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

Intel vs AMD

Looking for a high end CPU any good suggestions ?


thank you.

here

or here

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle or here

that's quite slow in comparison to a i7/nehalem xeon

899 for a CPU? yay!

quote:

Originally posted by thecYrus that's quite slow in comparison to a i7/nehalem xeon

Much better price/performance ratio, the Nehalem is what, 10-15% faster ?

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle Much better price/performance ratio, the Nehalem is what, 10-15% faster ?

i wouldn't buy the 975 either. but the cheapest i7 (920) has a very good price/performance ratio imho and it's around 150% as fast as the amd 955.

and it's even cheaper than the 955 (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Intel-Core-i7...%3A1%7C294%3A50)

AMD has been a bit player ever since Intel released the Core Duo, and still hasn't caught up. Their hardware is OK, but similarly-priced Intel CPUs tend to be a lot better.

You obviously never buy the top of the line, no matter who you buy from.

quote:

Originally posted by thecYrus i wouldn't buy the 975 either. but the cheapest i7 (920) has a very good price/performance ratio imho and it's around 150% as fast as the amd 955. and it's even cheaper than the 955 (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Intel-Core-i7...%3A1%7C294%3A50)

You have to take into account the expensive motherboard and RAM needed for the i7.

The i7 is faster (about 22%) but the Phenom II certainly is no turtle, and if you have an AM2 motherboard which can be 2-3 years old it will fit right in.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut You obviously never buy the top of the line, no matter who you buy from.

Why is that?

quote:

Originally posted by sixofour.604 Why is that?

Because you pay crazy prices, and within not that long of time, it is way cheaper and you pay all that money just to have the top end for a couple months or whatever.

OP- I am running the AMD Phenom X2 955 AM3 3.2ghz, I love it, no regrets here, I pretty much never freeze tracks anymore.

Just get a Intel Q6600, solid price to performance ratio
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...N82E16819115017

quote:

Originally posted by Lucidity Because you pay crazy prices, and within not that long of time, it is way cheaper and you pay all that money just to have the top end for a couple months or whatever. OP- I am running the AMD Phenom X2 955 AM3 3.2ghz, I love it, no regrets here, I pretty much never freeze tracks anymore.

So true. I bought a pc for $1,000 last year. My friend, a week ago bought the same pc, but with a better towercase for only $600. It's definitely wiser to wait until the price drops and use what you have. You don't necessarily need NASA computers to make music. If those thoughts come to your mind, just reflect on how music was made back in the days on pcs that are now considered obsolete.

Intel all the way. IMO you are better off building your own computer, or getting a friend who can. That way all the components are the ones you want, not just the cheap infill tat that many manufacturers put in to cut corners so that you think you are getting better value for money

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut AMD has been a bit player ever since Intel released the Core Duo, and still hasn't caught up. Their hardware is OK, but similarly-priced Intel CPUs tend to be a lot better. You obviously never buy the top of the line, no matter who you buy from.

Not really. For budget and gaming systems, AMD is currently the choice over Intel. It's much cheaper and gives the same performance. The core i7 is only good for workstations atm.

quote:

Originally posted by Timothy Not really. For budget and gaming systems, AMD is currently the choice over Intel. It's much cheaper and gives the same performance. The core i7 is only good for workstations atm.

Why is that? I mean, I tend to choose AMD over Intel anyways. No point in using depricated chipsets.

quote:

Originally posted by sixofour.604 Why is that? I mean, I tend to choose AMD over Intel anyways. No point in using depricated chipsets.

Cuz you can overclock AMDs more easily. That's why they are popular in gaming. But for general work, even for music, any one of them is fine. There really shouldn't be an intel vs amd for DAW pcs.

quote:

Originally posted by SGL Cuz you can overclock AMDs more easily. That's why they are popular in gaming. But for general work, even for music, any one of them is fine. There really shouldn't be an intel vs amd for DAW pcs.

Thats not exactly true, Intel processors are better overclockers (especially the Core 2 series, at least until AMD came out with Phenom II, which was this year)
But its irrelevant cause there should not be an Intel vs AMD as you say, they both produce excellent processors.. while AMD usually provides a slightly better price/performance ratio in the low/mid end range, Intel provides the fastest but also most expensive processors in the high end range.

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle while AMD usually provides a slightly better price/performance ratio in the low/mid end range

Not since the Core. Any AMD you can buy today, you can find a Core in the same price range with better performance (even before OC'ing).

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Not since the Core. Any AMD you can buy today, you can find a Core in the same price range with better performance (even before OC'ing).

Phenom II is equal or slightly slower than Core 2 Quad clock for clock, but the Phenom II processors are cheaper than the equivalent Intel Core 2 Quad processors.
Also the great backwards comparability of the Phenom II, which works on all AM2 boards, so you can just drop the CPU on to an ancient motherboard and it will work is a good selling point.
AMD still has the best price/performance ratio between the two.

Edit: After the launch of Phenom II that is, before that Intel owned with its Core 2.

quote:

Originally posted by ReclusNdangrmnt Just get a Intel Q6600, solid price to performance ratio http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...N82E16819115017

That's the processor I went with for my last build - I haven't met a project that it can't handle yet and I use some serious CPU hogs (e.g., Omnisphere, Massive, Alchemy, WaveArts and Waves reverbs, etc.). And, I don't even overclock it.

I work for AMD, so I'm sure you guys can guess which way I lean here. When it comes to price/performance, even as an unbiased third party I would go with AMD. Sure, Intel is outperforming us for now, but the premium you pay for the extra % in performance is, in my opinion, only worth it if you're truly engaging in professional pursuits.

quote:

Originally posted by cl0ckw3rk I work for AMD, so I'm sure you guys can guess which way I lean here. When it comes to price/performance, even as an unbiased third party I would go with AMD. Sure, Intel is outperforming us for now, but the premium you pay for the extra % in performance is, in my opinion, only worth it if you're truly engaging in professional pursuits.

I share diginut's opinion: AMD used to be the better choice, until the coreduo's. I use the Q6600 and it's an excellent choice for a DAW (though maybe getting a little old by now). If I remember right they were also less power consuming (which means they don't get as warm, and your fans don't need to work overtime)

Maybe in some years Amd will again offer the best price/performance but for now Intel is the way to go.

For the budget minded, the Athlon II X2 CPUs are a worthy consideration.

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/H...eviews/aii_250/

A significant percentage of current DAW software has poor or completely non-existent support for multicore processors, so I don't see the point in quad-core audio workstations. Go with the highest frequency dual core processor you can get your hands on. The Ahtlon II's are an interesting design; they drop the slow L3 cache, trading it for a double sized (1MB per core, vs 512KB per core, compared to the Phenom II) L2 cache. The Athlon II's have the integrated memory controller like other AMD products (and the Core i7) leading to lower memory latency and increased bandwidth, important for any real-time application such as audio production.

Moreover, they are quite inexpensive; the 3.0ghz model can be had from Newegg for $80 right now, which is about half of Intel's comparable E8400.

You'll also pay less for the motherboard, and AMD actually has a decent integrated video solution if you want to avoid the cost, power and heat of a dedicated video card (The 790GX is far superior to Intel's poor-at-best G-series UMA chipsets).

Really it's a simple formula; if you want top end performance, it's no doubt Intel's Core i7. But personally, if I were buying a new studio rig, it'd be an AMD Athlon II, probably with an ATI 4650 dual-DVI card.. and I'd funnel the money saved into an extra LCD panel; the extra display space will save you more time and frustration than a slightly notable increase in CPU performance. <3 dual monitors.

Myself, I'm presently running a Phenom II clocked up to 3.3ghz and I'm extremely happy with it. It's been a solid system that cost me little and performs quite well. But I'd go Athlon II X2 if I was building a strictly audio machine, and clock it around 3.5-3.6, which seems to be obtainable with these low-TDP chips. Phenom II's will clock to 3.5 or so, but require more cooling than the Athlon II's. My Phenom box sees alot of different workload, I do some software development and run VMs often, so I wanted the extra cores.

But, if you plan to do gaming... you really might consider the i7. It seems Intel payed alot of attention to optimizing for gaming workloads. Or the game vendors paid alot of attention to optimizing for i7.. One of the two!

just saw the updated benchmarks on adk (http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm)

here you can see that the 920 (yellow) is MUCH faster than the X4 955 (dark green)

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