Intel vs. Amd for beginner DAW?
- Thread starter bball_1523
- Start date
elevate said:
nope. that is intel's simple continuance of branding...
a 1.4 GHz PIV and a 3.7GHz PIV are NOT the same chip by any means of the word.
they are very different and could easily be considered new chips had intel wanted to call them such. it's just their way to drill the PIV brand into people's head.
Rstiltskin
New member
mine too, but better at what?
Check out www.tomshardware.com, they have a online test with webcams going of an amd dual core, and an intel dual core with hyperthreading running recursives of the same aps. With the amd ahead on two, and intel ahead on one and way, way ahead on the divix movie compression.
so does your allegiance depend on the ap?
mine does, and that was all I was trying to say above. Oh by the way, the way the intel is about 2 orders of magnitude faster on the divx compression there must be a code incompatibility in the processor or chipset of the amd system. Hopefully divx will get around to remedying this with a bug fix for the oh so compatable amd system. Then it will probably be faster than the intel. Just so long as you don't expect to compress many movies now....
Does anyone know of any outlets actually shipping dual core amd or intel processors, as of this posting date. I don't and would like to know.
the amd sure does run farcry about 10 frames per second faster than the intel (30%+-), though!
bdemenil said:
Check out www.tomshardware.com, they have a online test with webcams going of an amd dual core, and an intel dual core with hyperthreading running recursives of the same aps. With the amd ahead on two, and intel ahead on one and way, way ahead on the divix movie compression.
so does your allegiance depend on the ap?
mine does, and that was all I was trying to say above. Oh by the way, the way the intel is about 2 orders of magnitude faster on the divx compression there must be a code incompatibility in the processor or chipset of the amd system. Hopefully divx will get around to remedying this with a bug fix for the oh so compatable amd system. Then it will probably be faster than the intel. Just so long as you don't expect to compress many movies now....
Does anyone know of any outlets actually shipping dual core amd or intel processors, as of this posting date. I don't and would like to know.
the amd sure does run farcry about 10 frames per second faster than the intel (30%+-), though!
I had an Athlon 1800+ with a VIA chipset on a DFI mobo. I didn't build it with audio in mind, and it was a piece of shit when I started trying to record with it.
In contrast I've had very good results with a 2.8 P4 with an Intel 865 chipset on an Asus mobo. The beauty of the Asus board is the ease of clockability - the P4 runs at happily 3.5GHz with no additional cooling. Maybe I got lucky, and it might not be the fastest over 440 yards but for me the Asus/Intel/Intel combo is hard to beat for stability and reliability
In contrast I've had very good results with a 2.8 P4 with an Intel 865 chipset on an Asus mobo. The beauty of the Asus board is the ease of clockability - the P4 runs at happily 3.5GHz with no additional cooling. Maybe I got lucky, and it might not be the fastest over 440 yards but for me the Asus/Intel/Intel combo is hard to beat for stability and reliability
Rstiltskin
New member
there ya go, injecting real world experience in a beauty contest
all this good advice is going to catch up with you, remember, no good deed goes unpunished!
elevate said:
all this good advice is going to catch up with you, remember, no good deed goes unpunished!
Quagmire02
New member
I can help you right now if you give me this information.
1) How much money can you spend on this system
2) Exactly how much recording are you looking to do? Full out productions or just using your computer as a theoretical 8 track Tascam where you can record riffs, solos, drum machine beats, etc for the purpose of making songs/decent sounding demos?
3) What games are you playing? How serious of a gamer are you?
4) Are you more concerned with the performance of your games or the capabilities of your recording?
Answer those and I can help and even suggest exactly what to buy.
1) How much money can you spend on this system
2) Exactly how much recording are you looking to do? Full out productions or just using your computer as a theoretical 8 track Tascam where you can record riffs, solos, drum machine beats, etc for the purpose of making songs/decent sounding demos?
3) What games are you playing? How serious of a gamer are you?
4) Are you more concerned with the performance of your games or the capabilities of your recording?
Answer those and I can help and even suggest exactly what to buy.
bball_1523
New member
Quagmire02 said:
1) How much money can you spend on this system: $1000-1500
2) Exactly how much recording are you looking to do? Full out productions or just using your computer as a theoretical 8 track Tascam where you can record riffs, solos, drum machine beats, etc for the purpose of making songs/decent sounding demos? personal recordings, I wanna be able to play my guitar throught the cmputer as if it's the amp, and I want to record full songs for fun.
3) What games are you playing? How serious of a gamer are you? I play sports such as madden, nba live, stragegy games such as Age of Empires, sim games such as The Sims 1+2, Rollercoaster Tycoon's, and occassionally I'd like to be able to play fps games such as half-life 2 and rpg games such as MMORPG's and Morrowind/Oblivion. I'm not that serious of a gamer thought because one I don't have the computer to play these new games and two I just don't have the desire to play as much as the average gamer. I would love to have the games ready to play though at efficient frames and good enough graphics. I don't need to see the most detailed graphics ever.
4) Are you more concerned with the performance of your games or the capabilities of your recording? Both, but more with recording. If I can get a good system with a soundcard that will let play and record guitar without any lagging and extra noise then I am fine.
Quagmire02
New member
Well then, as far as a CPU goes, you arent going to be doing anything that taxing, so it wont matter very much brand you get. The onyl thing that matters is the cash.
The structure of AMD is that it can, analogously, carry 2 tons of weight at a max speed of 150 mph, whereas Intel can carry 6 tons of weight at 50 mph. AMD is generally faster, while Intel genereal handles multiple processes better.
My personal experience is that the information I just gave you is 95% insignificant to the avg PC buyer. Extreme overclocking gaming nerds want AMD simply because the blow away Intel processors in terms of speed/gaming (aside from being cheaper). An AMD Athalon 64 3200+ will utterly destroy a 3.0 ghz (and most higher) Intel CPU in gaming benchmark tests. However, you don't seem to be playing any taxing games, so really what is going to decide your gameplay is your video card.
For recording, the AMD will be perfect. An Intel might be better for someone who might have programs that actually use the advantage it has over AMD in that department, and I doubt even then it would be that big of a difference.
Really what you want is the best bang for your buck chip. You don't need to make a decision based on "what can this chip do that this can't," because they can both do above and beyond what you require already. Get the AMD Athalon 64 3000+. It retails on www.newegg.com for about 150 bucks and it will be the equivalent for recording, and better for gaming, than an Intel 3.0 ghz prescott (with 2MB cache) priced at $225.
Recording requires RAM, mostly. I recommend getting quantity over cost. Buy some Corsair Value or Mushkin ram at ~80 bucks per 1GB. Grab and extra 512 if you have the cash, as some drum programs like Drumkit From Hell require plenty of RAM to load. Buying the 200 dollar per gig ram with lower latencies is pointless for you. You wont notice a single bit of difference.
If you want the best bang-for-your-buck GFX card, grab any card from a reasonable manufacturer with the Nvidia 6600GT chipset (~160-180 dollars). It blows away its ATI counterparts even at double the memory. A 128MB 6600GT will do more than you want it to, and I recommend it because if you ever get into some of the newer games, this card will be great for it. Otherwise, go with a Radeon 9600 Pro chipset card at 128-256MB (~90). The difference between the two cards with the games you are currently playing is minimal, but in terms of potential for games like WoW and other demanding games (that you dont seem to play) the 6600GT has a really high performance ceiling. I have the Radeon and I really like it. I play what you play, and the graphics are awesome and smooth.
For sound cards, it really depends on how far you plan on going. If you are just going to make amateur, primitive, and roughed out songs, go with an M-Audio card and PC Speakers. If you are going to be doing any mixing and fine tuning of your songs, get good card, a cheap mixer, and some good powered monitors. That's expensive though, and I only recommend doing it if your only chance at getting your music heard is by producing in your bedroom because you dont have time/musicians...
Any other questions, feel free to ask. Right now you seem to be looking at spending anywhere from $800-$1000 on your new PC (minus monitor). I can narrow it down more when you reply, and even give you direct recommendations from newegg.
The structure of AMD is that it can, analogously, carry 2 tons of weight at a max speed of 150 mph, whereas Intel can carry 6 tons of weight at 50 mph. AMD is generally faster, while Intel genereal handles multiple processes better.
My personal experience is that the information I just gave you is 95% insignificant to the avg PC buyer. Extreme overclocking gaming nerds want AMD simply because the blow away Intel processors in terms of speed/gaming (aside from being cheaper). An AMD Athalon 64 3200+ will utterly destroy a 3.0 ghz (and most higher) Intel CPU in gaming benchmark tests. However, you don't seem to be playing any taxing games, so really what is going to decide your gameplay is your video card.
For recording, the AMD will be perfect. An Intel might be better for someone who might have programs that actually use the advantage it has over AMD in that department, and I doubt even then it would be that big of a difference.
Really what you want is the best bang for your buck chip. You don't need to make a decision based on "what can this chip do that this can't," because they can both do above and beyond what you require already. Get the AMD Athalon 64 3000+. It retails on www.newegg.com for about 150 bucks and it will be the equivalent for recording, and better for gaming, than an Intel 3.0 ghz prescott (with 2MB cache) priced at $225.
Recording requires RAM, mostly. I recommend getting quantity over cost. Buy some Corsair Value or Mushkin ram at ~80 bucks per 1GB. Grab and extra 512 if you have the cash, as some drum programs like Drumkit From Hell require plenty of RAM to load. Buying the 200 dollar per gig ram with lower latencies is pointless for you. You wont notice a single bit of difference.
If you want the best bang-for-your-buck GFX card, grab any card from a reasonable manufacturer with the Nvidia 6600GT chipset (~160-180 dollars). It blows away its ATI counterparts even at double the memory. A 128MB 6600GT will do more than you want it to, and I recommend it because if you ever get into some of the newer games, this card will be great for it. Otherwise, go with a Radeon 9600 Pro chipset card at 128-256MB (~90). The difference between the two cards with the games you are currently playing is minimal, but in terms of potential for games like WoW and other demanding games (that you dont seem to play) the 6600GT has a really high performance ceiling. I have the Radeon and I really like it. I play what you play, and the graphics are awesome and smooth.
For sound cards, it really depends on how far you plan on going. If you are just going to make amateur, primitive, and roughed out songs, go with an M-Audio card and PC Speakers. If you are going to be doing any mixing and fine tuning of your songs, get good card, a cheap mixer, and some good powered monitors. That's expensive though, and I only recommend doing it if your only chance at getting your music heard is by producing in your bedroom because you dont have time/musicians...
Any other questions, feel free to ask. Right now you seem to be looking at spending anywhere from $800-$1000 on your new PC (minus monitor). I can narrow it down more when you reply, and even give you direct recommendations from newegg.
$1000-$1500 is quite a lot to be able to spend. You could get a monster system for that if you do your shopping right. But with your requirements I don't think you would need that much. You are not talking about needing much of a system. I would say that even your soundcard requirements are not much more than the average consumer PC. If you wanted to get more serious with your music recording you can get an M-Audio easily in the price range you are talking about.
I said it before, but in my opinion (and yes, this is my area) you don't really need to worry about what processor you get. Now that you have shown your requirements more clearly I would say it matters not at all. Don't worry about the processor, worry about the rest of the system. Get some nice video, some nice sound, a nice big HD or two, a gig or two RAM, a good MB, spend extra on making your system quiet...things like that. These are things that are going to make a noticable difference to you, not the processor brand or speed. If you go AMD you will probably pay a lot less. At any rate, the only difference you are really going to notice in the processor is in your pocketbook.
Most people, and yourself included based on your requirements, do not tax their processor, they tax other parts of their system like memory. The processor is one of the least concerns when designing a system.
I said it before, but in my opinion (and yes, this is my area) you don't really need to worry about what processor you get. Now that you have shown your requirements more clearly I would say it matters not at all. Don't worry about the processor, worry about the rest of the system. Get some nice video, some nice sound, a nice big HD or two, a gig or two RAM, a good MB, spend extra on making your system quiet...things like that. These are things that are going to make a noticable difference to you, not the processor brand or speed. If you go AMD you will probably pay a lot less. At any rate, the only difference you are really going to notice in the processor is in your pocketbook.
Most people, and yourself included based on your requirements, do not tax their processor, they tax other parts of their system like memory. The processor is one of the least concerns when designing a system.
bball_1523
New member
I might end up going with the intel, since I've heard more about it with music apps then amd.
I need to focus on getting the right ram, videocard, soundcard, preamp, etc.
A couple of friends told me not to go with M-audio because they aren't that good with audio recording...not sure if they are speaking the truth, so I'm wondering what you guys think?
I need to focus on getting the right ram, videocard, soundcard, preamp, etc.
A couple of friends told me not to go with M-audio because they aren't that good with audio recording...not sure if they are speaking the truth, so I'm wondering what you guys think?
Quagmire02
New member
bball_1523 said:
i still recommend the AMD, since even if you ran Cubase SX 3 maxed out, you wont notice a difference between AMD and Intel. You will notice it during games, most likely. Point is, would you like to save 50-80 dollars and get a CPU that usually outperforms the more expensive one?
Just dont buy generic ram. Buy from a manu like Mushkin, Samsung, Crucial, Corsair, etc. You should be paying ~80 per gig, not ~200
That's dumb. M-Audio is great for recording. M-Audio and EMU would both be more that fine for what you want to do.
If you are going for a preamp, what are you using it for? Guitar only?
Music apps don't care about what processor they run on. Going for Intel just because the name sounds more familiar is not a good reason. Right now there's a considerable performance gap between Intel & AMD. With your budget I would go for an Opteron processor - the CPU itself is very fast, 64bit ready, and the chipset it runs on is excellent for DAW applications.
Quagmire02
New member
bdemenil said:
True but that is still a far cry from what he will be doing. I'm sure you can max it out by running every plugin in the world, but at that point neither processor is going to help.
Rstiltskin
New member
why don't your go over to www.tomshardware.com...
You can see the amd and intel almost tied in two apps, the amd about 30% ahead in the gameing ap, and the intel way, way, way, way, way, way, way ahead in the video compression ap. Which, in my experience, would indicate a bug in the amd processor or the chipset, or the bios. It is probably a minor thing, that could take the software vendor (divx) a day, a month, or a year to fix. Once they stop blaming each other. The motherboards are almost the same, the ram, drives, operating system, cases, etc are all the same. the processors bencmark very close to one another, so why is the amd so way behind in this one ap?
Does the opteron only run on one third party chipset? does it matter? are they all equally compatible?
If you chose a recording application and a sound card, go to those vendors and ask for a mb/ ram/ processor reccomendation you will have the best chance at compatability.
In my opinion any other advice is irresponsible, because all you are saying is what has worked for you in the past, and will PROBABLY work for him. But unless we know the soundcard and the recording ap, its just prejudice. Informed prejiduce, maybe, but prejiduce.....don't bother to flame me cause this is my last post to this thread, I know some of you will be pleased.
Quagmire02 said:
You can see the amd and intel almost tied in two apps, the amd about 30% ahead in the gameing ap, and the intel way, way, way, way, way, way, way ahead in the video compression ap. Which, in my experience, would indicate a bug in the amd processor or the chipset, or the bios. It is probably a minor thing, that could take the software vendor (divx) a day, a month, or a year to fix. Once they stop blaming each other. The motherboards are almost the same, the ram, drives, operating system, cases, etc are all the same. the processors bencmark very close to one another, so why is the amd so way behind in this one ap?
Does the opteron only run on one third party chipset? does it matter? are they all equally compatible?
If you chose a recording application and a sound card, go to those vendors and ask for a mb/ ram/ processor reccomendation you will have the best chance at compatability.
In my opinion any other advice is irresponsible, because all you are saying is what has worked for you in the past, and will PROBABLY work for him. But unless we know the soundcard and the recording ap, its just prejudice. Informed prejiduce, maybe, but prejiduce.....don't bother to flame me cause this is my last post to this thread, I know some of you will be pleased.