Provided the core count is the same the clock speed isn't as much of a deal breaker especially since it's only .2ghz.

Overall it's the Daw program's performance that will be most effected by the computer specs. Most interfaces will run on even the most modest computers provided the OS is supported.

As to how well it will perform, it's tough to say without knowing the interface and recording program your using. Some DaW's are more forgiving than others. Some are computer hogs.

Either way I wouldn't expect any heavy duty realtime processing or uber high track counts, but you should be able to get some basic recording tasks done with what you've got going on.

You'll likely want to upgrade to an Intel processor and more ram for more serious work. Or at least a quad or 8 core amd, but keep in mind that dual core intels can outperform quad core amds and be at similar price points.

All that said you should be good to get started. Make sure you do all the OS optimizations, so your dedicating all your computers resources to your daw program.

kmetal, post: 440886, member: 37533 wrote: Overall it's the Daw program's performance that will be most effected by the computer specs.

sallybaggins Most DAW platforms allow you to render or freeze tracks in the DAW if you find that your cpu struggles with track counts and plug-in processing, which frees up the cpu.

Another thing to be mindful of, as Kyle alluded to above, is not to have processes running in the background. You don't need you wifi or internet running in the background and I would make sure things like your anti-virus / malware software is disabled while you are using your DAW...you can always enable it again once you close your DAW after a session.

You can go through and turn off all non-vital applications that are not being used...things like dropbox or facebook etc that like to "check in" on a regular basis...this will free up your cpu to concentrate its efforts primarily on DAW functions. I have an Intel quad core 64-bit system with 16 gig of RAM and if I am working on a project with a huge number of tracks and a lot of plug-in processing happening I make sure everything else is disabled in the background.

So you think upgrading my processor may have a more positive impact on my sound quality than a cheap audio interface perhaps? Because my setup is: Emu 1212m WDM drivers (my software doesnt use ASIO and I'm not switching), XP S3, and MSI motherboard- which isn't compatible with Intel. The PC's only used for recording. I was thinking of getting the Presonus Audiobox or M-Audio Fast Track, or something in the ~100$ range since for now I only have a Tascam 8 track for phantom power and electric guitars. Thanks much for the help.

Also, when I was shopping around in 2011, most were saying AMD over Intel for recording.

Your recording chain (mic->pre amp / interface -> DAW / PC) will only be as good as its weakest link

I think that the Audiobox comes with Studio One Artist...not a bad DAW platform if you are starting out, or you can download it from Presonus for free.

sallybaggins, post: 440884, member: 49968 wrote: Requirement is: AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (Turion) (2.8 GHz or faster recommended) and
mine is: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+ 2.60 GHz 3.15 GB Ram

If I remember the X2 5000+ is faster than the 60-3000+ regardless of the clock. So you should be fine.
Altought, being near the recommanded specs is always a bit risky, The worst that can happen is that you won't be able to put the same amount of tracks and plugins in your projects...

As long as you're using a software that excepts only the non-ASIO drivers your realtime performance will suffer reguardless of the interface or processor. 32bit limits your Ram to 4 gb (3.5gb technically) max.

I'd just stick with what you have until you decide to upgrade to 64 bit OS and Software. None of the modern $100 interfaces are going to be much of a step up in quality compared to what you've got.

I recently got a nice little i5 pentium laptop for $300, so capable computers have dropped in price a bit since 2011.

My advice is save cash for a computer and a budget interface if the emu doesn't support 64 bit. Just enjoy what you've got.

Kmetal I think you're right. I got new tubes for my Electro Harmonix micpre, dusted it off and it sounds very good and quiet paired with my MXL v67.

So my Emu1212m wdm drivers will definitely be fine for a while I think. I will save for a new soundcard or audio interface or processor- which would have to be AMD Athlon to work with my setup. I believe Emu 1212m drivers support 64 bit too. I compared the Emu asio drivers on another software to the WDM and really couldn't tell a difference, even after processing and compressing. Obviously my sound is a bit distinct with all the Asio/Intel sounds dominating!

sallybaggins, post: 440935, member: 49968 wrote: Obviously my sound is a bit distinct with all the Asio/Intel sounds dominating!

WDM - Asio - Intel ; don't have any sound... What makes a difference (in reverse order) is the AD/DA converter, the mic pre, the mic, the room, the instrument...
I would admit, the DAW may also sound different. But any part of the computer ?? that would be a myth.

I should make a video about that !! ;)

pcrecord, post: 440938, member: 46460 wrote: I would admit, the DAW may also sound different. But any part of the computer ?? that would be a myth.

I should make a video about that !! ;)

Whoohoo I'm waiting.... Lol

sallybaggins, post: 440935, member: 49968 wrote: I will save for a new soundcard or audio interface or processor- which would have to be AMD Athlon to work with my setup.

You might find that a current processer needs a new motherboard, which takes different ram, Ect Ect. 5 years on a stock power supply is getting up there too.

You'll likely find its far cheaper to just snag a new budget computer than upgrade the existing one. A lot of protocals/formats whatever you call them, standards? Have changed.

The computer would be the first concern up our current interface is decent.