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

___________________

Don't take me too seriously.

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.

___________________
A mon frère Alexandre...
We are all addicted to trance !!!!

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

___________________

Don't take me too seriously.

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.

___________________
1 out of every 4 people in this country are mentally disturbed. Look at your 3 closest friends. If they seem okay, then you're the one.

^^ 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 français, je vais te répondre en français, c'est plus facile pour moi....

Moi j'ai un Athlon XP 2800 overclocké à 2300Mhz et moi aussi c'est pareil le Z3TA+ est très bon mais bug bcp aussi, surtout sous Cubase. Pourtant quand j'ai commencé à l'utiliser sous FL Studio 4.1 en sa version 1.0.0. il n'y avait pas ce problème.

Moi quand je parle que ce producteur avait de terrible problème, il ne pouvait rien faire du tout !!!! Même faire tourner un bête son dans Albino. Sous Logic ça fonctionnait terrible mais pas sous Cubase. Oui c'est pt un problème lié à Cubase qui sait mais en attendant sous AMD y'a aucun prob.

Mais pour ton problème, à 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 ça par moment j'éprouve qques difficulté, enfin sur Cubase SX 2.0 avec 15 Vsti en chaine...

Voilà

Sorry for French speaking

___________________
A mon frère Alexandre...
We are all addicted to trance !!!!

Last edited by Darkwave on Jul-02-2004 at 18:23