everyone knows Pepsi is better.....Coke or Pepsi?
But this isn't cola. It's not just a matter of taste; performance is measurable. Intel dropped the ball on one generation of consumer CPUs. My only allegiance is to the better product.
everyone knows Pepsi is better.....Coke or Pepsi?
elevate said:You can lambast Intel all you want, but calling a processor that scaled from 1.4Ghz to 3.7Ghz a failure seems more than a little misguided.
The only differences that I'm aware of between Willamette, Northwood, and Prescott are cache tweaks and fabrication process. Prescott had a new socket, but I don't think there were any significant microarchitecture changes.TravisK 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.
bdemenil said:everyone knows Pepsi is better.....
But this isn't cola. It's not just a matter of taste; performance is measurable. Intel dropped the ball on one generation of consumer CPUs. My only allegiance is to the better product.
elevate said:After my last two Asus boards just up and died for no apparent reason, I've picked two Epox boards with nVidia chipsets. Asus does have a good rep though, but was kinda pissed at having two mobos die.
Quagmire02 said:I can help you right now if you give me this information.
Why do you think that Intel chips handle multiple processes better than AMD? The higher clock speed? Is there any documentation of this?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.
bball_1523 said: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?
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.I might end up going with the intel, since I've heard more about it with music apps then amd.
It realy depends what plugins you're running. I have dual Opteron 248s, and I still max out.if you ran Cubase SX 3 maxed out, you wont notice a difference between AMD and Intel
bdemenil said:It realy depends what plugins you're running. I have dual Opteron 248s, and I still max out.
Quagmire02 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.