| Author
|
AMD or INTEL???
|
Lithium
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
646
Posted : Mar 28, 2005 13:55
|
i think steinberg cubase 3 is optimized for 64 bits processors so i guess if you plan using it, youŽll take much more advance in using AMD processors running at 64 bits rather than intel 32 bits processors.
but i also agree that bots intel and Amd these days are 100% reliable and suitable for music creation. |
|
|
psypox
Psypox / Bufo
Started Topics :
53
Posts :
768
Posted : Mar 28, 2005 20:12
|
|
vox
Started Topics :
2
Posts :
114
Posted : Mar 29, 2005 15:28
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-03-26 16:56, DiMT wrote:
But sometimes I hear an opinion that AMD is more suitable for 3D games and P4 is better for music processing. I choose between Athlon 64 3000+ (or 3200+) and LGA 775 P4 3.0 Ghz. I'm not sure about AMD because the real frequency of 3000 is only 1,8 GHz. I heard that AMD rating name is eqal to P4 frequency but not 100% sure. Wanna change my CPU for being able to process audio tracks with VST effects and to use some VSTi.
|
|
p4 is better for music processing, but only in the process of mastering. it is because, when you sequence your tracks, every plugin and every synth needs some cpu power for itself, and here amd is much better. it is because the data in the processor passes through much less stages than in intel processors - those stages are called pipelines. intel has 31, amd64 has about 15, which makes it pretty much fast as double-clocked intel cpu. intel is better when processing one single stream of data, and this is why it is better in audio and video encoding and decoding. with multiple streams (lots of synths, plugins, intensive multitasking calculations) amd is better. and when we talk about cooling - the latest p4 runs 15 degrees HOTTER than amd equivalent, which sucks. not to mention that amd math units are better than intel's, no matter what clock.
 http://myspace.com/voxproject |
|
|
|
TRANCER
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
94
Posted : Mar 29, 2005 18:51
|
nice said VOX...
TRANCER |
|
|
|
UIU
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
88
Posts :
238
Posted : Mar 30, 2005 15:49
|
|
How pentium m processors for laptops? How do they compare to p4 and amd? |
|
|
|
sy000321
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
46
Posts :
1142
Posted : Apr 4, 2005 15:47
|
im not a fan of amd vs intel discussions but i had to post this:
A friends FL5 project wich stutered on a Pentium IV 3,4 GHz w/ 2Gbs RAM ran smoothly on my AMD XP 2.1 w/ 256Mb RAM!
For me it's the end of the AMD vs Intel Discussion 
[[[]]]
joao
roll a joint or STFU :) |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Apr 4, 2005 19:37
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-03-28 13:55, Lithium wrote:
i think steinberg cubase 3 is optimized for 64 bits processors
|
|
Nope. At the moment, the only sequencer optimized for 64 bit processors is Sonar 64 but that is just a beta version.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Apr 4, 2005 19:39
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-04-04 15:47, sy000321 wrote:
im not a fan of amd vs intel discussions but i had to post this:
A friends FL5 project wich stutered on a Pentium IV 3,4 GHz w/ 2Gbs RAM ran smoothly on my AMD XP 2.1 w/ 256Mb RAM!
|
|
Although I think that AMDs are faster than Intels, this particular problem could be caused by all sorts of things besides the processor. (PCI Latency, sound card drivers, IRQ problems, audio latency settings etc).
UnderTow |
|
|
|
sy000321
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
46
Posts :
1142
Posted : Apr 4, 2005 19:46
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-04-04 19:39, UnderTow wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2005-04-04 15:47, sy000321 wrote:
im not a fan of amd vs intel discussions but i had to post this:
A friends FL5 project wich stutered on a Pentium IV 3,4 GHz w/ 2Gbs RAM ran smoothly on my AMD XP 2.1 w/ 256Mb RAM!
|
|
Although I think that AMDs are faster than Intels, this particular problem could be caused by all sorts of things besides the processor. (PCI Latency, sound card drivers, IRQ problems, audio latency settings etc).
UnderTow
|
|
yes... but we use similar soundcards (M-Audio Delta) and software configurations and no net connection in any of the PCs, same speed in HD... don't know about his graphic card but mine is a very cheap one running at a very hi resolution... (i got board, processor, ram and graphic card for 150)
still... supposedely a 3.4Ghz computers should be at least 50% faster than a 2.1GHz computer! (i don't remember but i think a 2.1 amd runs at 1.8GHz)
(not to speak about the memory diference... 8 times more...)
off course theres lots of variables... i'm not accounting on this post, but still...
roll a joint or STFU :) |
|
|
|
