TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- AMD Processors
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Well that sucks ass... cause then I need about 10 grand for that system you recomended. It's crazy

it shouldnt cost that much as i belive your in isreal which probly gets cheap parts straight from asia. however ill say this go ahead and buy a athlon64 3500 and 2gb of corsair ram and the motherboard you listed id go with abit because i find their boards to be decent. and just buy a cheap soundcard emu cards are good so i belive the one you listed would be fine.

In about 6 months to a year, the whole computing industry in reguards to cpu's is going to get flipped upside down. AMD has their dual-core opterons set to come out this summer, while intel has their dual-core chips on track for 1st quarter, 2k6. This means that all computing will be going the way of multi-processing. If you are building a computer to last, my suggestion is to wait for these to come out. Dual-core processing is going to be the standard in a couple years. Might as well save some coin and build a computer that will get you to that point rather than going balls out and having to do it again soon.

As for the person who said high-end ram only came out a year or so ago.. it has been around for ages... just not available at your local best buy.

Devil: I think you are right thanks man

I cant wait a year or so for the multi systems....
I am here with a 2 GHZ intel board, And it cant breathe any longer.
And soon I may be signing some stuff, so I got to get some strong stuff in the box. But I wish I could wait

quote:

Originally posted by onceler As for the person who said high-end ram only came out a year or so ago.. it has been around for ages... just not available at your local best buy.

that's true and I actually don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. Had been up a few hours to long I think

it's true that the last year has been an explosion when it comes to new products on the memory market but the high end memorys have been around for way longer than 1 year that's correct


well anyway, there's always the possibility to bounce synths down to wav's and save processingpower thanks to that but personally I hate doing that. It feels like I loose so much controll over the sound that'll become unchangeable. Thinks like the envelopes, filters and stuff like that.

[edit]

ohh and a little sidenote. I don't think the dual-core processors will be giving as much power as some people predict. It'll basicly work like a budget version of running dual processors but the big downside to it imo is that the cores will share the same cahe memory and stuff like that.

quote:

well anyway, there's always the possibility to bounce synths down to wav's and save processingpower thanks to that but personally I hate doing that. It feels like I loose so much controll over the sound that'll become unchangeable. Thinks like the envelopes, filters and stuff like that.

absolutely. and if you add stuff and want to make changes to the original loops you bounced its a pain in the arse and a slow process rerendering it, recutting it and re mastering so that it sits well with the rest of your tracks.

ideally i would like to write all my tunes in realtime. but the reality is that i dont have the processing power to realise the kinds of ideas of got in my head. and neither do alot of producers. even with top spec PCs. the more time i spend bouncing stuff down, the quicker and easier it gets and the more experience i get working this way. its annoying. but im slowly adjusting to it. and via this method i have as many PCs as it takes to fully realise my ideas because as soon as i hit the limits of my PC i can bounce it down and get my entire cpu load reset to 0 again. and besides, if you work with hardware, you HAVE to bounce it

i have a socket 939 64bit 3500 processor on an asus a8v deluxe mobo. pretty economical and it definitely puts out enough cpu to run loads of vsts etc.

Vizay -

For dual-core, it is true that they will be sharing the same cache and what not, but you have to remember that once they hit the market, we are really going to see the beginning of true hyperthreading. Once they hit the market, more and more pc's are going to be built w/ them inside to the point that eventually, everything will be dual-core processing.

Currently, there arent too many programs that take advantage of a dual cpu system. In a couple years from now, we will prob. be saying the exact opposite.

if you have dual 2.8ghz operatrons trust me youll notice a differnce. i rember when i had a quad xeon system in 2001 had 4 888mhz xeon and trust me its unreal the proccessing power and how much more smoothly systems run.

onceler: well I guess it's another one of thoose cases where we'll see bigger improvements in the future. I mean the athlon 64 processors are already doing really well. Imagine when the first really good 64bits OS hits the market and programs like cubase start to utilize the new structure. That will def. be something to look forward too

Cpu

Hi there. Like fiew of you mentioned here, when you buy a computer you really have to think before you buy one. The thing is your athlon64 will be absoleet in 2-2.5 years max, the technology seems to be picking up the pace lately, if you have a big wallet than you might be in the game of upgrading often.. But the thing is, new software will come, that will require more cpu power, more ram, more hd space. Every year a new version of cubase sx comes out and the recomended system specs go up. Yeah we get more features, but at a cost, of the app using more cpu and ram.
Depending how you will work you will eventually run out of cpu power on any computer, especially with some newer soft synths that sound good, but take up 50% of my 2.8 ghz Intel p4, as soon as I hit 4-6 notes. I know that I will be upgrading my system sometimes in the future like most of us here, and we will all have to adjust the way we work to accomodate for the "Not enough cpu power syndrome" It happens to everyone. Eaven guys with dual cpu's run out of power. That's why they have cards like Uad, and powercore, Protools, to help you overcome this problem to a certain degree. In order to run my sequencer the way I wanted it I would probaly have to have another 2-3ghz of power available to me, that way I woudn't have to freeze tracks, or bounce to audio.
One of my solutions is to run software/hardware setup, that way I keep the cpu running at 80% under real heavy projects, using Powercore DSP, and additional eq and vst effects. And using hardware synths, and recording them into audio at a later stage..

Can someone tell me the performance difference between a socket 754 Athlon 64 3000 and a socket 939 Athlon 64 3000? The 754 I can get for $220 while the 939 I can get for $260. I'm trying to build a best bang for you buck system here, as apposed to going all out and getting a Athlon 64 FX-52 for $1200

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Can someone tell me the performance difference between a socket 754 Athlon 64 3000 and a socket 939 Athlon 64 3000? The 754 I can get for $220 while the 939 I can get for $260. I'm trying to build a best bang for you buck system here, as apposed to going all out and getting a Athlon 64 FX-52 for $1200

first of all an FX-52 can't cost 1200 since the FX-55 costs 700$ here in sweden and we're not exactly known to seel cheap stuff here

well anyway, the socket 754 is meant as a budget alternative to the socket 939. The biggest downsides to it imo are:

it doesn't support dual DDR setup (basicly, if you have two memorysticks with the same memory you can run them in dual mode so they run in 800mhz instead of 400)

the socket 754 will stop supporting the athlon64 processors wich basicly means that you'll only be available to buy sempron and it's followup if you want to upgrade.


Shure, socket 754 aint bad at all, it'd still be a pretty ok choice but my advice is, if you can save up for thoose extra dollars go with 939. It will cost you more now but you won't regret it the next time you want to buy a new processor for your mobo. Instead of having to buy both a new mobo and a processor you just need the processor

and it's never wrong to be able to run the memories in dual DDR either

quote:

Originally posted by Vizay first of all an FX-52 can't cost 1200 since the FX-55 costs 700$ here in sweden and we're not exactly known to seel cheap stuff here

Woops I meant the FX-53. The FX-53 costs $AU1385 on http://www.itwarehouse.com.au/

That's $US1052.

So what are you talking about it "can't cost 1200"? It does.

Oh and with the dual channel DDR issue, I've heard that in some applications, dual channel runs slower then single channel DDR. WTF!

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Oh and with the dual channel DDR issue, I've heard that in some applications, dual channel runs slower then single channel DDR. WTF!

that must be bogus, I can't see that happening in anyway tbh

but about the price I just remembered that the course is pretty low right now, here one dollar is worth about 7 swedish krona so your price evens out to ours pretty good

I have a new system running AMD 64 3400+ 939 chip

939 is the way to go and also 64bit as altho WIndows 64 isnt out there is still some cpu to be gained.

I think actually overall Intel are better for audio but only only just. Factor in cost and amd looks better.

I run cubase sx 2 with 5 versions of v-station and battery and it hasnt flickered yet.

Ill run a full test tomorrow and let you know. Only just brought SX 2 cos � gone down a little

i have no clue what kind of crack your smoking but the new amds blow the piss outta intels. the pure match crunching power alone.

AMD blows Intel out of the water in terms of Instructions per clock and Operations per clock, but as far as workload goes i believe Intel has got the edge...If i'm wrong i apologize, please correct me.

if AMD delivered all theyr processors with 1mb cache they would have the edge overall. As it is right now I think (if I'm not totally wrong here) that all athlon 64 processors below 4000+ only ships with 512mb L2 Cache wich puts them a bit behind when it comes to that area. But at least the FX-processors have 1mb

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.