TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- AMD or P4
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

AMD or P4

I'm looking at getting a new processor and MB and was wondering if either was better at running audio app's. I've heard that Athlon processors seem to be more popular but wasn't sure if this was due to the cost only. Also, does Hyper-Threading make a P4 the better choice. I currently have a p4 1.8 but don't run HT because I'm using Windows 2000. Is there a significant difference in performance when HT is turned on.

I went through something similar about a year ago - AMD vs Intel for my PC. After searching stacks of forums/reviews I realised that there really isn't much difference - for every person who rates the AMD chips for audio, there is another who would never use anything less than Intel! The Intels with HT will be faster than an equivalent Athlon, but probably a bit more expensive. Another critical factor seemed to be motherboard chipsets, I know there were a few issues with earlier VIA chipsets and some soundcards (particularly Soundblaster cards) whilst the Nforce chipsets seem to be current flavour of the month.
I ended up with an AMD system and have been very happy with it. I guess the best thing to suggest would be to try one or the other and see how it suits you - find a decent supplier who have a good returns policy (so if you don't like it, you can send it back!).
My system currently is as follows:
AMD Athlon XP 2400+
Gigabyte 7N400 Pro2
1GB Crucial 2700 RAM
120Gb Maxtor DiamondMax drive (8Mb cache)

I haven't had a single crash/hang that I could attribute to the hardware & I also run a dual boot system so my Audio OS is nice and
clean.

Hope some of that helped (probably just confused the matter more!!)

Just as an extra consideration - Carillion who make some damn fine Audio PCs seem to use mainly Intel chips with HT technology.
A quote from their web site:
"Intel processors consistently deliver the floating-point performance necessary for DSP intensive multitrack digital audio; industry standard applications run under Microsoft Windows which is primarily written for Intel's architecture. Carillon uses Intel Pentium processors exclusively."

.....but on the other hand many well know producers use AMDs (Pulser for one - http://www.cloudwalking.com/studio.htm)


Sorry, I'm just confusing matters more!!

quote:

Originally posted by Stuart Silver Just as an extra consideration - Carillion who make some damn fine Audio PCs seem to use mainly Intel chips with HT technology. A quote from their web site: "Intel processors consistently deliver the floating-point performance necessary for DSP intensive multitrack digital audio; industry standard applications run under Microsoft Windows which is primarily written for Intel's architecture. Carillon uses Intel Pentium processors exclusively." .....but on the other hand many well know producers use AMDs (Pulser for one - http://www.cloudwalking.com/studio.htm) Sorry, I'm just confusing matters more!!

yes, you do
carillion do not really know what they are talking about. that's what happens when musicians want to show themselves as the big guys in another department. it is something like the audio division of dell reccomending one synthesizer over another (ok, this is a bit exaggerated, but you get the point )
the amd cpus design is based on an alpha processor which delivered as much as an 2x faster intel in terms of mathematical calculations, which computer music is based upon. it is more effective than intel's design, since the data runs through the processor in less cycles (time) than in an intel one.
it is just that amd has problem with the clock and cannot make their cpus run at intel speeds. it is the same with business configurations - i do not understand why all business configurations here (in croatia) are based on intel processors, and the most of them are p4 1.8. latest athlons are cheaper, and do not run at high temperatures the old ones used to, and the motherboards are getting better and better. the intel is better only because they make the motherboards for their own processors which are rock solid - too bad amd ain't making motherboards and chipsets for their own processors. personally, i would go for an athlon, and for the amount of money saved i would get a bigger/better monitor, or a better soundcard, keyboard, more ram, disk space, whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by h.vox yes, you do carillion do not really know what they are talking about. that's what happens when musicians want to show themselves as the big guys in another department. it is something like the audio division of dell reccomending one synthesizer over another (ok, this is a bit exaggerated, but you get the point )

When I re-read that quote from Carillion it sounds a bit like they're trying to justify using Intel processors & charging a few hundred quid more!

quote:

the amd cpus design is based on an alpha processor which delivered as much as an 2x faster intel in terms of mathematical calculations, which computer music is based upon. it is more effective than intel's design, since the data runs through the processor in less cycles (time) than in an intel one

Cool, didn't know that - AMDs sound like the best choice for audio then.

quote:

Originally posted by Stuart Silver When I re-read that quote from Carillion it sounds a bit like they're trying to justify using Intel processors & charging a few hundred quid more! Cool, didn't know that - AMDs sound like the best choice for audio then.

they would be even better if they could run as high as intel, but hey. you can't have it all.

AMD:
pro: cheap, good for games
con: run hot, not as fast as a p4 of = speed

Intel:
pro: fast, runs cooler than the AMD
con: can be spendy

I prefer Intel myself, but AMD is also not to bad. Like I told my friend, Intel is generally better for photoshop, programming and the likes while AMD is better for gaming.

Well money isn't really an issue if the difference is only a couple a hundred bucks. I remember reading somewhere that you can run more plugins on an equivilant AMD chip than on an Intel which is why I'm curious.

Thanks for the comments guys.

If money is no issue, I'd say definatly go for the intel.

And, this might help. http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1194

This is the age old debate. But from own experience I can say :

AMD has better floating point calculation. In other words, if you are a heavy plugin/softsynth user, you can generally squeeze more out of an AMD, except when it's specifically written to use SSE2 algo's (and generally it's not the case). Sometimes the difference is flagrant, although since the P4 3.2 the gap has closed considerably.

Don't ask me why, but generally, the whole Intel architecture (so also Mobo and chipset) handle audio better. So if you don't use much plugins, but do a lot of audio recording (multitrack) Intel is still the king.

Most soft manufacturers still test their stuff mainly on Intel based platforms. Sometimes (very rare, but worth mentionning still) something will either work very slow on AMD, or not at all (Steinberg GRM tools only to mention one).

With badly written software (and there are still a lot of them out there), P4 still has the famous denormal problem (in short, for certain calculations, it switches to a high precision mode, which you will usually see as CPU spikes.) CPU spikes in audio, bad news.

Personally, you can't go wrong with either one. Just be sure to check the totality of your setup (so also chipset and memory) as that will be a very important factor in performance and stability.

I'm building a P4 platform myself, because the price difference here is almost nihil, and I'm planning to do a lot of multitrack recording too. That and I still have a solid AMD platform too, so if it screws up I can still jump to the other one
One mention though. If you're buying now, stay away from the Prescott P4 (those with 1 MB cache). They run hotter than normal 512 kb P4's and at same clock speed they are slower too (like the first P4's were slower than P3's of the same clockspeed).

For Intel based systems, I must admit that pretty much the "standard" right now are the Asus P4P800 Deluxe or the P4C800 Deluxe motherboards. They are very stable, and proven their reliability in studio's. Two major drawbacks though (which is the reason why I don't get it) is they don't run well with the standard PSU from the Antec Sonata case, and have problems with the Matrox P650/750 cards (bios is unreadable, garbled graphics).

For AMD, the "standard" has long been the Asus A7N8X Deluxe. Rock stable and fast with the right memory. Haven't been following the AMD64 stuff so can't comment about that (you won't gain much with that for audio now).

For cooling, the most used right now is the Zalman CNPS7000 ACu or AlCu. Cheap, performant, but most importantly deadly quiet.

I asked this question once in a computer shop..

Difference between Intel and AMD was generally, Intel is better at multi tasking.

but am sure Thy is also right on his stuff .

Just built an AMD 64-bit 3000+ system with dual channel TWINX-1GIG PC3200 Ram using SATA hard-drive setup.

DAYAMN!! She's lightning!!

I am not very efficient when it comes to chaining effects and such in my mixdown, so my CPU really takes a hit. With this system ... let's just say I don't have to get tidy any time soon!!

Hey Cheggy,

I used to use athlon.. then P4 and now use Athlon again.

I noticed that I was experiencing CPU spike/crashes issues when using the P4 along with cubase and Vstis and plugins. I believe they are more prone to this issue than athlon CPUs. I remembering using a plugin that was supposed to prevent the spikes, but it was always very flaky... and after doing extensive reasearch on that, i found other ppl with P4s had similar issues when using plugins or Vstis.

When I was looking to buy a new comp. I first asked in different stores what the best soundcard would be for me. Onviously you will already have one. Then I contacted the manufacturer of the soundcard and asked for recommendations of hardware.

I bought an Audiophile and turned for M-audio for advice on what to buy and thus would work best.

Maybe this is an option for you.

DJ Bladerunner

quote:

Originally posted by h.vox it is just that amd has problem with the clock and cannot make their cpus run at intel speeds.

Sorry, but no. Amd can AFFORD to keep their clockspeeds down because their chips perform so well. It is all part of their marketing strategy, allowing them to last longer on their chips. There is no doubt that even the Athlon XP line is easily capable of being expanded past the "3200+" mark (look at what overclockers can do for instance), but they are on to a new line of procesors, so the are working on pushing the Athlon 64 and Operton lines, which also do low clockspeed high performance.

Intel classically has been the choice for the home user, and therefore they have focused bloated, high clockspeeds which appeal to people who are non computer savvy, because a higher number MUST be better.. right?

If you put a 3 GHZ Athlon (really at 3.0 ghz, Overclockers have done this), against a 3.0ghz P4, the athlon will kick the living shit out of the P4. Period.

As far as Amd vs. Intel.. I'd say just pick one. If you can pay more, and want the Intel name, and the belief that your processor is better, go ahead.

If you are on a budget (or not), Amd processors will do you just as well.

es

I'm an Aussie too and am just about to dish out for a new comp. After lots of research I decided my best bet was to go for a P4 system.

$275 P4 2.8Ghz (800Mhz fsb) prescot
$131 Motherboard (GIGABYTE GA-8IG1000MK-uATX I865G)
$89 Corsair DDR-SDRAM VS 256MB PC3200
$89 Corsair DDR-SDRAM VS 256MB PC3200
$50 New Case
----
TOTAL : $634

www.itwarehouse.com.au

Also, to have a hyperthreading compatible system, you need an 800mhz fsb P4, a 865/875/SiS655TX/ or via PT880 motherboard (don't go for a 848 mobo as it doesn't support true hyperthreading ) and 2 * 256MB or 3200 ram. (check www.tomshardware.com out)

quote:

If you put a 3 GHZ Athlon (really at 3.0 ghz, Overclockers have done this), against a 3.0ghz P4, the athlon will kick the living shit out of the P4. Period.

I've yet to see any Athlon overclocked to 3.0gz

And standard, the best P4 is faster then the best Athlon. And the best P4 overclocked is still faster then the best Athlon overclocked.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031223/cpu-guide-18.html

I mean for ffs, a non-overclocked P4-3.2Ghz is faster then an overclocked Athlon FX - 51

quote:

I've yet to see any Athlon overclocked to 3.0gz And standard, the best P4 is faster then the best Athlon. And the best P4 overclocked is still faster then the best Athlon overclocked.

the best intel cpu runs at 60% higher clock for a maybe 10% overall speed margin, which you don't even need most of the time. that is not effective. btw, i think only wankers buy the best and latest cpus and graphic cards. i mean, the lastest cpu is two times more expensive than the one running at 15% lower clock. in 90% of the cases it is just a case of dick measuring.

quote:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20...u-guide-18.html I mean for ffs, a non-overclocked P4-3.2Ghz is faster then an overclocked Athlon FX - 51

ahtlon fx is 64bit cpu. p4 is a 32bit cpu. of course it will be faster with 32bit applications we use today. for this test you should compare amd 64bit cpu and intel 64bit cpu running both 32bit and 64bit code.
did you compare the clocks of athlon fx and p4? there is quite a difference there. those cpus are not really comparable in that simple way.

quote:

And standard, the best P4 is faster then the best Athlon. And the best P4 overclocked is still faster then the best Athlon overclocked. http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20...u-guide-18.html

Tomshardware is biased and has been for a very long time. Intel even pay them ive heard. Hardocp, xbitlabs and anandtech are more reliable. Also u cant just look at a couple of benchmarks and say a cpu is better than another because it performs better in those particular benchmarks. Different programs favour different processors.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2065&p=1
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjI2LDE=
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cp...lon64-3800.html
Amd are CLEARLY ahead of intel atm.

quote:

I've yet to see any Athlon overclocked to 3.0gz

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2709115

quote:

ahtlon fx is 64bit cpu. p4 is a 32bit cpu. of course it will be faster with 32bit applications we use today

A64s are both 32 and 64 bit.

Personally, I prefer AMD.

I know a producer who used a P4 3.06ghz on a Asus P4C800 with 2gb RAM and Cubase SX 2 didn't work properly (CPU go to 90-100% with only one VSTI like Athmosphere or Albino, making crash, trashed and cutted sounds), with many and many Windows reinstallatiion.

However, we found on Steinberg forum that the Hyperthreading Technology is not recommended for Cubase SX2. We tried to disable HT but it was the same result.

We chosen to change the motherboard and we replace it with an Asus P4G8X and this fucking problem was always there.

Finally we chosen to replace the P4 to AMD XP3000+ on Asus A7N8X deluxe and there was no problem with Cubase SX2

More producers have been chosen AMD or Mac for music productions.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq Tomshardware is biased and has been for a very long time. Intel even pay them ive heard. Hardocp, xbitlabs and anandtech are more reliable. Also u cant just look at a couple of benchmarks and say a cpu is better than another because it performs better in those particular benchmarks. Different programs favour different processors. http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2065&p=1 http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjI2LDE= http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cp...lon64-3800.html Amd are CLEARLY ahead of intel atm. http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2709115 A64s are both 32 and 64 bit.

Agreed. Tom's is FAR FROM reliable.

Regarding hyperthreading, it was mostly a marketing strategy more than a significant increase in performance, the performance gain was very minimal, enough that AMD didn't bother with a competing technology unlike their normal practice.

es

quote:

I know a producer who used a P4 3.06ghz on a Asus P4C800 with 2gb RAM and Cubase SX 2 didn't work properly (CPU go to 90-100% with only one VSTI like Athmosphere or Albino, making crash, trashed and cutted sounds), with many and many Windows reinstallatiion.

Darkwave >> I got the same behavior with my Athlon XP 1800+ and z3ta+ : my CPU goes 100% if I try to play more than one note at a time. I got no idea about what could cause that.

Some great info in here guys, thanks alot for this. I am leaning heavily towards an AMD chipset at the moment. I do get CPU spikes running my p4 which is a pain in the ass because Cubase goes spastic and sends audio spikes and shit everywhere, although I must admit, I kane the f*ck out of it with VST instruments and plugins.

^^ good plan cheggy.. and yeah the cpu spikes is the biggest pain in the a$$,... nothing worse to find out after cold booting many times your project is corrupted

quote:

Originally posted by Ace303 Darkwave >> I got the same behavior with my Athlon XP 1800+ and z3ta+ : my CPU goes 100% if I try to play more than one note at a time. I got no idea about what could cause that.

Bon comme tu es fran�ais, je vais te r�pondre en fran�ais, c'est plus facile pour moi....

Moi j'ai un Athlon XP 2800 overclock� � 2300Mhz et moi aussi c'est pareil le Z3TA+ est tr�s bon mais bug bcp aussi, surtout sous Cubase. Pourtant quand j'ai commenc� � l'utiliser sous FL Studio 4.1 en sa version 1.0.0. il n'y avait pas ce probl�me.

Moi quand je parle que ce producteur avait de terrible probl�me, il ne pouvait rien faire du tout !!!! M�me faire tourner un b�te son dans Albino. Sous Logic �a fonctionnait terrible mais pas sous Cubase. Oui c'est pt un probl�me li� � Cubase qui sait mais en attendant sous AMD y'a aucun prob.

Mais pour ton probl�me, � part un Athlon XP1800+ je ne sais pas ce que tu as comme config.

En ce qui me concerne j'ai un Athlon XP2800+ @2300Mhz 1GB RAM PC333 sur une Gigabyte GA-7NNXP et 2 HD de 80GB en SATA-Raid, et une carte son Audiotrak Prodigy 192. Et avec tout �a par moment j'�prouve qques difficult�, enfin sur Cubase SX 2.0 avec 15 Vsti en chaine...

Voil�

Sorry for French speaking

Darkwave >> C'est quand m�me plutot pas mal comme config

Voila la mienne :

Athlon XP 1800+ sur Abit KR7A-133, 1 Go Ram 133, 3 HD (15, 80 et 120 Go) UDMA 100, SBLive Platinum.
Pas tr�s glorieux comme matos
M'enfin je compte bien en changer, mais plus je regarde � droite � gauche pour me faire une id�e, plus je suis perdu, et j'arrive pas � choisir entre AMD et Intel...


Sorry 2 for French speeking

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