KVR Audio

glurgle · Post by **glurgle** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:45 am

hhaynes, all the 2500+ bartons I can find are 333mhz FSB. wouldn't turning it down to 200mhz underclock the processor?

sempondr · Post by **sempondr** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:09 am

AD80 wrote: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.

Why make exceptions? My AMD64-M Compaq is cheaper and faster than comparable cenrino my buddy has.... oh and it can run Win64bit just in case I need it in the future...

funked · Post by **funked** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:16 am

333mhz is double data rate. An AMD 2500 @ 200mhz is overlocked. It should be set at 166 (166x2=333).

If you would like to overclock get a mobile not a regular Barton core.

http://www.hardcoreware.net/forum/showt ... hp?t=17391

glurgle · Post by **glurgle** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:48 am

funked wrote:333mhz is double data rate. An AMD 2500 @ 200mhz is overlocked. It should be set at 166 (166x2=333).

If you would like to overclock get a mobile not a regular Barton core.

http://www.hardcoreware.net/forum/showt ... hp?t=17391

thx funked I hadn't realized that. and now back to your regularly scheduled topic...

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:21 am

Gotta admit, I'm scared of overclocking. Oh, I've done it before, but every time my system crashes, I can't help but think, "Did I push my processor past the safety zone?" It could be any number of other things, but I end up just running at normal clock speed so that there's one less bugbear to think about.

To answer the poll-- I'm using AMD Athlon XP 1700+, and it's giving me pretty good performance. It's only a CDN$100 to get a Barton 2500+ that works with my motherboard, so I'll likely make THAT upgrade instead of going all the way. When it drops to CDN$75-80, I'm in.

I never have problems, whereas my dad's Pentium machine crashes all the time. In all fairness, I also have an Intel (Celeron, mind) laptop that is the picture of stability.

I wasn't specifically making a DAW at the time, but when I put this desktop computer together, I researched extensively, and while the data is about 2 years old now, at the time it was clear that AMD was the stability and performance for the price leader by a long shot.

Greg

Miles1981 · Post by **Miles1981** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:32 am

AMD's prices are not that better that Intel's. The 64 bits are useless.
Talking about a 1700+ that can run more VST than a M1700, I would ask if you have the same memory on both - size + timing, ... -, the same VSTs tested, because the tests I've seen for floating point processing give the M the victory hands down.
A P4 can have denormalizing problems, as well as AMD. It's a problem in the norm, the way each process these exceptions are different, but they result in either errors or slowness. Better use plug-ins that are aware of denormlizing issues.

WilliamK · Post by **WilliamK** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:19 pm

All this talk of overclocking when I had to underclock my machine to get a stable one.

arghs...

Wk

counterfeit · Post by **counterfeit** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:40 pm

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.

I also own a 2600XP+ desktop which is very powerful...but Bones, there's must be something wrong with settings on your laptop, because i own a Dell inspiron 8600 laptop with a 1.5ghz pentium M (centrino) and it's nearly as powerful as my 2600+ desktop..Be sure to switch your energy settings to "always on" to get the most of your Pentium M processor, i'm sure you'll see the difference and think that the pentium is worth it....
Desktop = AMD all the way
Laptop = Intel Centrino

Omnivox · Post by **Omnivox** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:48 pm

Miles1981 wrote:AMD's prices are not that better that Intel's.

on what do you base this statement?
right now, this moment, an pentium 4 2.4 boxed version 533 mhz fsb costs 991 monetary units (imagine it to be danish crowns), and an athlon (barton) 2500+ boxed version fsb 333 (by intel's definition it would be 666 - 166x4) costs 632 of the same monetary units, so the conclusion is that intel costs 57% more than amd equivalent.
the top of the pop - intel 3.2 costs 2332, and amd barton 3200+ costs 1556 (both at basic 200 mhz fsb), which makes intel 49.87% more expensive.
and we haven't even taken motherboards into account there.

The 64 bits are useless.

for another one or two years, yes. but, if intel made its 64bit cpus as good as amd did, we would have 64bit systems running all the way.

Talking about a 1700+ that can run more VST than a M1700, I would ask if you have the same memory on both - size + timing, ... -, the same VSTs tested, because the tests I've seen for floating point processing give the M the victory hands down.

what is m1700? is that a mobile version of p4 or what?

A P4 can have denormalizing problems, as well as AMD.

amd does not have denormalizing problems. this problem occurs because of the way intel in general processes arithmetic functions. amd does it differently, and it does not have denormalizing problems.

It's a problem in the norm, the way each process these exceptions are different, but they result in either errors or slowness. Better use plug-ins that are aware of denormlizing issues.

and what if your favourite synth or plug is not aware of it? this is a solution, but the issue was not supposed to be there in the first place.

Omnivox · Post by **Omnivox** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:51 pm

counterfeit wrote:
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.
I also own a 2600XP+ desktop which is very powerful...but Bones, there's must be something wrong with settings on your laptop, because i own a Dell inspiron 8600 laptop with a 1.5ghz pentium M (centrino) and it's nearly as powerful as my 2600+ desktop..Be sure to switch your energy settings to "always on" to get the most of your Pentium M processor, i'm sure you'll see the difference and think that the pentium is worth it....
Desktop = AMD all the way
Laptop = Intel Centrino

i definitely agree here. are there any issues with power management, what is your latest live set with the laptop and did it crash? i might get it soon to, but i heard of some problems with centrinos concerning power options ......

counterfeit · Post by **counterfeit** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:58 pm

definitely agree here. are there any issues with power management, what is your latest live set with the laptop and did it crash? i might get it soon to, but i heard of some problems with centrinos concerning power options ......

no problems with centrino, you might just get sure to switch the power settings to "always on"when you're making music.. because if you don't do this, the pentium M is always switching his frequency to save battery..
i was typing a text in MS works and the processor was running at 589 mhz!!!great for working on battery, but no good for music making..

valley · Post by **valley** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:01 pm

h.vox wrote: amd does not have denormalizing problems. this problem occurs because of the way intel in general processes arithmetic functions. amd does it differently, and it does not have denormalizing problems.

AMD processors do have a denormal state, as did the P3. Denormalisation isn't a P4 only 'bug'. It is a feature of the way floating point math is handled by the processor. In the case of the P4, the threshold at which denormalization occurs is significantly higher than for the P3 or AMD processors. This is why people notice denormalisation more with the P4.

Mirabebe · Post by **Mirabebe** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:08 pm

warbug wrote: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?

The prices are way wrong.

Just the processors:

$110 - Athlon XP 3000
$194 - Pentium 4 3.0GHz 800MHz

75% difference.

Motherboard combo's:

$152 - Motherboard + Athlon XP 3000 with cpu, fan , memory (256MB) (Edit: the site is not responding - the next cheapest is 232$, which is still 100$ difference)

$339 - Motherboard + Pentium 4 3.0GHz with cpu, fan, memory (128MB)

100% difference.

DevonB · Post by **DevonB** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:13 pm

And people whine about denormals like it's a 'permanent issue'. As long as the developer cares, the problems are fixed, which makes the 'denormal' arguement moot.

Devon

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:14 pm

AMD is the best!

AMD is the best!

YAY!

KVR Audio

AMD Vs. Intel

weapon of choice.