|
AMD or P4
|
View this Thread in Original format
| hey cheggy |
| 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. |
|
|
| Stuart Silver |
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!!) |
|
|
| 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!! |
|
|
| h.vox |
| 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. |
|
|
| Stuart Silver |
| 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. |
|
|
| h.vox |
| 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. |
|
|
| Audigy7 |
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. |
|
|
| hey cheggy |
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. |
|
|
| Dj Thy |
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 :D
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. |
|
|
| Massive84 |
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 :D. |
|
|
| Digital Aura |
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!!:happy2: |
|
|
|
|
