VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Thread
  1. My main reason for wanting to move to x64 based Windows OS is for some sound programs. Goldwave no longer develops for x86 based systems.

    What would be a starter/test/ inexpensive setup of AMD motherboard and cpu?

    I remain confused about the differences and compatibility issues.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: Freedonia
    Search Comp PM
    That's pretty foolish for them to do that with the new beta. I don't use it at all nor do I claim to be familiar with it, but willingly eliminating a certain user segment (32 bit OSes) seems foolish to me for an audio editor. But they can do what they want.

    Will you do any video work on this new system? If so, my recommendation is to go with anything that has a minimum of 4 cores. I'd recommend a minimum of 8 GB RAM.

    Are you REALLY talking about laptops here? Lots of people here mean "laptop and ONLY laptop" when they talk about computers. Desktops have tons of advantages for hobbyists. I don't keep up with laptops at all.

    You're asking about a motherboard and CPU - are you going to build this yourself? I can tell you from personal experience a couple of years ago on my last build (it was AMD by the way) that I am a big fan of Gigabyte motherboards, I HATE Asus motherboards with a passion, and I have no experience or knowledge about other motherboard manufacturers for AMD, nor would I use them.

    I last really looked into this over 2 years ago and I don't keep up. I look into the subject when I have to build a new PC. AMD has some CPU+video processor hybrids called APUs but I don't know how good/bad they are. If you're really just concerned with audio work, probably getting as many cores and as fast as they can be is where you want to go with this.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Mod Neophyte Super Moderator redwudz's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2002
    Location: USA
    Search Comp PM
    Just about every 32 bit program will run on a 64 bit OS. Always a few exceptions, but there are compatibility settings, at least with newer Windows OSs. Some drivers, codecs, filters and similar may be 32 bit specific, but most have 64 bit versions if they are modern enough.

    Really, all you need is a 64 bit OS as just about every PC is already 64 bit capable and have been for years.

    8 GBs of RAM is nice, but you will find a lot of laptops with 64 bit OSs use less, often 4 GB. But I would still personally recommend 8 GB.

    I also like AMD processors and Gigabyte motherboards, but that's just an opinion. And since 4 core or more CPUs are quite common, a good choice.

    The most economical setup for AMD at present is the FM2 or FM2+ platform. The CPU also contains the video chipset.

    A couple of possible setups:

    CPUs

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007671 50001028 6003720...2DSeries%20APU

    Gigabyte Motherboards

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007625%2050001314%20600...E&Pagesize=100

    I would also recommend Windows 7 64 bit. The Home Version is sufficient for most of us.
    Last edited by redwudz; 15th May 2014 at 11:45.
    Quote Quote  
  4. My current encoding setup is not my newest cpu or motherboard.

    This is a Biostar AMD AM2 and DDR 2 memory.

    No laptop here, I've built my own desktop rigs for the last fifteen and more years.

    Four core would be nice but I was considering a 'tween board which I can use my mem and cpu and then upgrade into the FX class of AM3 AM3+. This tween board has on board video which is adequate for me.


    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157469



    With the old AM2 and lots of assistance from Videohelp over the years I have been able to do my jobs with Win XP, I think 2Gb of mem (would have to look again) and onboard video with the free tools available here such as AGK, DVDShrink etc.

    I just wondered how much I would have to replace to run GW which I've owned for a long time--always free upgrades but Chris has taken this step away from x86 and says it will not run on it.
    I think the reason is that the new version uses memory in a different way and so would make conversions faster between audio formats.

    Thanks for replies
    Quote Quote  
  5. Mod Neophyte Super Moderator redwudz's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2002
    Location: USA
    Search Comp PM
    It seems that MB you linked to is compatible with your existing CPU. But with 2GB RAM a 64 bit OS may run a bit slow, although I've seen some laptops with W64 and 2 GB RAM, so it will work.

    The downside is that the PC may use your hard drive for temp storage to make up for the missing RAM. That's the main reason the PC may run a bit slow. But just monitor your hard drive light. If it's blinking a whole lot, then you definitely need more RAM. If not, good enough. And I always recommend at least two hard drives. The boot drive is busy being managed by the OS, so not the most efficient drive.

    You didn't mention what MS OS you planned to use? W7 is very easy to set up, compared to XP. To install the MB drivers use the ones from the MB site as they are usually much newer than what's on the MB disc.

    But since you plan to reuse your CPU and RAM, why not just use a 64 bit OS with your existing setup? Unless you need a specific feature on the new MB, no real need to upgrade it and it's unlikely the performance of the CPU will change with a new MB. Then you can save up for a faster MB, CPU and RAM.
    Quote Quote  
  6. If all the old hardware is adequate then I would give W 7 a whirl on what I have by installing it to a sacrifice drive to experiment with. You say W7 is easy to set up. Between two rooms I have a two station ethernet workgroup called HOMENET. Will W7 play nice with XP on that and is there the usual menu option to add a workgroup?

    Also I find I'm using the Repair function for various reasons-- one of them is migrating disks to the machine. Does all that work in the usual way?
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    I agree with Redwudz. From everything I have read on the subject, Windows 7 64-bit will run much better with 4GB of RAM installed than with only 2GB (the minimum allowed). Try Windows 7 64-bit with your current CPU and motherboard first to see if that is a workable interim solution. You have to buy a new OS license anyway to for 64-bit support.

    That ASRock motherboard has some drawbacks, although it is one of very few new boards available for those who need to support legacy hardware. Maybe you already know this, but it only supports CPUs up to 95W, so according to Newegg's catalog your current upgrade options for an AMD FX CPU are limited to the FX-4300 and FX-6300. It also only allows 2 sticks of RAM to be installed as 2 slots are reserved for DDR2 and 2 slots are reserved for DDR3, but you can't use both types of RAM at the same time.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Mod Neophyte Super Moderator redwudz's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2002
    Location: USA
    Search Comp PM
    W7 networking is generally easier to set up than it was on XP or especially Vista. I don't use homegroup settings, but I do have a couple of XP PCs on my LAN and no problems. Also a WDTV and a TV tuner, a IP camera, and a Raspberry Pi PC. With W7 you can set up your homegroup when you install the OS. Or do it later in the networking page.

    Not sure about the 'repair function' as I don't believe I've ever used it. Unless you mean the function to repair the OS when things go wrong. W7 does have that. It also has error checking and repair of hard drives.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date: Nov 2002
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    I just moved to Windows 7 from XP and I can tell you that 4 GB of memory is not enough. MS says that you need at least 2 GB to run 64bit Windows and another 1 GB for 32 bit. That leaves 1 GB of memory to run all of your programs. I plan on upgrading mine to 8 GB next month. I'm on a limited income and can't afford to build a new computer every three or four years anymore. I don't remember my friends PC (running Windows 7 Ultimate) being this slow but he had an Intel i7 and I've only got a Q6600 CPU. I think he installed 16 GB of RAM right before I left Arizona.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Yes there are always new commitments. We have to move on sometime even it's just to use the programs.

    A good point raised about 95 w limit on cpu's I had never wanted to go above that anyway and actually
    wanted to have a 65 w cpu on a 95 watt capacity board having a shelf for safety from burnout.

    I did look up my memory and it is 2Gb. But my usage never indicates to be very high in the Everest analytic program.

    I've only seen max capacity in using something like Handbrake where all cores go to virtually 100%. I would prefer to be able to control those speeds downward to prevent burnout but I don't know the method. For this reason I have continued to use the older tools for video.

    I do not use overclocking. I just don't know anything about it.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Originally Posted by redwudz View Post
    W7 networking is generally easier to set up than it was on XP or especially Vista. I don't use homegroup settings, but I do have a couple of XP PCs on my LAN and no problems. Also a WDTV and a TV tuner, a IP camera, and a Raspberry Pi PC. With W7 you can set up your homegroup when you install the OS. Or do it later in the networking page.

    Not sure about the 'repair function' as I don't believe I've ever used it. Unless you mean the function to repair the OS when things go wrong. W7 does have that. It also has error checking and repair of hard drives.
    This is helpful. Yes I was talking about the Repair the OS function and you mentioned SFC or System File Checker. I would hope those names have not changed so as to be able to run from the
    DOS box or however SFC is engaged. Repair takes a long time but usually works for errors like MBR and others. Control panel (dashboard or whatevs) has a lot of abbreviations and code.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by loninappleton View Post
    Yes there are always new commitments. We have to move on sometime even it's just to use the programs.

    A good point raised about 95 w limit on cpu's I had never wanted to go above that anyway and actually
    wanted to have a 65 w cpu on a 95 watt capacity board having a shelf for safety from burnout.

    I did look up my memory and it is 2Gb. But my usage never indicates to be very high in the Everest analytic program.

    I've only seen max capacity in using something like Handbrake where all cores go to virtually 100%. I would prefer to be able to control those speeds downward to prevent burnout but I don't know the method. For this reason I have continued to use the older tools for video.

    I do not use overclocking. I just don't know anything about it.
    The FX-series CPUs (they use socket AM3+) are all 95W TDP and above. If you want a less than 95W TDP quad-core AMD processor, you need to be looking at the A10 and A8-series APUs or Athlon X4 series CPUs that fit a socket FM2 motherboard.
    Quote Quote  
  13. These are important questions to sort out and I'm glad for the answers on it.

    I never really knew why the graphics went to being on the cpu in FM2 since the cost of the board is not reduced at all-- AM2 s and AM3 which I have had all the graphics I need.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: Freedonia
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by loninappleton View Post
    I never really knew why the graphics went to being on the cpu in FM2 since the cost of the board is not reduced at all-- AM2 s and AM3 which I have had all the graphics I need.
    Power savings are HUGE to do this. This can be very important in laptops. There are some video performance benefits to this design as well, although for hard core gamers it probably won't matter as they will likely end up buying a separate video card anyway.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date: Aug 2006
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    If TDP is a big concern, Intel's Haswell series includes some I5 processors with a 65W TDP. I bought one, an I5-4570S, for my current main system, but had considered buying a AMD A10-7850K which has a 95W TDP. The Intel I5-4570S was selling for $195 and the AMD A10-7850K for $190 when I was buying parts. As there was only a $5 difference in price at the time, I decided in favor of the i5 for better multicore performance and lower TDP over the A10's better graphics and better single core performance. The AMD A10-7850K has come down in price to $170 so the decision on which to buy would be slightly more difficult now, but I'm pleased with the I5 and it allowed me to keep using the MATX case I already had.
    Quote Quote