AMD or Intel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter billy3000
  • Start date Start date
how bout the venice

Bulls Hit said:
I don't think I'd agree with this. I wonder if this guy is thinking in terms of encoding mp3 audio in batch mode or something. The L2 cache allows the cpu to keep commonly referenced and/or recently used program code or data on the chip so it doesn't need to go hunting it down in memory. This is important in the real time environment of a multitrack daw with multiple tracks & plugins running concurrently. It's up to the cpu to keep the audio buffers filled for glitch free playback. As the workload (ie track or plugin count) increases, anything that slows down the processor (like having to go out to memory to get some data or instructions) will lower the threshold so audio glitches happen sooner rather than later
Click to expand...

in the post before this one?
 
billy3000 said:
AMD 3500+ Venice
Click to expand...

The Rev E Venice 3500+ should be plenty of processor and a good value @ about $200. Check out Toms Hardware CPU guide to see how it stacks up against the 4800 X2. At 1/3 the price, it's a whole lot more than 1/3 the performance.
 
billy3000 said:
did you mean the venice is a better deal financially?

and that it will do everything I need, so I don't have to
buy one of these??

http://stores.tomshardware.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=9157345
Click to expand...

There are still those who have the "need for speed", and will always think the latest greatest is what everyone should have. I think we've arrived at the point where, except for the real hardcore power users, most audio production needs can be met just fine with something like the CPU you asked about. The $400 difference between that and the 4800 X2 might very well be better spent on a microphone, a preamp, or an interface. I've said before, and it's truer than ever, having the latest greatest uber computer of a DAW, and putting a glorified gamers soundcard in it is stupid. I can't say for sure that the 3500 is all the processor you'll ever need, but it is at good price/performance point, and should be plenty of CPU for a busy 48 track mix with a bunch of plugins and some VSTIs. I'm doing that with a Sempron 3100+ with plenty of CPU bandwidth left over. Since it's a socket 754, my upgrade would be to an Athlon 64 3700+ with it's 1M cach, reportadly a smokin chip. But for now I don't need to drop the $200.
 
TO: Robert

((I can't say for sure that the 3500 is all the processor you'll ever need, but it is at good price/performance point, and should be plenty of CPU for a busy 48 track mix with a bunch of plugins and some VSTIs))

gotcha! some people are still using pIII's or the amd equivalent. thanks for your input/feedback....no pun intended :)

I think I like the Venice, and it's WAY more than I ahve now, which is 2 athlon xp 1800's both dead, dead power supplies, crappy mobs, in other words, nada!

the venice and whatever mobo would be best for it is my goal at this point.
thanks!!



. I'm doing that with a Sempron 3100+ with plenty of CPU bandwidth left over. Since it's a socket 754, my upgrade would be
 
I would seriously consider an X2 if I were you.
Since going dual-core I couldn't go back.

It's just so great to be able to multitask *properly*!

I can check my email while Cubase exports (or just let Cubase export more quickly), for instance. Previously the machine would lock entirely until Cubase had finished what it was doing.

Plus recording software loves it :)

Seriously - get an AMD X2 3800+ and you won't look back.
 
It is certainly true that not all of us need the "latest greatest" cpu. However, there is one thing that people tend to not think about, and that is the way that software changes as technology advances. As processors and hard drives etc... get faster and faster, the people writing the software choose to take advantage of this as well. Companies start realeasing plugins and such that offer more and hopefully sound better. As a result, they often utilize more cpu resources. If you do not plan on pruchasing more software in the future and are happy with exactly what you have, than you really don't need to constantly play the upgrade game. However, if you are like me and are constantly adding stuff to your setup and are charging clients, than upgrading is just an aspect of doing business. I very rarely hop to the very front of the technology curve as far as computer systems go, but typically I wait until the new technology is about 3 to 6 months ld, stable, and drops down to the mid priced bracket. I am torn right now in where to go with my system. I am having a hard time deciding between a dual core Opteron, and a slightly faster dual core Athlon, which also has half the cache though.
 
re:xstatic

((If you do not plan on pruchasing more software in the future and are happy with exactly what you have))

I don't even know what software to buy.

((than you really don't need to constantly play the upgrade game))

yes, hopefully the upgrade game could be circumvented. also, hopefully I can find the right software to suit my own needs. I always liked the old cool edit pro 1.2, but I have several friends who are more like you who say the cubase stuff is way better.

((However, if you are like me and are constantly adding stuff to your setup and are charging clients, than upgrading is just an aspect of doing business))

yes, it would be. I don't have any clients. I just want to start recording all my ideas that I've been storing in my brain all these years. and hopefully some new ones too.

clients may come later. who knows? right now, I need a system and some software. I prefer less bells and whistles than most programs have. this MAY be unrealistic in todays world.

just because we used to make records with a fairly idiot proof 16 track studor
or revox or something doesn't mean it will be the same with a computer.

I actually miss the 8 track adats :)

how simple can it get?
 
xstatic said:
As processors and hard drives etc... get faster and faster, the people writing the software choose to take advantage of this as well. Companies start realeasing plugins and such that offer more and hopefully sound better. As a result, they often utilize more cpu resources..
Click to expand...

And sometimes they just don't feel the need to write as efficient of code anymore. :mad:

xstatic said:
However, if you are like me and are constantly adding stuff to your setup and are charging clients, than upgrading is just an aspect of doing business.
Click to expand...

And like any business, customers have a reasonable expectation that you have invested and re-invested into the latest professional level equipment to provide the best and most efficient return for the hourly rate you collect. The home recordist only owes it to themselve to spread their toy budget out in a way that gets them the best overall recording chain that their budget will allow. That probably doesn't mean having a dual core X2 multi-tasking DAW, and then a Soundblaster, an audio buddy, and a Nady mic. I'm not saying that's the case here, just that I've seen it before.

xstatic said:
I very rarely hop to the very front of the technology curve as far as computer systems go, but typically I wait until the new technology is about 3 to 6 months ld, stable, and drops down to the mid priced bracket.
Click to expand...

Smart....... Don't pay out the nose to be a beta tester. ;)
 
new software vs older software

((And sometimes they just don't feel the need to write as efficient of code anymore)). :mad:

I like the MAD emoticon :)

by that statement, could I make the leap that possibly using older software
that has been tried and true may be better than the brand new cubase/cakewalk/etc...??

I sincerely hope that is the case. what do you know about cubase se? have you used it?
 
I use Samplitude Professional. It's awesome, but pretty expensive (over a grand). As far as software releases, yes, same applies. Best thing is to watch the user groups for the software in question and see how the latest release is working for everyone. If it's buggy, they'll be talking about it. Software bugs usually get straightened out fairly quickly with a subsequent release, so there's no need to use software that's a year or two old to know that it's stable.
 
recording software

((Software bugs usually get straightened out fairly quickly with a subsequent release, so there's no need to use software that's a year or two old to know that it's stable))

how bout using older software cause I can afford it on ebay and cannot afford a grand for samplitude?

I was thinking either cubase se or cool edit pro 2.0 cool edit can be had from ebay for 50 bucks or so.

are both those programs really outdated?
 
Look into building a quiet system more then anything. Powerful yet quiet. Trust me its not easy. I built my first machine and did so much "quieting" and it still sounds like a jet engine to me (even though its fairly quiet)... Trust me its so annoying.

endpcnoise.com

and theres a few others as well but i forgot. Do a search on google for "quiet computer" and similiar wordings...
 
If the older software does what you need and offers and environment that you feel comfortable working in, then there really is nothing wrong with it. However, for me, I am pretty much a power user. In addition to my software I have nearly another $250,000 in gear at my studio and a large format console. In order to keep my client base steadily growing it means that I constantly have to purchase or cycle some gear around in order to keep the toys that both I and my clients want to see when they come in. Part of that means a new system for me every 12 months or so. At the very least some substantial upgrades. It also means that I need to do my best to keep updated software that is widely used, and often times different brands of software so that all clients can work in an environment that they are comfortable with.

As far as Cubase SE goes, I can not comment on it because I have never used it. It does not offer enough features for my standard workload. I use Cubase SX and have been very happy with it to this point. Years ago I used to like Cool Edit until the real time plug-in apps and vst stuff started to rise in popularity. At this point I can not see myself having the need or desire to shift away from Cubase (well, maybe to Nuendo for video and surround purposes). If however one day I am sitting around and I just happen to have an extra $45000 or so, I would certainly by a Pro Tools HD Accell rig. Not that I amn a huge Pro Tools fan, but it will greatly expand my work base.
 
ThaArtist said:
Look into building a quiet system more then anything. Powerful yet quiet. Trust me its not easy. I built my first machine and did so much "quieting" and it still sounds like a jet engine to me (even though its fairly quiet)... Trust me its so annoying.

endpcnoise.com

and theres a few others as well but i forgot. Do a search on google for "quiet computer" and similiar wordings...
Click to expand...

Dude
My computer noise used to drive me nuts too. So I bought a few extension cables, and put the computer in the next room. Would work with a closet, etc.
Peace
 
forget all of that, get a rackmount case and a dual core opteron, that'll blow out sempron, x2 and just about everything else. And try to get it in a dual chip setup so in practice you'll have 4 working processors!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top