KVR Audio

DevonB · Post by **DevonB** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:17 pm

Mirabebe wrote:
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:

$232 - Motherboard + Athlon XP 3000 with cpu, fan , memory.
$339 - Motherboard + Pentium 4 3.0GHz with cpu, fan, memory.

100$ difference.

Dude, do not compare dissimilar CPU's with the same hertz ratings. Perfect example is the Centrinos with lower speed 'ratings' but higher performance. You can only compare hertz speed with like family of processors, so a 2500+ Barton to a 2600+ Barton, not to a AMD XP 2500+. I'm not arguing that AMD is cheaper, just level the playing field better and compare ones with more similar performance.

Devon

Mirabebe · Post by **Mirabebe** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:19 pm

Dude, read what i quoted from his post. He said 3000 for both of them - thats all i had to go by, so i just gave him more accurate numbers.

Edit: Erm, sorry - i notice now that he said 2Ghz AMD. I'll correct it in a moment.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:21 pm

valley quoth
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.

I think its possibly more accurate to say that there was a change in how a coder had to compensate for denormalisation with the P4, whilst denormalisation compensation code for the P-3 still worked adequately on AMDs. Hence people 'noticed it more' not because it happened more, but because some coders hadnt provided the right workaround.

lavoll · Post by **lavoll** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:23 pm

whatever you decide, go for dual processors

youll be very happy you did.

Mirabebe · Post by **Mirabebe** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:23 pm

Well if he said 2Ghz Athlon - then it's even more in AMD's favour - because it's 2800++ that is ruanning on 2Ghz core, and i quoted proces for 3000+ which is running on 2.2Ghz core.

DevonB · Post by **DevonB** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:52 pm

Mirabebe wrote:Dude, read what i quoted from his post. He said 3000 for both of them - thats all i had to go by, so i just gave him more accurate numbers.

Edit: Erm, sorry - i notice now that he said 2Ghz AMD. I'll correct it in a moment.

It's ok. I always try to take into consideration that we have a LOT of lurkers that never post, and don't want others to start to compare hertz speed to hertz speed, as it doens't work.

Devon

dropandhop · Post by **dropandhop** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:48 pm

did the drama with the via chipset workout?

i remember AMD boards with via chips use to bugg out audio and sound cards....

did they fix that problem?

thanks!
a

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:57 pm

dropandhop quoth did the drama with the via chipset workout?

i remember AMD boards with via chips use to bugg out audio and sound cards....

did they fix that problem?

thanks!

Yeah, they sussed that one back in the 20th Century...

DevonB · Post by **DevonB** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:58 pm

dropandhop wrote:did the drama with the via chipset workout?

i remember AMD boards with via chips use to bugg out audio and sound cards....

did they fix that problem?

thanks!
a

It was the KT133 chipset that had the problem if I do so remember correctly. Been fixed a LONG time ago.

Devon

hybrid3 · Post by **hybrid3** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:05 pm

I've sticked to AMD since the release of the XP-cpu's. Heat is no longer an issue and I wouldn't consider any of the CPU's mentioned as "unstable", regardless of AMD or Intel being the manufacturer.

The thread below contains some interresting benchmarks:
http://www.cakewalk.com/forum/tm.aspm=3 ... chor#96032

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:18 pm

[DELETED]

valley · Post by **valley** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:29 pm

whyterabbyt wrote: I think its possibly more accurate to say that there was a change in how a coder had to compensate for denormalisation with the P4, whilst denormalisation compensation code for the P-3 still worked adequately on AMDs. Hence people 'noticed it more' not because it happened more, but because some coders hadnt provided the right workaround.

OK, I prefer your version.

sempondr · Post by **sempondr** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:59 pm

Fresh from the press:
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2128&p=13

Intel fans don't have to read (yes finally AMD beats Intel even in encoding)...so embarassing...

DevonB · Post by **DevonB** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:29 pm

sempondr wrote:Fresh from the press:
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2128&p=13

Intel fans don't have to read (yes finally AMD beats Intel even in encoding)...so embarassing...

And the part you left out, so pathetically expensive. That AMD chip is $780 was the cheapest I could find it. The Intel wasn't much better at $685.

Let the price wars begin.

Devon

mute · Post by **mute** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:25 pm

i have a amd athalon xp 2000+ and a m-audio asio/delta card, the only issue i ever have with it is my audio drivers and thats only during the initial installation/configuration. once i get everything sorted any skipping or issues go away.

never had a midi problem (i use lots of midi) or audio problem with any other company including my crappy old sblive which i still use for some things.

KVR Audio

AMD Vs. Intel

weapon of choice.