price things & see exactly how far you can beef up your system piece by piece.

[manician]

note-once you get to over 8Mb RAM you will have to move to a 64 bit OS though,regardless of which one it is & that creates even more confusion w/ bit converters & certain vsts' or even Mixcraft I think.

Firstly, thank you for your advice , it's much appreciated
well, I actually have windows 7 64bit.
I contacted my pc manufacturer, and they said my motherboard will take up to 16GB ram, and will fit any of the intel 1155 socket brand.
That I understand,
what I don't really get is (for instance) how much actual difference would upgrading from my current core 2 duo 2.4ghz to say the " Intel Core i3 3220 Dual Core CPU ( 3.30GHz, Socket 1155, 3MB Cache, Ivy Bridge, 55W, Intel HD Graphics 2500, Advanced Vector Extensions"
(that was the one I had been looking at), that's what I don't get, the quantity of ghz to the actual performance & how much difference to my cpu meter readings that would make .
I hope I have explained it in a way that can be understood

[outteh]

The speed of the processor and the fact that it,s an Ivy bridge is a significant improvement over your current processor. Currently Mixcraft is a 32 bit a application so many of the advantages that could be obtained with better processor and 64 bit architecture isn't,t there yet. If you really aren,t having issues with your setup now,other than CPU usage, I would hold off on the upgrade. Your call!

[Noel Felix Tamayo]

Hi all, Im running mixcraft 6 on the oldest laptop in the world, Dell latitude d610( 1.8ghz processor-1g ram). Ill do a project with 8-10 tracks, 2 audio tracks and my cpu during playback is around 50-80%, theyll be some glitches when playback first starts but i fix that by maxing out the buffer size. Mixdowns sound excellent. On top of that ill have izotope 4 on the whole project. I was thinking bout upgrading my computer too, but from what ive been reading, it seems it wont do any good unless you spend at least a grand on a maxed out lap/ or a really good home computer. Mixcraft itself doesnt really use any cpu. Your VST plugins usually have to do a lot with spiking or high idleing cpu , Especially buggy free ones. My two cents

[Acoustica Greg]

Another factor is whether you need low latency for overdubbing. If you're just recording audio, you can crank your latency way up, but if you want to listen to a track and sing or perform over it, you want that low latency. That's where a good low-latency audio interface comes in.

[manician]

o.k. guys, thanks for all that,
I shall look into what you have all said and see what I can do.

[gypsy101]

and for lower cpu start freezing those completed tracks or tracks you're not working on @ the moment,especially if they contain a lot of vsts.

[Ianpb]

It also needs to be mentioned that a CPU upgrade is not merely taking one out and putting another in. The CPU socket on the motherboard needs to match the particular requirements of the CPU itself.

I'm sure many others have experienced the false economy of buying a low-cost upgrade, only to very soon discover you are experiencing problems again as your project grows and the loss of performance headroom makes you want to kick yourself for not paying more for a better specification. I discovered this a while ago when I upgraded cheaply to an Intel Dual Core CPU (E6300) with matching socket 775 mainboard. Within 6 months I had to replace the Dual core with a Quad Core, so got a Q9400. If I'd have got the Q9400 in the first place, I'd have saved the cost of the E6300. If I'd bought an i7 in the first place, I'd have saved on the cost of the Q9400 and the DDR2 RAM, which is yesterday's technology, as well as being more expensive than DDR3.

As Henry Ford once said: "If you need a machine but don't buy it, in time you will find that you've paid for it but don't have it."

[manician]

my current cpu is Celeron g530, 2:40 ghz core 2 duo, I was looking at Intel corei3 3220 Dual core, ( as this is within my price range, esp if I need the RAM upgrade also).
I was wondering if this will help me to lower the CPU usage, or , enable me to record more tracks without it showing high readings on the meter !

i'm not being rude here, and I am truly grateful for everyone's assistance but I don't think that my original question has been answered yet. Infact, I think I am to blame as I have not explained exactly what I am trying to get across
I think what I should add to my original post is " How much difference would this upgrade make going from 2.4 to 3.30ghz ?"
apart from outteh who came the closest to it

The speed of the processor and the fact that it,s an Ivy bridge is a significant improvement over your current processor.

But guy's thank you all
your a great bunch of humans