AMD Vs. Intel

[warbug]

sorry i had to do it. did a search on this site not much luck.


im looking to build me a new comp. i currently have a P4 @ 1.5GHz. its treated me well but im just looking for a second oppion.


2 ppl i respect musically are telling me AMD.

2 ppl i respect in a nerdy way are saying Intel.

[jzero]

Why bother with the extra cost and the denormalizing issues of Intel? Also, my host of choice (FL Studio)is optimized for AMD.

[diego]

well I voted for AMD... I think the 2 are excellent but AMD is cheaper, and with the new 64 bit processor I think that it is going to be better than a p4.

Just my 2 cents.

[AD80]

Other than the Pentium-M (centrino) I would choose AMD right about now. They've been coming out with good processors at better prices than Intel.

[warbug]

ok 3 post about amds being better priced.


p4 @ 3GHz is about 300 billers.


amd @ 2 GHz is about 300 billers.


are they rated differantly?

[gassle]

AMD's were once cheaper but more problematic. (fun, heat problems, etc...)

why not some http://www.tomshardware.com/ ?

-T

[Erki]

p4 @ 3GHz is about 300 billers.


amd @ 2 GHz is about 300 billers.


are they rated differantly?

AMD handles more information per clock cycle then the Pentium, so the mhz/ghz is not a good measure of performance (as it was a couple of years ago). So for example a 2ghz AMD is just as fast as a 3ghz Pentium.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/Sel ... 78,00.html

[BONES]

My work laptop is a Pentium M 1.7GHz, which is supposed to be about the equivalent performance of a P4 2.8GHz. My workstation is an old Athlon XP1700+ but it can handle more VSTi than the laptop [about 10% better CPU performance] yet its rated at 1.53GHz. You definitely get much better performance for your money from an AMD processor.

[warbug]

hrmmnn


well i was told that most software designers test there things on intel stuff. i have heard of cases where ppl run into problems say installing a midi box or a sound card on amd machines.

[WilliamK]

Almost every nerd loves Intel, but for music, they SUCK! AMD all the way. I had a P4 some months ago, and was very frustated, went back to Athlon XP+, is muuuuch better. Also, no denormal problems.

Wk

[Erki]

Problems installing soundcards or midi devices have absolutely nothing to do with the CPU.


You can't go wrong with either CPU really. Both AMD and Intel are good CPUs (as long as you stay away from the low budget stuff).

In some parts Amd is better, in other parts Pentium is better. Just google for some comparison/performance diagrams.

[iDavid]

How are the AMD 64 systems for music, is it better to stay with the 32 bit systems?

[warbug]

How are the AMD 64 systems for music, is it better to stay with the 32 bit systems?

nothing is optimised for them yet so probally the same...

i was told that the amd 64 bit systems are kinda of a hoax atm. the processors are 64 but the buses are still 32.. dont quote me on that just what i heard.

[moldofunker]

Nowadays AMD is way better than Intel for audio because of floating point instructions. And about the 2Ghz at same price at 3Ghz, remember that 2ghz AMD is sold as Athlon 3200+. When via and other chipset producers were young there was some problems with the AMD motherboards but now.. no such problems. And i am a tech nerd too so i overclocked my AMD XP 1700+ (1400Ghz) to 2Ghz without heating it. So i got a 100$ CPU from 50$. AMD rules

[HHaynes]

Athlon XP 2500+ Barton - in an MSI K7N2 Delta-L motherboard with Front Side Bus set to 200Mhz. You get a 3200+ for $80 with no additional heat issues.