Any major differences between Pentium/AMD nowadays?
-
- Banned
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
Robert Randolph Robert Randolph https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=7328 - KVRAF
- 2226 posts since 25 May, 2003 from Saint Petersburg, Florida
Heh... nottoz wrote:simple. you're not using plugins that have denormal issuesRobert Randolph wrote:Never... ever.. experienced denormal on this system.. and it's a p4.... hum
I use quite a few plugins that "denormal" for other people... its my choice of platform and software that saves me from such issues 
-
- KVRist
- 151 posts since 27 Feb, 2003
The only reason where it makes more sense to purchase an Intel based PC is when there is a lot of conversion tasks involved like converting .wav's to .mp3's, re-encoding video, etc...repetitive tasks where the higher frequency of the Intel chips have and edge over AMD cpu's.
Besides this, AMD cpu's beat Intel's p4 all the way...for audio plugins, AMD is clearly much better than Intel, no contest. I can't believe people you guys still argue about that.
The only affordable Intel processor that is worth anything is the Pentium M (Centrino), but is only available for laptops of course...the Celeron is a joke and the P4 always seemed to be designed to stretch the pipeline in order to get higher GHz to impress people...
Besides this, AMD cpu's beat Intel's p4 all the way...for audio plugins, AMD is clearly much better than Intel, no contest. I can't believe people you guys still argue about that.
The only affordable Intel processor that is worth anything is the Pentium M (Centrino), but is only available for laptops of course...the Celeron is a joke and the P4 always seemed to be designed to stretch the pipeline in order to get higher GHz to impress people...
-
- KVRist
- 444 posts since 16 Dec, 2003 from here and now
Running a p4 northwood 2.6 on a basic i865 MSI board with 2x512 cheap unbranded ram, installed as MP acpi and HT enabled for a year now, I have to say I never had denormal problems (except on some cheap and all the way not worth freebies), never lost a project on a blue screen or system freeze. I'm running everything at 1.5ms latency with a terratec pci card (at 96khz it's just about doubling the asio buffer, but still 1.5ms is the best value).
I never had any problem with this box, never had to run into bouncing or other boring manipulation to achieve a project, except one time when I easily overclocked to 3.2ghz to be able to manage a 16 complex vsti tracks project with a complete fx+bus+master console at 96khz (28ms latency though, but nevermind that was for the mixing). And one year later I set it up, it keeps on stunning me all the times I really pressurize it.
This is surely true AMD cpus achieve better results with audio realtime processing on vst/vstis, no discussion on that, this is true too p4 speed only compensate the complex prediction branch and layers of the cpu (compared to AMD's which don't need that much speed for the same calculations), true too AMD are cheaper, etc etc.
BUT imo with both those, if you run out of cpu power in one of your project, long before you have to bounce down to wav, this implies you either have no idea how to optimize your project, or you wanted to add more simultaneous tracks that your audio card is anyway able to handle properly (causing muddy mixes). I don't say for people using really excellent (and expansive) audio systems, but for all those cards around 100-200$, past 16 simultaneous tracks playing sthg different each at the same time, you won't get sthg pristine really, and I'd say even except if you're a fine composer, this indicates you are mostly drowning your mix doing this, but maybe not adding more musical value to it. And this, once again, long before you start thinking of bouncing down to wav...
In short, imo intel or amd doesn't matter as reasonnably above 2ghz in normal situations both will be able to handle your projects without even streaming audio from disk.
I never had any problem with this box, never had to run into bouncing or other boring manipulation to achieve a project, except one time when I easily overclocked to 3.2ghz to be able to manage a 16 complex vsti tracks project with a complete fx+bus+master console at 96khz (28ms latency though, but nevermind that was for the mixing). And one year later I set it up, it keeps on stunning me all the times I really pressurize it.
This is surely true AMD cpus achieve better results with audio realtime processing on vst/vstis, no discussion on that, this is true too p4 speed only compensate the complex prediction branch and layers of the cpu (compared to AMD's which don't need that much speed for the same calculations), true too AMD are cheaper, etc etc.
BUT imo with both those, if you run out of cpu power in one of your project, long before you have to bounce down to wav, this implies you either have no idea how to optimize your project, or you wanted to add more simultaneous tracks that your audio card is anyway able to handle properly (causing muddy mixes). I don't say for people using really excellent (and expansive) audio systems, but for all those cards around 100-200$, past 16 simultaneous tracks playing sthg different each at the same time, you won't get sthg pristine really, and I'd say even except if you're a fine composer, this indicates you are mostly drowning your mix doing this, but maybe not adding more musical value to it. And this, once again, long before you start thinking of bouncing down to wav...
In short, imo intel or amd doesn't matter as reasonnably above 2ghz in normal situations both will be able to handle your projects without even streaming audio from disk.
-
- Banned
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
- KVRist
- 157 posts since 2 Aug, 2004 from St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
What kind of hard drive is spec'ed? I'm looking for something faster in my notebook.Paulie Phonick wrote:That is awesome performance! And I'm getting an AMD 64 3.4+ based notebook next week!
Can't wait to mess with those 90 note 'Flutterfly' chords
It's not causing problems yet, but I'm not pushing it yet!
R.
-
- KVRist
- 91 posts since 23 Oct, 2002 from The Black Ships
Couldn't afford the FX53.
However, due to recent price slash by AMD of their 3500+ 939 processor, I bought one. It, and the computer attached to it will be ready to pick up in a week and a half.
its getting paired with a gig of 400mhz DDR, 2x200GB sata, radeon x800 video, A8V mobo, and audiophile2496.
So to recap: new computer, drinking wine, listening to tunes. life doesn't get much better.
love and respect but not PLUR,
Entheogen
However, due to recent price slash by AMD of their 3500+ 939 processor, I bought one. It, and the computer attached to it will be ready to pick up in a week and a half.
its getting paired with a gig of 400mhz DDR, 2x200GB sata, radeon x800 video, A8V mobo, and audiophile2496.
So to recap: new computer, drinking wine, listening to tunes. life doesn't get much better.
love and respect but not PLUR,
Entheogen
-
- KVRist
- 44 posts since 23 Apr, 2003 from Columbus Ohio USA
I think Devon makes a good point that if the software does not take advantage of 64 bit, it will not help much, unless there is some extra magic in the chip which takes advantage of code which is really not 64 bit code.
Considering valley's analogy to the road, I would say that 64 bit may be like offering an 8 lane road and reserving four lanes for future vehicles. It's nice to look at all that pavement, but it isn't speeding you up much.
Each processor is expected to "provide" idiosyncracies which can be used to benefit. Over time, the processors have all become more similar (IMHO) in what they can handle at the machine code level, thus making software more reliable in any computer.
J
Considering valley's analogy to the road, I would say that 64 bit may be like offering an 8 lane road and reserving four lanes for future vehicles. It's nice to look at all that pavement, but it isn't speeding you up much.
Each processor is expected to "provide" idiosyncracies which can be used to benefit. Over time, the processors have all become more similar (IMHO) in what they can handle at the machine code level, thus making software more reliable in any computer.
J
-
- KVRer
- 11 posts since 4 Jun, 2004
Actually from what I read the athlon64's were better in 32bit code than similar clocked 32 bit processors.jdickens wrote:I think Devon makes a good point that if the software does not take advantage of 64 bit, it will not help much, unless there is some extra magic in the chip which takes advantage of code which is really not 64 bit code.
Considering valley's analogy to the road, I would say that 64 bit may be like offering an 8 lane road and reserving four lanes for future vehicles. It's nice to look at all that pavement, but it isn't speeding you up much.
Each processor is expected to "provide" idiosyncracies which can be used to benefit. Over time, the processors have all become more similar (IMHO) in what they can handle at the machine code level, thus making software more reliable in any computer.
J
Ok guys, this has been a great read, I would like to ask, what do people think about processor choices for laptops? I have seen an athlon64 3000 laptop somewhere and p4 3.2's are a dime a dozen. I need it to be able to cop heavy vst and effect battering in ableton live. Which do you think will do the job better? Forget everything other than getting that audio out cleanly.
-
- KVRAF
- 7886 posts since 24 Feb, 2003 from Earth, USA
Hearing good things about the Centrino Pentium M procs these days...
Devon
Devon
Simple music philosophy - Those who can, make music. Those who can't, make excuses.
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!
-
- Banned
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
- KVRist
- 204 posts since 7 Jun, 2001
i too would vote for AMD for desktops and centrinos (=dothans) for notebooks. the whole denormal issue makes the P4 a bit too unpredictable for my taste, plus it always tends to be a bit slower in a typical daw setup with almost any mix of plugins than comparable AMDs.
OTOH, intels dothan/centrino is really an amazing CPU. low power consumption, low heat, long battery life, and performance that is up there with the +3 GHZ/performance rating desktop CPUs. incredible. in addition to making it the obvious recommendation for laptops, i really hope intel makes the switch and gives up on the P4 and starts to put dothans into desktops, cause i hear theres still a lot of, erm, "headroom" left.
and not to forget, the dual G5s are actually the first apple machines in years that have comparable performance to the fastest pcs, sometimes even better (especially when it comes to logic audio, which seems to be highly optimized here). pricey, yes, but other than with the late G4s, now you actually are rewarded with great performance for that price again.
either way, with a few exceptions, its rather hard to find a truly bad CPU on the market these days. its not like a fast P4 is a bad choice either. good times to buy a daw computer :-)
OTOH, intels dothan/centrino is really an amazing CPU. low power consumption, low heat, long battery life, and performance that is up there with the +3 GHZ/performance rating desktop CPUs. incredible. in addition to making it the obvious recommendation for laptops, i really hope intel makes the switch and gives up on the P4 and starts to put dothans into desktops, cause i hear theres still a lot of, erm, "headroom" left.
and not to forget, the dual G5s are actually the first apple machines in years that have comparable performance to the fastest pcs, sometimes even better (especially when it comes to logic audio, which seems to be highly optimized here). pricey, yes, but other than with the late G4s, now you actually are rewarded with great performance for that price again.
either way, with a few exceptions, its rather hard to find a truly bad CPU on the market these days. its not like a fast P4 is a bad choice either. good times to buy a daw computer :-)
-
- KVRAF
- 4266 posts since 21 Oct, 2001 from my bolthole in the south pacific
Hi Bebop - your audio card (normally) has no role in mixing multiple tracks together - the audio engine of your sequencing package does that for you if you are mixing to stereo outs. If the audio quality from the card is not so great it is just as bad with one track as with 100.bebop wrote: BUT imo with both those, if you run out of cpu power in one of your project, long before you have to bounce down to wav, this implies you either have no idea how to optimize your project, or you wanted to add more simultaneous tracks that your audio card is anyway able to handle properly (causing muddy mixes). I don't say for people using really excellent (and expansive) audio systems, but for all those cards around 100-200$, past 16 simultaneous tracks playing sthg different each at the same time, you won't get sthg pristine really, and I'd say even except if you're a fine composer, this indicates you are mostly drowning your mix doing this, but maybe not adding more musical value to it.
There is an exception - some RME users use RME's hardware driven Totalmix to mix tracks but if you are using reverb sends and all that you are using the mix engine of your sequencer anyway.
Regards,
Eg
-
- KVRAF
- 1617 posts since 19 Mar, 2002 from Victoria, BC
robert since I'm genuinely curious as well, could you do a test for me? throw a simulanalog jcm900 on a track and switch it to channel B. run a wave through it and then let it process silence (no wave at all). This brings my p4 to it's knees in 15-20 seconds, and took me forever to realise it was this plugin (only on channel B no less). Now I automated the channel on my songs to compensate, but I'd be interested to know if this happens to youRobert Randolph wrote:Heh... no ;) I use quite a few plugins that "denormal" for other people... its my choice of platform and software that saves me from such issues :)ttoz wrote:simple. you're not using plugins that have denormal issues :wink:Robert Randolph wrote:Never... ever.. experienced denormal on this system.. and it's a p4.... hum
sorry about going so OT, but for what it's worth, my next processor will be AMD.