Dual core and dual processingmachines

bdemenil said:
Do you want to do some comparative plugin benchmarking between our two DAWs? Say with RVerb or some other cpu intensive plugin that's available on both platforms.
Click to expand...
Frankly - no - too busy with too many projects. But if you insist, do this.
Make an mono audio track and add 5 realtime plug-ins (basic type).
Make another mono track, with a different audio material. add another 5 real-time reverb plugins.
Repeat till failure and count the number of tracks and plugins. Post them here.
Mine handles 36 audio tracks and 180 realtime basic reverb plugins before it bows in the dust.
Geez, this is turning into a "my father is stronger than your father"-thread :rolleyes:

Have fun making music.
 
I didn't suggest this in the spirit of competition. I wouldn't at all be surprised if your mac has more power. But it would be interesting, in the spirit of scientific inquiry - if you will - to have a practical comparison rather than all these mysterious benchmarks.

For this to work though, we'd have to be working with the same plugin, with the same default settings, and with the same resolution of audio - all these factors make a BIG difference.
 
Sorry, don´t have time for such a detailed test with you. I´ve been sequencing on a lot of PC-based DAW´s. Including (but not limited to) Dual 3.2 Ghz Xeon´s filled with RAM. Even those didn´t come close to the working power of my current DAW.
I might be taken for bragging - allthough it´s what I saw.
I´m currently working on too many projects to dive into this test.
What I consider the biggest advantage going Mac these days is Logic Pro 7. The working power comes in handy, but boy, that sequencer is just so great. Love it!
 
Very true. I will insert an additional 7200 RPM SATA 8 MB cache. The MAC has two separate buses so it can run full transfer on both. Installing on slave is possible but wrong, coz the OS X and the 2 HD´s must share the bandwith on that bus.
I´ll stay away from SCSI as I´ve heard it drags a lot of system attention.
Currently I´m running on one drive only. Will use the second for Audio and project files only. Logic has a smart project save where you can transfer everything included in the song (audi recordings, samples, software instruments and so on) onto/into a project folder, for easily carrying the whole project to another studio with the click of a button.
 
Go for the dual processor if you like doing multiple things while Mixing,tracking, mastering. If you don't it won't be a problem. Thats where I miss my old Dual AMD machine. I have a faster Athlon 64 but can't multitask worth a damn when I'm mixing. :(
 
Emusic said:
Sorry, don´t have time for such a detailed test with you. I´ve been sequencing on a lot of PC-based DAW´s. Including (but not limited to) Dual 3.2 Ghz Xeon´s filled with RAM. Even those didn´t come close to the working power of my current DAW.
I might be taken for bragging - allthough it´s what I saw.
I´m currently working on too many projects to dive into this test.
What I consider the biggest advantage going Mac these days is Logic Pro 7. The working power comes in handy, but boy, that sequencer is just so great. Love it!
Click to expand...
So...great. We can now safely disregard anything you say as baseless and without merit. Congratulations!
 
Opteron 64

Has anyone used the Operton 64? What were the results? I want to get two dual core Operton 64s when they arrive but I'll still be using 32bit software and operating system (WinXP). I was just wondering how the Opertons perform for you guys out there, dual or otherwise.
 
Chewie said:
I want to get two dual core Operton 64s when they arrive but I'll still be using 32bit software and operating system (WinXP).
Click to expand...
Have you seen the projected prices on dual core Opterons? The 2.2Ghz flavor is supposed to be priced at $2,650. Regardless, Opterons are pretty much the fastest "desktop" chip out there. Doesn't matter if you're running 32-bit software or a 32-bit OS, though Windows XP 64 should be getting released pretty soon now - what I believe is the final build has been on MSDN for a month or so now.
 
Why not just wait for the dual-core Athlon 64s (called Athlon 64 X2) to come out?
Why pay more for the opteron designation? its the same processor architecture... and the Athlon 64 X2s will always be cheaper than the opterons, b/c the opterons are 'officially' for the server sector of the market... where there's more money being spent per computer.
newest information found at http://www.hexus.net/#AMD-dual
 
Nope

bdemenil said:
It's not the same. Check this link for an explanation of the differences between Opteron and Athlon. I highly recommend going with the Opteron.
http://www.devx.com/amd/Article/27340
Click to expand...

Sorry bud... they are still indeed the same processor architecture. AMD did not go and build a brand new CPU architecture from scratch... that would be stupid. AMD took their existing AMD64 architecture, enabled more HTT links, and added cache to the CPU. None of these have an effect on the actual architecture of the CPU.


Nowadays, a high-end Athlon64 or an Athlon64 FX will outperform an opteron due to the higher core speeds available via these processor lines, and the extended cache on the opterons causes only a marginal increase in processing power.

If you didn't know what I meant by architecture, you should have asked instead of giving me a half-assed untechnical article that is utterly useless. :rolleyes:

JazzMang Out.
 
I checked out Microsoft's site for the 64bit RC. They said it is now closed. Anyone know where else I can get this?
 
AFAIK, it is gone now b/c the official Release has gone gold. You can always google for the RC2, though.
 
Polaris20 said:
Athlon 4800+ Sweet Jesus. It might be just fast enough to run Longhorn :D
Click to expand...
The Longhorn beta isn't too bad on an XP 2700. Though that's missing some of the display layer stuff.
 
Chewie said:
I checked out Microsoft's site for the 64bit RC. They said it is now closed. Anyone know where else I can get this?
Click to expand...
The subscriber downloads section of the MSDN site.
 
elevate said:
So...great. We can now safely disregard anything you say as baseless and without merit. Congratulations!
Click to expand...
Whatever that means - sure :D
Btw; has added external firewire 800 Glyph 250 GB HD´s to the setup. Highly recommended to increase stability.
 
JazzMang said:
AMD took their existing AMD64 architecture, enabled more HTT links, and added cache to the CPU. None of these have an effect on the actual architecture of the CPU.
Click to expand...
What it comes down to is if in a single cpu setup, the Opteron's 3 HT links vs the Athlon's 1 makes a difference for audio and video editing applications. I don't know for sure because I've never done a side by side comparison. The testing commonly used to compare the two processors is relevant to a different type of usage. AMD does specifically recommend Opteron rather than Athlon for DAW use - Of course they're hardly a neutral party.
If you didn't know what I meant by architecture, you should have asked instead of giving me a half-assed untechnical article that is utterly useless.
Click to expand...
Yes the architecture is basically the same, but there are some differences - like the HT links. Sorry for the stupid article - but here's one you might find helpful: http://www.learningmanners.com/ ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top