return to tranceaddict tranceaddict Forums Archive > DJing / Production / Promotion > Production Studio

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 
AMD or P4 for producing... (pg. 3)
View this Thread in Original format
WhiteBlade
About Dual Core intel is way out in the field lost in the wood.

AMD Dual Core Cpu as something inside to cpu so that both core can "speak" to each other to know where they are in calculation and everything ok that's good what about intel now ?

Intel don't have anything so that the two core can "speake" toghether inside the cpu. How do they do it ?? They use the front side bus and pass in the motherboard chipset. In other word the intel dual core is taking about half of his banwith with the rest of the computer just to make the 2 cores talk togheter while the AMD has a full open road to talk with the motherboard.

Even Intel admitted that they did there job wrong and went too fast on this one because of AMD (like if that was a good reason). No wonder why Intel dual core cpu are cheap as hell compare to AMD dual core.

Like I said before. Intel was the best until it reach about 1.8ghz or 2.0ghz. Since that time there cpu are getting really hot on high load and AMD since that has just been improving a lot on heat discipation and now even at 100% load they stay in the low 40C to 45C.

I work in a shop, my job is to test those thing for compagny cause we are know for our quality work. I'm not saying that because I always been using AMD and I don't know intel. I used myself to beleive INtel was the best until I started playing with the new AMD64 about a year ago. Since that day I find AMD better and if Intel do something good tomorrow I will be the first one to say HEY that's a good one from intel but right now it not the case and all they are doign since a year is compared to what AMD did.

So do what you want but I still suggest AMD64 for anything cause they are the best quality/price choice right now.

* sorry for my english I'm french I'm doign my best hehe
WhiteBlade
quote:
Originally posted by dj_alfi
yeah i know what it is lol.. i just dont get why everybody wants it when there is no software taking advantage of the new technology..


Even if there is no sowftware there banwith is a lot more faster then normal 32 bits.

Right now even if the AMD 64 is only using 32 bits they are talking faster with the memory and the rest of the computer.

I did a good test I have a Athlon XP 3200+ (32 bits) at 2.2ghz here at home and at work I got a AMD 64 3200+ 2.0GHZ with about the same configurtion for the rest of the computer.

When I unrar something or when I convert video from mpeg to vob (dvd) it a lot faster on the AMD 64 even if it using 32 bits cause of the cache memory on the cpu and all the rest around the 64 bits.
dj_alfi
quote:
Originally posted by WhiteBlade
When I unrar something or when I convert video from mpeg to vob (dvd) it a lot faster on the AMD 64 even if it using 32 bits cause of the cache memory on the cpu and all the rest around the 64 bits.


is taht how u produce your massive choons? :P
Corteoz
I own a P4 C(attlewood or something) 2.4 ghz.
I run it @ 3.4 ghz thanks to my Swiftech watercooling. On load it gets as high as 42C.
I've done many benchmarks with Sandra, 3Dmark03, PCMark04 and that pi-calculation tool. My mate has a AMD XP 3200+ and told me that it was way better tham mine.
In average of all the test he reached 3/5 of my results. That's gotta be worth something?
I haven't tested it against a 64-bit proessor, but on a 32-bit O/S with 32-bit software it wont put up much of a challange. My little brother has one, and it doesn't deliver the kind of power my P4 does.

When 64-bit software is common, I will have to reconsider weather to buy Intel or AMD. I chose my P4 'couse I know it's better than the AMD XP series, which was the rival at the time I bought my CPU.
I have no doubt about the AMD 64-bit prosessor being able crushing my P4 when ran on 64-bit systems, but the reality is that you don't have much 64-bit software. In fact, I think I only know of a handful finished software with full 64-bit support.
So, for now... Intel P4 all the way! :)
Later? Well, I'll have to see! :)
dj_alfi
quote:
Originally posted by Corteoz
I own a P4 C(attlewood or something) 2.4 ghz.
I run it @ 3.4 ghz thanks to my Swiftech watercooling. On load it gets as high as 42C.
I've done many benchmarks with Sandra, 3Dmark03, PCMark04 and that pi-calculation tool. My mate has a AMD XP 3200+ and told me that it was way better tham mine.
In average of all the test he reached 3/5 of my results. That's gotta be worth something?
I haven't tested it against a 64-bit proessor, but on a 32-bit O/S with 32-bit software it wont put up much of a challange. My little brother has one, and it doesn't deliver the kind of power my P4 does.

When 64-bit software is common, I will have to reconsider weather to buy Intel or AMD. I chose my P4 'couse I know it's better than the AMD XP series, which was the rival at the time I bought my CPU.
I have no doubt about the AMD 64-bit prosessor being able crushing my P4 when ran on 64-bit systems, but the reality is that you don't have much 64-bit software. In fact, I think I only know of a handful finished software with full 64-bit support.
So, for now... Intel P4 all the way! :)
Later? Well, I'll have to see! :)


lol thats the same im thinking lol...

the best part with my p4 is that im not fragging it all the time, as all my mates did with their XP's :P even WITH watercooling they were able to burn the cpu to hell
Icone
I bought an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ as my first pc simply because some mates of mine were very pleased with AMD. I have to reckon it works like a breeze, the computer I have is very stable (although that probably doesn't depend only on cpu) and is great to produce music with as far as I can tell.

I used to have a P2 MMX before, and it also got the job done to its level... I basically have no idea if something is better than the other. My guess is you'd have to go very deep and be a big nitpicker in order to really say something is 'better'.

Upstairs we have a P4 which isn't the most stable system... Although I again cannot tell it has something to do with its processor.

Everything gets obsolete so fast in the computer business, it's kinda logical there will always be 'something better'; either now or soon.

Cheers ;)
Wim
Subtle
any AMD people that think Intel is the better one or vica versa?
SR-27
My much appreciated Opterons do the job nicely.
Hooray for AMD! :)

I used to be an intel fanboy, but things have changed.. :)
DigiNut
God, I'm getting a friggin' headache from all the nonsensical rambling in this thread. I'm going to spell it out for everyone, plain and simple:

64-bit CPUs require a 64-bit Operating System in order to see *ANY* performance improvement.

That means you need to install Windows XP 64-bit edition. That may be no simple task - in order to do any production on it, you'll also need to find 64-bit drivers.

You do not need 64-bit compiled applications to see the performance improvement. The 32-bit applications are still making tons of OS API and driver calls which will be dramatically sped up by the 64-bit OS and drivers. However, you won't see AS MUCH of an improvement as you would with x64 apps.

Finally, not all 32-bit applications will work correctly on Windows XP 64-bit! Microsoft did a bang-up job on backwards compatibility but it is not perfect, and some apps don't work properly or don't work at all! The real issue here is not performance - with a 64-bit OS and drivers you'll see *at least* a 20-30% boost - the issue is compatibility!

Clear?
Corteoz
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
God, I'm getting a friggin' headache from all the nonsensical rambling in this thread. I'm going to spell it out for everyone, plain and simple:

64-bit CPUs require a 64-bit Operating System in order to see *ANY* performance improvement.

That means you need to install Windows XP 64-bit edition. That may be no simple task - in order to do any production on it, you'll also need to find 64-bit drivers.

You do not need 64-bit compiled applications to see the performance improvement. The 32-bit applications are still making tons of OS API and driver calls which will be dramatically sped up by the 64-bit OS and drivers. However, you won't see AS MUCH of an improvement as you would with x64 apps.

Finally, not all 32-bit applications will work correctly on Windows XP 64-bit! Microsoft did a bang-up job on backwards compatibility but it is not perfect, and some apps don't work properly or don't work at all! The real issue here is not performance - with a 64-bit OS and drivers you'll see *at least* a 20-30% boost - the issue is compatibility!

Clear?


Sir, yes sir!

That post wraps up the 32-bit vs. 64-bit.
My personal experience with Win 64-bit is that VERY few consumer products have proper drivers. Everything is in beta.

I wonder what music software will be the first with 64-bit support. Abelton or Cubase are good candidates since they're always packed with the latest technology. FL will surely get a 64-bit update sooner or later, but Reason will probably be the slowest of them all. I think they use way to much time on small updates. 2.5 to 3.0 was not a major update, and IMHO they could've named it 2.8 or something, but that wouldn't be a good marketing move. ;)

Wops, forgive me for going a bit off-topic.

DigiNut
quote:
Originally posted by Corteoz
My personal experience with Win 64-bit is that VERY few consumer products have proper drivers. Everything is in beta.

Exactly. It's getting better though - ATI has 64-bit drivers, and just today I looked at Emu's website and they have drivers for the 1010/Emulator X, so I might be able to switch to 64-bit Windows for production soon.

The drivers are where 64-bit is still hurting. In general it's actually fairly simple to convert a 32-bit app to 64-bit - it just needs to be recompiled with different options. It's only when the code author has done really screwy byte or word manipulation routines that the source code would even need to be changed, and that's not common - I don't think *any* of the code I've written to date does that.

64-bit technology is kind of a fad now, but it will take over soon. It's a question of when, not if.
WhiteBlade
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
God, I'm getting a friggin' headache from all the nonsensical rambling in this thread. I'm going to spell it out for everyone, plain and simple:

64-bit CPUs require a 64-bit Operating System in order to see *ANY* performance improvement.


I'm sorry but you're only concidering the 64 bits facts

The thing is that new 64 bits processor even if they were 32 bits they would be faster that the 32 bits because they are a continuation of the speed processor.

The last 32 bits AMD made was running at 2.2ghz ( Athlon XP 3200+ )
The first 64 bits AMD made was the Athlon 64 3000+ starting at 2.0ghz and so on until you reach Athlon 64 4000+ that's running at about 2.6Ghz now.

Of couse that's whitout considering dual core and so on.

So even if you have a 32 bits OS with the brand new 64 bits AMD proessor you will se a difference in speed, not because of the 64 bits but because of the cpu speed itself.

Another thing. AMD dual core cpu are 64 bits. COrrecte me if I'm wrong but Intel dual core are not 64 bits, I'm not sure about that one though.

So even if you have a 64 bits or 32 bits and you are running 32 bits OS ( windows Xp ) you will see a difference with the new 64 bits processor cause they have a faster cpu clock anyway !

Clear ?
CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 
Privacy Statement