Help with PC purchase for Adam Szabo Viper synth

[ferez21]

1) For max performance, always favor desktop over laptop

I run an 8-core, 16 logical core 64GB 'laptop' with 8GB VRAM. I'd bet money it outperforms whatever you're doing.

For the same amount of money? I'll 100% be able to build a PC with better performance than you laptop, I'll make that bet with you.

Given a certain budget, you'll always be able to get a faster desktop than a laptop for the same amount of money. Seems like you are taking my things out of context, not sure why.
Show me a laptop with a 6-cores/12-thread that can be have for 250$, the same anount i bought my desktop.

Are you here to give advice to the OP who's on very tight budget, or are you here to flaunt your gear and superiority? Do you have a beef with me I don't know of?

A lot of people are happy with 8GB and the OP with a request to run a specific synth and on a tight budget, shouldn't be stressing about RAM. 8GB is enough for me, I'm sorry if for your special production techniques it's not enough.

Audio processing and DSP favors single core performance, it doesnt mean you shouldnt have additional cores, they are still being utilized, but it means that a strong single core performance is still top priority, aside of maybe some very new DAWs and new technologies that utilize your GPU and such.
I said "favor single core performance", i didn't say "buy a computer with just one core", do you understand the difference? Single core performance doesn't mean only the first core is used, you may wanna do some reading on this because I'm not going to explain it here, it is far off topic.
To water it down to a way you will understand, its better to have a very strong single core performance and having only 4 cores, then having a mediocre single core performance but having 6 cores, and this is from personal experience with 2 different intel 10th gen computers I've owned this year (same memory, same SSD).

This is from Image-Line's (FL Studio) forums by their representative:

The most important thing with FL Studio 20 is to buy the best CPU you can. Multiple cores are nice, but a quad core is more than adequate. Due to the serial nature of audio processing, running plugins multi-threaded doesn't offer as much of a benefit as you might think. It's nice to have though, especially if you run other tasks in the background.

As for SSD, OP wouldn't see a significant improvement *for their needs*, so better channel that money towards processing power. Also, SSD can always be easily upgraded at a later stage is the need arises.

You threw practicallity and budget out of the window and was just busy telling me how everything i wrote is wrong, nice

[PieBerger]

4) 8GB RAM is sufficient enough for 95% of audio hobbyists

This is barely enough to run the operating system and a DAW.

absolute rubbish

Come to think of it, I have ancient MBP that only has 8GB IIRC, that will run smaller projects, so I'm talking b*llocks here

Already corrected myself, you could have saved yourself the trouble of calling me out, by bothering to scroll down a little further

[BONES]

For the same amount of money?

That depends on how much you value your time. 15 years ago it made good sense to build your own tower but these days PCs are easily powerful enough to do everything we want them to and I'd rather spend my limited free time making music than shopping for components and building my own machine.

In fact, one of the big advantages of working ITB is that everything just works. e.g. I have spent every spare minute of the last five days trying to get my hardware set-up working so we can start gigging again. On top of that I have spent around $200 on cables, a rack case, a new powerboard and stupid things like cable ties and labels for all the cables. It's expensive and exhausting.

OTOH, All I have to do in the studio is switch on my laptop, switch on my audio interface and then switch on my monitors and I'm ready to go. The hardest thing I had to do to get to that point was install the software.

I'll 100% be able to build a PC with better performance than you laptop, I'll make that bet with you.

So what? My $400 used Surface Pro has enough power for my needs, any more would be a waste of time. I also think you'd have a hard time matching my studio laptop, a Dell G7, doing it yourself. It has a hexa-core i7, 32GB of RAM, RTX2060 graphics, 1.5Tb of SSD storage (1 x m.2, 1 x SATA) and a Full HD screen. I paid around $1200 for it, brand new with a full warranty. Of course, today you could match it easily but at the time it was all brand new, so you'd need to price current components for a fair comparison.

Show me a laptop with a 6-cores/12-thread that can be have for 250$, the same anount i bought my desktop.

What sort of graphics, how much RAM, what storage? How new was it when you got it? OK, so you already had that stuff so it doesn't matter but what you are not factoring in is that when you buy a new laptop, you have an old one to sell. I used to buy a new one every year, specifically because a one year old laptop is still worth good money. On average, the changeover cost was in the area of $250-$350, which is f**k-all to stay up to date with the latest specs, don't you think?

[AnX]

4) 8GB RAM is sufficient enough for 95% of audio hobbyists

This is barely enough to run the operating system and a DAW.

absolute rubbish

Come to think of it, I have ancient MBP that only has 8GB IIRC, that will run smaller projects, so I'm talking b*llocks here

Already corrected myself, you could have saved yourself the trouble of calling me out, by bothering to scroll down a little further

i could have, yes

[AnX]

. On average, the changeover cost was in the area of $250-$350, which is f**k-all to stay up to date with the latest specs, don't you think?

so you lose money every year just to "stay up to date"

buy a decent pc to start with and you don't need to update for years (mine is over 10 yrs old, no probs here)

[ferez21]

I'll 100% be able to build a PC with better performance than you laptop, I'll make that bet with you.

So what? My $400 used Surface Pro has enough power for my needs, any more would be a waste of time. I also think you'd have a hard time matching my studio laptop, a Dell G7, doing it yourself. It has a hexa-core i7, 32GB of RAM, RTX2060 graphics, 1.5Tb of SSD storage (1 x m.2, 1 x SATA) and a Full HD screen. I paid around $1200 for it, brand new with a full warranty. Of course, today you could match it easily but at the time it was all brand new, so you'd need to price current components for a fair comparison.

What do you mean "so what"? Is it now just a habit to quote users out of context and then tell them they are wrong?
Janicvil or whatever their name is, argued that they have the best laptop ever and said i cannot match that, and i said that with the same given budget you can most certainly build a desktop with higher specs/better performance.

Show me a laptop with a 6-cores/12-thread that can be have for 250$, the same anount i bought my desktop.

What sort of graphics, how much RAM, what storage? How new was it when you got it? OK, so you already had that stuff so it doesn't matter but what you are not factoring in is that when you buy a new laptop, you have an old one to sell. I used to buy a new one every year, specifically because a one year old laptop is still worth good money. On average, the changeover cost was in the area of $250-$350, which is f**k-all to stay up to date with the latest specs, don't you think?

Wait, so why would you assume that when im buying a new desktop, I don't have an older laptop or desktop to sell? In fact, that's exactly what i did, i sold my laptop for 500$ (intel i5 10th gen 4c/8t, 8GB RAM, 512GB Nvme) and bought a desktop for 250$ (intel i5 10th gen 6c/12t, 8GB RAM, 256GB Nvme).

The rest of the specs are not important (within context) and are easily and cheaply upgradeable, while processing power is the one thing you are "stuck with" and the most important one to get right *when it comes to audio* and if you plan on using the machine for a while.

[chk071]

. On average, the changeover cost was in the area of $250-$350, which is f**k-all to stay up to date with the latest specs, don't you think?

so you lose money every year just to "stay up to date"

buy a decent pc to start with and you don't need to update for years (mine is over 10 yrs old, no probs here)

Easier said than done.... with the PC's I usually buy (typically in the 1.000 € range), it's a mere 7 or 8 years (max) until they're so dated that I need a new one, mainly for games which begin to lag.

Admittedly, if you rather buy in the 2.000 € range, it will take a bit longer until they get dated. But, not much longer really.

I still remember the times when I had a 266 MHz for 10 years, and it wasn't outdated, haha.

[AnX]

I dont game, just audio and basic other stuff... mine was an off the shelf 1k unit, nothing special.

[chk071]

I think you're only using Dune though, right? I'm pretty sure that any of the more demanding more current plugins would quite easily bring down that CPU.

If I use something like Oberhausen on my computer, for example, I can only use a handful of instances, without long release, with my 2013 Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3, which was a mid to low tier CPU in a 1.099 € PC as well.

[GaryG]

But still, I've been doing fine with 8GB for years, so 16GB should most definitely not be the "bare minimum" for audio for a hobbyist.

Yeah, my aging 3rd gen i5 laptop only has 8gb but I've never run into problems memory-wise. I don't do massive orchestral arrangements or anything but it can handle numerous instances of sample based vstis (dimension pro for instance), a couple of chunky decent sampler pianos and a whole slew of effects fine.

Only issue I have is Reaktor Block patches, they often max out the cpu, not convinced they're particularly efficient (I can do pretty hefty patches in cherry voltage for a fraction of the cpu). But I digress...

[BONES]

so you lose money every year just to "stay up to date"

I don't lose money, I spend money, much as you spend money on internet access or a million other things.

buy a decent pc to start with and you don't need to update for years (mine is over 10 yrs old, no probs here)

Not if all you use it for is audio but audio isn't even close to the most difficult thing my computer needs to do. It's all fully deductible so it's better than paying tax. But I've had this one for two years now and I just upgraded the storage, so it will be around for at least another year.

What do you mean "so what"?

I mean so what if you can build a faster machine if the machine someone has right now is already fast enough? I can do my audio work on a $400 Surface Pro 4 that is 6 years old. The fact you could build something faster for the same money means nothing to me because it wouldn't have a touch screen and it wouldn't fit on my keyboard stand so it would be useless to me.

Is it now just a habit to quote users out of context and then tell them they are wrong?
Janicvil or whatever their name is, argued that they have the best laptop ever and said i cannot match that, and i said that with the same given budget you can most certainly build a desktop with higher specs/better performance.

If you want to talk about context, this isn't a discussion to help someone who needs the fastest machine they can afford, it's for someone who just wants to run multiple instances of a single softsynth as part of a larger set-up. So in the context of this discussion, your argument with jancivil is largely irrelevant. You just had your ego bruised and felt the need to lash out.

I also think you're wrong and showed you why, which also hopefully was of help to the OP.

Wait, so why would you assume that when im buying a new desktop, I don't have an older laptop or desktop to sell?

Because all you mentioned was the CPU, so I had assumed you were adding it to an existing machine, not as part of a whole new one. Because the main reason I used to build my own systems was so that I could upgrade them relatively cheaply, rather than replace them. It's also why I now have a gaming laptop.

while processing power is the one thing you are "stuck with" and the most important one to get right *when it comes to audio* and if you plan on using the machine for a while.

Maybe for you but not for everyone. Graphics is way more important to me, for example, because audio isn't the most difficult thing I expect my computer to do. (Not even close.) As I said, if all I needed to do was music, a 6 year old Surface would do me fine and I reckon it would work for the OP, too.

If I use something like Oberhausen on my computer, for example, I can only use a handful of instances, without long release, with my 2013 Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3, which was a mid to low tier CPU in a 1.099 € PC as well.

WTF!?! "A handful"? I think I have one song where I use two instances, elsewhere one is enough.

[chk071]

Ok, I might have exaggerated a bit. Might just run 2 or 3, if I think about it.

[ferez21]

so you lose money every year just to "stay up to date"

I don't lose money, I spend money, much as you spend money on internet access or a million other things.

buy a decent pc to start with and you don't need to update for years (mine is over 10 yrs old, no probs here)

Not if all you use it for is audio but audio isn't even close to the most difficult thing my computer needs to do. It's all fully deductible so it's better than paying tax. But I've had this one for two years now and I just upgraded the storage, so it will be around for at least another year.

What do you mean "so what"?

I mean so what if you can build a faster machine if the machine someone has right now is already fast enough? I can do my audio work on a $400 Surface Pro 4 that is 6 years old. The fact you could build something faster for the same money means nothing to me because it wouldn't have a touch screen and it wouldn't fit on my keyboard stand so it would be useless to me.

Is it now just a habit to quote users out of context and then tell them they are wrong?
Janicvil or whatever their name is, argued that they have the best laptop ever and said i cannot match that, and i said that with the same given budget you can most certainly build a desktop with higher specs/better performance.

If you want to talk about context, this isn't a discussion to help someone who needs the fastest machine they can afford, it's for someone who just wants to run multiple instances of a single softsynth as part of a larger set-up. So in the context of this discussion, your argument with jancivil is largely irrelevant. You just had your ego bruised and felt the need to lash out.

I also think you're wrong and showed you why, which also hopefully was of help to the OP.

Wait, so why would you assume that when im buying a new desktop, I don't have an older laptop or desktop to sell?

Because all you mentioned was the CPU, so I had assumed you were adding it to an existing machine, not as part of a whole new one. Because the main reason I used to build my own systems was so that I could upgrade them relatively cheaply, rather than replace them. It's also why I now have a gaming laptop.

while processing power is the one thing you are "stuck with" and the most important one to get right *when it comes to audio* and if you plan on using the machine for a while.

Maybe for you but not for everyone. Graphics is way more important to me, for example, because audio isn't the most difficult thing I expect my computer to do. (Not even close.) As I said, if all I needed to do was music, a 6 year old Surface would do me fine and I reckon it would work for the OP, too.

If I use something like Oberhausen on my computer, for example, I can only use a handful of instances, without long release, with my 2013 Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3, which was a mid to low tier CPU in a 1.099 € PC as well.

WTF!?! "A handful"? I think I have one song where I use two instances, elsewhere one is enough.

Half of the things you said are irrelevant (and I'm being generous here), you don't understand how "best performance" is the exact thing needed to run the most instances of X plugin (really?), you say DSP is not a demanding workload (really?), you argue that I made a mistake leaving graphics performance out of the equation even though we are trying to find the best specs for a machine and a person who has a single requirement, which has nothing to do with graphics, and so on and so on...

this isn't a discussion to help someone who needs the fastest machine they can afford, it's for someone who just wants to run multiple instances of a single softsynth as part of a larger set-up

How getting the best specs his specific budget can afford is not a good advice for this specific scenario? Do you even understand what you are saying?

Judging from your other posts in this forum I happened to stumble upon, I get the picture that arguing is a sport or or some kind of a recreational activity for you, so enjoy it, I'm out, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Regarding Janicevil (and you), calling out a person when you don't even understand what they wrote/said is just bad etiquette and it's triggering and uncalled for, notice that there were not any arguments in this thread before the 2 of you started commenting telling everyone that they are wrong. Instead of giving me some cheap psychology BS talking about my ego, maybe you should look into why are you trying so hard to prove everyone wrong all the time?

[BONES]

Half of the things you said are irrelevant (and I'm being generous here), you don't understand how "best performance" is the exact thing needed to run the most instances of X plugin (really?),

He asked about the number of instances, he never said how many he might actually need. Given that it will be in the context of a DAW on a separate computer, it's hard to imagine that half-a-dozen wouldn't be a maximum number, which my 6 year-old, relatively low power Surface Pro manages easily.

you say DSP is not a demanding workload (really?)

Given that he first 20 times we got up on stage we managed with single core CPUs and today we use the old Surface, it's hard to argue otherwise, isn't it?

you argue that I made a mistake leaving graphics performance out of the equation

Not performance but price. You were talking about how cheap your system was, so knowing how much RAM, how much storage (and what type), as well as the graphics it has, were all relevant to the discussion. Yet you chose to keep that to yourself, which wasn't at all helpful.

How getting the best specs his specific budget can afford is not a good advice for this specific scenario?

But you had gone off on a tangent to address someone else's comment. Nothing you had to say was helpful, beyond saying you thought it was cheaper to build your own system.

Judging from your other posts in this forum I happened to stumble upon, I get the picture that arguing is a sport or or some kind of a recreational activity for you, so enjoy it, I'm out, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I only try to correct people's stupid statements or opinions, 90% of the threads I read need no correction so I leave them alone. But yes, usually when I get involved, it is to correct someone's bullshit.

there were not any arguments in this thread before the 2 of you started commenting telling everyone that they are wrong.

Would it better if we all just agreed with each other and nobody ever got anything of value from any discussion?

You want to insist that I agree with you, even though my own experience tells me you aren't necessarily right. How shallow and sad would I have to be to do that?

why are you trying so hard to prove everyone wrong all the time?

Because I value this place as a source of information so I'd like to think that calling out bad information or advice, or offering a valid alternative view, is worth the effort.

[ferez21]

Dear BONES, thank god you are here to correct us mortals.
Having a discussion doesn't mean agreeing to everything being said, but it also doesn't mean calling out people, belittling people or automatically telling them they are wrong.

Try to find some sense in things other people say, add if you have something to add, try to correct if someone gave some horrible misinformation, but I've noticed that what you usually do is the following:
Someone comments with an advice that is based on their own experience, then you bash/belittle them or their observation claiming that their insight is not applicable to everyone, but the alternative you offer is an advice that is based on your *own* experience. Then why is your personal experience better then someone elses personal experience?

You usually make sure to belittle the other commenter (by presenting his comments and observations as worthless/lies/misinformation) before offering the exact type of advise, personal experience. Very confusing, not sure what you are trying to achieve or compensate for (actually i do, but it wouldn't be appropriate to give you a blunt psychological analisys here), but don't act like you are the saviour of this forum.

Let me give an example:
You claim that giving the OP the advice to get the best specs his budget can afford is a bad advice, because you yourself can get away with lower specs. Yes, he may be ok with lesser specs like you do, but there isn't a single reason not to get the best specs for the same budget, if he can. there is zero harm in it yet you find a way to present it as negative just for your own advice to be heard.
You yammer about leaving out graphics performance, because it is important for *you*, even though the OP didn't mention its importance once.
I honestly don't get your point.

So becuase you and your band got away with a laptop with 1 core, does it mean getting 4 cores for the same price is bad? It's just better value, why not search for the best you can get for a given price?Your experience is valid, but you can expand and extend on that experience, instead of having it used as a limit factor.
Do you see the pattern? You probably don't.

Is it so hard to be respectful with a pinch of etiquette?

Cheers to you