| Author
|
AMD Athlon64, Pentium4 or AMD Athlon XP?
|
Lithium
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
646
Posted : Dec 13, 2004 16:30
|
|
Ramses
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
18
Posted : Dec 13, 2004 18:56
|
Hello..
First of all .. go for AMD 64..
You will not see much difference if you use for example.. Cubase SX2 because it's desgined for 32 bit processors. But if you will be using Cubase SX3 .. it's Optimized for 64 bit processors.. than you'll see a huge differnce.. BTW AMD really rules.. because the AMD is usually optimized for audio insturctions
Floating point instructions.. which most audio calculations are ..   ..- It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception -.. |
|
|
|
AjmaGard
AjmaGard
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
122
Posted : Jan 7, 2005 12:04
|
Quote:
|
AMD really rules.. because the AMD is usually optimized for audio insturctions
Floating point instructions.. which most audio calculations are ..
|
|
Shouldn't these calculations be done on the soundcard?
I'm not sure that this thread is usable for anyone that is trying to decide what to buy for musiccreation. Most people are biased in favor of what they have themselves. And therefore these threads often turn out to be intel vs. AMD fights without arguments.
Personally, I think it's a matter of preference and/or budget what you use.
The difference between the two major CPU companies is not that huge as it has been. Neither in price nor in performance. I think the AMD is still optimized for multimedia performance whereas Intel's force is general performance + stability.
When buying either, remember checking if the chipset on your motherboard is compatible with your soundcard (if you have any). Also check if there are known problems with chipset when using it for music production.
I don't really know if you only plan to use software, but I get quite a lot of noise on my external synth-recordings (I'm using a VIA chipset with which there have been some problems, and my crappy soundcard doen't make it bette  ).
The keyword are:
RAM: the more the better. The faster the better.
CPU: The faster the better. The more cache the better, since this is still much faster than RAM.
Soundcard: 24bit/96Khz, full duplex.
Graphics Card: Doesn't matter in a pure music pc
I am building a PC from specs I saw at a firm that sells PCs aimed at music production (except the soundcard):
Motherboard: ASUS P4P800-E Deluxe (Intel 865PE chipset)
CPU: Pentium 4 Prescott (16Kb L1 and 1MB L2 cahche).
RAM: 1GB (2 x 512MB) Samsung DDR (400Mhz).
Sound card: M-Audio Delta 44.
I think I will be quite happy with this system since I'm upgrading from an AMD Thunderbird 1400Mhz with 512MB 133Mhz RAM and a Soundblaster Audigy soundcard.
The price is about 666(!)Euros...
*In AjmaGard We Trust*
http://www.soundcloud.com/ajmagard |
|
|
|
XrTC
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
720
Posted : Jan 7, 2005 13:13
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-01-06 16:47, XrTC wrote:
(i just hit ESC accidentally and deleted a looong post... grrrrrr)
my personal view on this: Athlon64. i am about to do an upgrade on my system too and i have been reading and searching a lot about it lately. here's my conclusions which i hope can be helpful...
i am going for the Athlon64 on the new 939-socket as it supports dual-channel DDR memory (older 754-socket supports memory on a single channel). especially the latest 3200+ (939-socket) is built with 0.09ì technology and is an extremely good overclocker (opposing to Intel's 0.09ì processors which have temperature problems).
if you are buying now, go for a motherboard with the nForce3 Ultra chipset (MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum for example) which supports the new 939-socket with 4 SATA + 4 PATA controllers in any RAID, but uses the AGP bus for graphics card (which will be dated in a year).
if you can, wait for a month (or two) until the new nForce4 Ultra chipset motherboards come to greece, which will support the new PCI Express bus (the replacement of AGP) for the new graphics cards. i am personally waiting for this one, as it also supports SATAx2 drives and many more.
hope i helped 
|
|
also, ajmagard, i don't think the two cpu's (intel/amd) are the same anymore. athlon64 supports 64-bit instructions which will be the new standard in 2005 (with windows xp 64-bit coming out) and therefore performance will be even better. more cache may be a good thing to have, but keep in mind that intel cpus are not so much benefitted by a larger cahce (they need a lot more cache to see the same performace change comparing to athlons). not to mention that a large cache makes a cpu very expensive (see Pentium4EE). all in all, the way i see it is that i get a better cpu (performance and overclocking and compatibility with the future) for less money. that's why i am with amd on this. even if my current pc has an intel cpu...
.
Respect is earned, not demanded...
.
http://www.myspace.com/xrtcmusic
. |
|
|
|
H2O
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
16
Posts :
352
Posted : Jan 7, 2005 14:55
|
|
Athlon 64bit, should process data twise quicker than regular 32bit processor, although i will buy it only when Windows 64bit will be available to use it powers 100%. |
|
|
|
AjmaGard
AjmaGard
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
122
Posted : Jan 7, 2005 15:10
|
Well, I'm pretty sure that the day Windows 64bit is released, Intel will have an affordable 64bit version ready. For now 64bit is just a buzzword since no (usable )operating systems on pc supports it yet.
*In AjmaGard We Trust*
http://www.soundcloud.com/ajmagard |
|
|
|
XrTC
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
720
Posted : Jan 7, 2005 16:09
|
i agree, but even with the 64-bit instructions unused, athlon64's are still faster than pentium4's. i just said "compatibility with the future" as a bonus. and don't be so sure that the intel 64-bit processor will be so 'affordable' as u say..
p.s. u said in your first post that "Most people are biased in favor of what they have themselves". i see you being a bit biased as well.
.
Respect is earned, not demanded...
.
http://www.myspace.com/xrtcmusic
. |
|
|
|
H2O
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
16
Posts :
352
Posted : Jan 7, 2005 17:21
|
|
Regular 32bit Athlon is faster than P4 too. |
|
|
|
AjmaGard
AjmaGard
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
122
Posted : Jan 7, 2005 18:02
|
Quote:
|
p.s. u said in your first post that "Most people are biased in favor of what they have themselves". i see you being a bit biased as well.
|
|
Hehe, I actually have a AMD at the moment
*In AjmaGard We Trust*
http://www.soundcloud.com/ajmagard |
|
|
|
high tek
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
20
Posted : Jan 8, 2005 07:44
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-12-11 17:33, Protouch (NeoBazz\Ziv) wrote:
Only Pentium 4 3.6MHZ with 2 mb Chach !
AMD is Fuck ! and dont suportted good in music cration !
if u want more info tallk with me in my contact ! se ya !
|
|
as many have already mentioned, this person has no idea what hes talking about, so ignore that (if you can even understand it.)
AMD is the way to go.
i posted a setup that is top of the line as of this writing:
http://forum.isratrance.com/viewtopic.php/topic/52988/forum/2
the only way id get a intel, is if i got the dell 400sc, and thats only because it is SUCH a amazing deal ($300 @ ebay) for what it is.
(normaly i would never buy a dell, but this is a super quiet powerful machine, and for the price its hard to turn down) |
|
|
|
