Time to upgrade the comp, best options for VST?

[realpolitik]

So my birthday came around early this month and I've been wanting to upgrade my amazingly underpowered comp for a long time.

so i was wondering...

To run a higher number of VSTs, which is more beneficial, more RAM or a faster processor?

because i was under the impression RAM controlled everything and hemo said that vsts are more based on the processor whereas samples are based on ram.

so what is the actual truth about this?

cheers

[zircon]

Well.. that's kind of a vague question. Some plugins, like Stylus RMX, take up a big chunk of RAM just to load the wrapper. This is mostly the case with complex sampler plugins or GUI-heavy plugins, even before you load any patches. So, you're always going to want at LEAST 1.5gb of RAM even if you don't plan on using a lot of big samples - I think 2gb is really a minimum at this point if you're going to be doing big projects.

If you DO intend to do a lot of heavy-duty sampling then RAM becomes even more important. DFD (direct from disk) streaming will only get you so far. At the same time, you're also going to need a powerful CPU to play back lots of voices in real time, streamed from your HD or not. If you don't think you're going to be doing any sampling at all, and you're strictly dealing with synths and tiny oneshots, then RAM won't be as big of an issue, but CPU will be because it will usually put more strain on your processor to generate a complex waveform from a synth than to simply play back a complex recorded waveform.

I'd say they're both equally important overall.

[realpolitik]

thanks for the insight zircon

I was planning to be using mostly cpu-intensive vsts such as V-Station and z3ta+, Absynth, that kinda thing, not sample-based vsts like Atmosphere.

so in that case, would a better processor be more beneficial?

[The Vagrance]

I think CPU is slightly more important in production than RAM. Even if you're doing a large amount of sampling you'll still need the CPU to run all of those samplers in the first place. Also, AMD just slashed their prices a lot so getting a really nice processor won't be hard at all.

[zircon]

thanks for the insight zircon

I was planning to be using mostly cpu-intensive vsts such as V-Station and z3ta+, Absynth, that kinda thing, not sample-based vsts like Atmosphere.

so in that case, would a better processor be more beneficial?

Yeah, if that's the kind of thing you're going to be doing, you DEFINITELY want a good CPU. I have Absynth and z3ta+ and they can eat up processor power like crazy depending on the complexity of the patch.

[Yoozer]

If you have an amazingly underpowered computer already, are you still able to upgrade it or shouldn't you consider buying a new one?

Or are you going to take the new mobo + new RAM + new CPU route?

To me, it is as follows:

1 gb RAM is twice as big as 512 mb

An XP3200+ is only a fraction faster than an XP3000+.

If the latter means you can only have 512 mb, it's not a wise choice, if you catch my drift.

Also, look into the Dual Core machines. When your host/sequencer can handle it, it's pretty cool.

[OverCoat]

U NEED 2 GIG OF RAM

AND

PENTIUM 4 OR AMD EQUVALENTTT

YAY PROTOOSLS HD

[sgx]

Find out if your host supports multiple cores or if it will in a future upgrade. If it doesn't, a dual core cpu is only going to be as fast as 1 of the cores on its own for audio.