DDspeed
  Artist
Topics: 24
Replies: 4892
Registered: 07.Jun.03 |
oceanseeker wrote on 05 Jun. (18:43) :
And btw, only apple is clearly better, because they market for those kinda customers.
|
PPC architecture RULEZ!!!
Windamingo (2416 hits)
A new song!
Check it out! |
|
RAVE-n
Artist
Topics: 22
Replies: 1077
Registered: 28.Dec.02 |
 |
well.... comparison of whats better has been out for ages. The thing is different,
and differently priced. Since you are going for AMD 64, which is about the same price or not really much cheaper than equal P4. Don't be dicieved by Ghz.... P4 can run up to 3.4, and AMD to 2.2 but thats irrelevant . AMD has , however, twice the buffermemorry on CPU, which greatly enchance the performance on multimedia (games, music, stuff),
while P can better run serious programs and multitasking(you don't need word...do you?)
Be advised tho, that the motherboard will cost you more for AMD 64, but im not sure about the price.
There is however, the top end p4 that has about the same specs as top end amd 64 3.2, with 90nm technology and same amount of secondary buffer (primary buffer is LOT smaller than amds still) , but again, you won't be running word.
Still, AMD 64bit tecnology could be usefull in the far future, but that is not really know,
since there are very few to none application for it..yet.
So... i would go for AMD 64 if the motherboard is not excesively overpriced.
It got a little better benchmark and work better with multimedia data, so if you are not
compiling an million line C++ work, AMD is for you.
"The 'soul' of the machines has always been a part of our music. Trance always belongs to repetition, and everybody is looking for trance in life... in sex, in the emotional, in pleasure, in anything... so, the machines produce an absolutely perfect trance."
|
|
RAVE-n
Artist
Topics: 22
Replies: 1077
Registered: 28.Dec.02 |
oceanseeker wrote on 05 Jun. (18:43) :
Where did you get that information? All the processor does is calculate stuff, the same for games, the same for photoshop.
|
No no no  no no
It does not just calclate stuff... it does a lot lot more 
Maybe the CPU calculates stuff, but processor isn't just CPU 
It depends on how fast the other elements get data to cpu to calucalte it,
and the order of data that is send to cpu ... neither of that is done by CPU itself.
"The 'soul' of the machines has always been a part of our music. Trance always belongs to repetition, and everybody is looking for trance in life... in sex, in the emotional, in pleasure, in anything... so, the machines produce an absolutely perfect trance."
|
|
Kevin Zhan
Artist
Topics: 85
Replies: 2680
Registered: 09.Feb.03 |
| thanks rave-n as always u have extensive knowledge |
|
dimensioncrasher
Artist
Topics: 7
Replies: 161
Registered: 24.Sep.03 |
AMD / Intel what ever
AMD (in some cases) produces more heat wich equals bigger cooling solutions and more noise ofcourse (from fans and stuff) wich might be a downer...
In preformance it doesn't "kick" pentium ass, but benche's slightly better ... i mean from what i read(and remember) pentium is (well used to be) cooler and doesnt need big noise'y fans and stuff...
also usualy better when it come's to encoding, compression. we're talking about seconds here i mean ... if it takes 30 seconds to encode a mp3 with AMD and 28 with pentium . so what ??? the new 64-bit from AMD is better in most areas from what i remember... so choose whatever you want... but i recomend reading some test's. and a good motherboard is also important so your system doens't crash all the time (shit im such a geek  )
I think you need registered ram too for the 64-bit (look it up)
good luck 
Dimensioncrasher - formerly known as Trans-serials |
|
Randor
 Administrator
Topics: 560
Replies: 2948
Registered: 27.Dec.02 |
|
I'm not an expert on this stage, (even I recently built a new DAW to meself ) but I'd say don't go for latest tech. It tends to be expencive and poorly supported at start.
At first, Athlon 64 isn't studio DAW processor without liquid cooler. It's so hot  I suppose you won't record any live stuff with that so it doesn't matter.
You predecessor was P4 if I remember right, 2400 with entry level cache, slow fsb, without HT. Now the hyperthreading is something musicapps usually benefit. At least tests I've read P4 with fast fsb and ht technology beats athlon 64, mainly coz of missing 64bit support.
If you plan to update system every 2 years, don't go for latest ( fastest) tech I'd go for fast P4, at least 1 gb fast ram ( remember ram issues with athlon 64, it'll cost you) or in case you like focus to music, buy Intel Centrino laptop. As it was referred on some test, " only G5 seems to beat it when it comes to music applications" Quite rude, 1,6 ghz chip bashed fastest pentiums and athlons.... |
|
Kevin Zhan
Artist
Topics: 85
Replies: 2680
Registered: 09.Feb.03 |
| of course mac is always the fastest gosh my dad's dual processor g5 is so damn amazing |
|
Xaimus
 Member
Topics: 0
Replies: 390
Registered: 26.Jun.03 |
Baah. I'd go with a SMP Opteron system over a SMP G5 system any day. x86/amd64 stuff makes me happy
Goatse is dead. D: |
|
xa
Artist
Topics: 54
Replies: 2755
Registered: 08.Jun.04 |
|
RAVE-n wrote on 05 Jun. (18:44) :
so if you are not compiling an million line C++ work, AMD is for you.
|
Actaully... I use my AMD machine for C++ programming all the time. It does nicely, though I admit the biggest programs I usualy compile are <10000 lines. Personally, I love AMD, all of my experiences with their processors have been good. That extra cache memory really speeds up the small operations that I do so many of, and it does help with gaming too like everyone says. They really have no problem with word too... I was running MSWordXP on an 800mhz Duron with no problems or lagging except in speech recogntion (That might have had something to do with the mic I was using at the time though too)
Btw, I'm running an old Intel PII Celeron on the computer I'm on right now. It has very little cache memory like all of the old model Celerons and can't multitask worth crap, and has serious problems with M$ applications like word. The AMD Duron I was talking about (Also a rather old processer, it was AMD's answer to the Celeron) has no problems with either...
So prettymuch, I'm all for AMD. They just seem to work better for everything in my experience.
To err is human - and to blame it on the computer is more so. |
|
Gopher
Member
Topics: 24
Replies: 1540
Registered: 05.Jan.03 |
|
Although I'm a dedicated AMD user, I'm going to have to play Devil's Advocate - I've noticed a lot of Intel bashing, but I've noticed nothing has been said about Intel Hyperthreading, which has pretty much evened the playing field (unless you have apps which require 100% utilisation for pure number crunching - which is rather rare - and negates any performance gains from HT).
Basically:
Intel with HT = AMD performance
AMD runs hotter (read into that what you like)
Intel chips preserve better under bad conditions (whereas AMD chips have a nasty habit to fry)
AMD is (usually) cheaper
Further reading:
May 2004 SOS - Page 108
Half a zillion other sites
-Gopher
Personally I'd go for an AMD system; my current system (below) works fine. However, if you want pure speed, damn the torpedoes, an all-music computer, get a dual proc G5. Just make that the G5 has a Rev. E PSU, otherwise it might have some electrical interference.
My specs:
XP2600+ (Barton), with Zalman Flower fan
512MB Ram (PC2700 I think)
About Enough HD Space
Terratec DMX 6/fire w. breakout box
GF FX5200
Ambient noise level with side of case off: bloody quiet.
Nobody ever survives a CFIT. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Latest Topics
![[83.145.128.3]](pics/ip.gif){kind=small}
