|
Do u use AMD or Intel? (help!)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| sufee_b |
Thinking of buying a comp. soon. I am doing my research and AMD seems to be better for graphics and games. Price is lower ofcourse, but how is it for audio, or does it make a difference? I use Fruity 4, acid and CE... probably would need the AMD equivalent to P4 2.4 (which probably would be a AMD 3200 xp or something), and 512 ram.
Also read up on soundcards and the audigy 2 gets bad reviews by even some on this forum... which to use then?? |
|
|
| DJTJ |
An AMD chip will be fine for audio applications; after all, all it does is perform a load of complex calculations and if it can do that well for games then it is a fair extension that it can do the same for audio. If you are thinking of editing very large WAV files (for editing recorded mixes or for production) then you will definitely want at least 512 ram, possibly a gig if you can afford it.
As for sound cards, steer well clear of Creative (yes, that includes Audigy). If you want a good card for recording that will give the clearest possible sound to your recordings then you will want to go for a professional quality soundcard. Before you get frightened off because of price, there are some very reasonable cards for not very much money out there.
A lot of people will recommend the M-Audio audiophile card to you... this is without doubt an excellent card, but it is of course only as good as its chipset. This chipset happens to be known as Envy24 or ice1712. If you know this piece of information then you can find other (cheaper) cards that have the same chipset and thus an equal sound quality, such as the ST-Audio DSP24V by Hoontech. This has gold-plated RCA inputs and outputs, and also has a separate chip on-board that uses the AC97 codec (standard) so that you can use it for all your windoze games and applications as well as for audiophile recording. I picked up one of these for about £100 in the UK about 2 years ago, you might be able to find it cheaper now.
Hope this is of use to you.
Tim |
|
|
| Vert |
I'm not positive of this.. but just because a card uses the same or similar chipset, doesn't mean that a card manufactured by another company using it will be similar quality or have the same pro features or support of the M-audio ...
es |
|
|
| Nabistai |
AMD here
fast and reliable, haven't had a single problem is 3 years or something. (this pc is often on for 10+ hours and haven't even had problems with the overheating stuff at all, no extra cooling) |
|
|
| onceler |
| quote: | Originally posted by sufee_b
Thinking of buying a comp. soon. I am doing my research and AMD seems to be better for graphics and games... |
just to clairfy, Intel is the speed champ at the moment so it will be better for anything you throw at it pretty much. however, if you want price/performance... you cant beat AMD. I have been running AMD's for the last 5 years or so and have yet to have a problem. Most of my computers are on 24/7 |
|
|
| DJ1MK |
| With the Athlon 64 AMD now has the fastest solution. Pick up an Athlon 64 3000+. That's my recommendation. Almost as fast as both AMD's and Intel's best at a $200 price point. Many reviews have given it the title of best price/performance ratio currently. That's what I'd get if I were buying a new system today. |
|
|
| Scottaculous |
I would choose Intel any day for music production. I could care less about marginal speed. Intel has a flawless track record for reliability and compatability compared to AMD. Most if not all sound card manufacturers use Intel for their reference systems and testing. I would use AMD for a normal computer but if your goal is to use it for production I will definitely go with Intel. Reliability and compatability beats speed anyday.
Final important note. Choose your sound card BEFORE you choose your motherboard. Check your sound card manufacturer's site on technical support for problem motherboards and incompatibility issues. I can't stress this enough. |
|
|
| Vert |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scottaculous
I would choose Intel any day for music production. I could care less about marginal speed. Intel has a flawless track record for reliability and compatability compared to AMD. Most if not all sound card manufacturers use Intel for their reference systems and testing. I would use AMD for a normal computer but if your goal is to use it for production I will definitely go with Intel. Reliability and compatability beats speed anyday.
Final important note. Choose your sound card BEFORE you choose your motherboard. Check your sound card manufacturer's site on technical support for problem motherboards and incompatibility issues. I can't stress this enough. |
Amd hasn't had any major compatability problems since early 2000. I don't think most of your post applies anymore.
As long as you read a few reviews on your mobo, and make sure there is nothing seriously ed on it, compatability will be just fine.
es |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scottaculous
Final important note. Choose your sound card BEFORE you choose your motherboard. Check your sound card manufacturer's site on technical support for problem motherboards and incompatibility issues. I can't stress this enough. |
Words to live by, however I wasn't living by them when I nuilt my computer and now I can't have my M-Audio card in at teh same time as my firewire card.
But it is definitely AMD for me, mucho cheaper with no noticable speed difference. |
|
|
| amdmaxx |
| Intel here (see my name, I used to be AMD fan, but they falling behind again).. FX51 might help... |
|
|
| Scottaculous |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vert
Amd hasn't had any major compatability problems since early 2000. I don't think most of your post applies anymore.
As long as you read a few reviews on your mobo, and make sure there is nothing seriously ed on it, compatability will be just fine.
es |
RME's website doesn't even have an AMD reference system citing this:
| quote: | | RME's audio interfaces have always been compatible to AMD processors. Unfortunately this doesn't mean that an AMD-based computer system will work perfectly as DAW (Digital Audio Workstation.) Too many bugs, mainly in BIOS and chipset, have damaged the reputation of Athlon.based DAWs heavily. |
That doesn't mean if you're an AMD user you're screwed but it does mean you get more unnecessary issues with AMD systems over Intel. To me, that's enough deterrant to choose Intel because the last thing I need on top of being creative is technical issues.
Here's a link on RME's thoughts on AMD relative to their sound cards.
http://www.rme-audio.com/english/techinfo/amd_index.htm |
|
|
| Nemesis44 |
Hey there Sufee,
I use a AMD 2.6 xp with 1024 Ram to make my music. The only problem with my music is my lack of ability he he. ;)
On my PC I run the following:
Fruity Loops 4.1.2.
Various FL pluggins.
Native Instruments FM7
z3ta+
Dream Station
BBE Sound Maximizer (A blinding piece of kit that will make anything you do sound a million times better).
I use a soundblaster live platinum but I don't use it for anything other than connecting to my midi keyboard and sound for games.
On occassion I will use too many sounds but if you turn the effects off you will be able to do more. Then just put the effects back on and record to WAV file.
I like the AMD chip, probably more out of habit than anything else. I just always hated pentium kind of like one hates Bill Gates if that makes any sense...
The track on my signature was made with my current set up although it's fair to say that it's Lo-Fi and pre-master so don't expect too much (It hasn't been through the BBE either).
Cheers
Nem |
|
|
|
|
