tourettes5139
New member
tourettes5139 said:
Sorry about that man, I just couldn't resist.
Sorry about that man, I just couldn't resist.
W
.:Wyze Loc:.
New member
imma try a p4 hows dat?
C
cortexx
Member
Sorry but this is simply untrue!
That is utter bullshit , what chips do you find in a blade server ? hardly a home (or consumer for the correct terminology ) product wouldn`t you think ?
Just in case you don't know, the majority of Blade servers are xeon chips made by who ??? INTEL
The reason i suggested the dual core is because it is now CHEAPER than the single core due to an Intel price restructure. Why buy single core when dual core is cheaper and newer technology.
I`d also guess that being your only PC this is probably going to serve multiple purposes (ie internet use, word processing , mutimedia) and I guess that means you will want to run a virus scan.
Seriously, why do people argue with fact ? I just don't get it.
(walks off shaking head)
C
cortexx
Member
you state this
i call bullshit
show me the facts ?
T
TheDewd
New member
Look for benchmarks everywhere on the net dude, do your own research!.cortexx said:you state this
i call bullshit
show me the facts ?
Do you want me to take your hand ?
AMD benchmarks kill Intel in pure brutal processing power in most benchmarks I've seen. As I said before, the Intel is better for multimedia, but pure processing power is with AMD.
T
TheDewd
New member
Dude, you can't compare a SERVER processor with a "hometown little bungalow consumer processor" like a P4. Of course, XEON processors are good, but they are in another league! We are comparing P4 to AMD Athlon 64 here...and the Athlon is much more brutal, look at benchmarks.cortexx said:Sorry but this is simply untrue!
That is utter bullshit , what chips do you find in a blade server ? hardly a home (or consumer for the correct terminology ) product wouldn`t you think ?
Just in case you don't know, the majority of Blade servers are xeon chips made by who ??? INTEL
The reason i suggested the dual core is because it is now CHEAPER than the single core due to an Intel price restructure. Why buy single core when dual core is cheaper and newer technology.
I`d also guess that being your only PC this is probably going to serve multiple purposes (ie internet use, word processing , mutimedia) and I guess that means you will want to run a virus scan.
Seriously, why do people argue with fact ? I just don't get it.
(walks off shaking head)
C
cortexx
Member
I dont need to do my own research I know what the deal is I have been in the computer industry for the last 16 years and I own a medium sized PC distribution business that distribute consumer , small business and corporate equipment , services and support.
We are a Dell V.A.R.S member ( we sell Dell ) , we are authorised repair centers for acer, compaq, IBM, Alienware, HP and Toshiba. Most of my staff are microsoft and novell certified and we spend more time building, networking, installing, repairing and supplying computer equipment than you can imagine. I know my shit.
The problem is that alot of people just check the net for a view they like and dont look at the whole picture . Intel beats AMD on compression chores and corporate networking apps , AMD wins over on games and gaming multimedia and that is it.
The subject of blade servers and Xeon processors came up because someone labelled Intel as cheap home computer processors when in fact they were again either misguided or simply ignorant because Intel make the Xeon chip hence "INTEL" does not just make cheap home processors aimed at gaming. Infact that whole statement is incorrect because the Comparable AMD prcessors are faster at gaming.
AMD DO NOT and i repeat DO NOT beat Intel (again with comparable chips) when it comes to video , audio compression and processing OR network based apps therefore your "AMD beats Intel at everything at raw processing power is WRONG" .
Thats why I asked you to provide something to back your statement up, I'ts not my place to go look it up , i'm calling bullshit on this generalization so it's up to you to back it up with something . If you can't back it up then Degress the argument because you wont win by repeating yourself again and again and again.
Your not arguing with a 12 year old idiot, your arguing with someone who knows the PC industry inside out because it is my job, my business and my career. It`s what I specialise in every day i go to work !
T
TheDewd
New member
Wow...you really needed to prove yourself there dude...cortexx said:
RAW processing power is NOT about compression and video consumer shite. It's about gaming..and as YOU said, AMD is better at that
C
cortexx
Member
ill even do your homework for you .....
taken from this website which is probably one of the most informative sites for computer information and other technology ...........
http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/01/06/revving_up_in_the_new_year/page36.html
and before you say its old , its the type of processors you are trying to compare here .
taken from this website which is probably one of the most informative sites for computer information and other technology ...........
http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/01/06/revving_up_in_the_new_year/page36.html
and before you say its old , its the type of processors you are trying to compare here .
T
TheDewd
New member
If we go back to the original topic, the guy wants a CPU for a DAW...cortexx said:
As far as I know, a DAW is NOT about encoding MP3, making videos, infographism and shite like that...it's more about what you get when you play a game.
When you play 64 audio tracks at 96k/32bit you put the kind to strain that a good game puts on your CPU...you don't encode MP3s and play videos like CONSUMER PEOPLE do.
Bottom line is...P4 is good for Mr Joe Blow and his wife who listens to MP3 and videos, while AMD is good for gamers and studio use.
C
cortexx
Member
Hm gaming ? thought the guy that started the thread wanted it for audio ? I dont think he said he wanted it for world of warcraft of quake 4.
And as far as gaming goes the CPU is irrelevant because gaming relies on the GPU not the CPU , benchmarking an Athlon FX57 against an Athlon 64 3500+ for gaming in the same machine with a 7800GTX will net you around 17,000 marks on 3dmark 2005 with a difference of maybe 300 points between them.
This guy wants it for Audio , which my initial point is that the P4 technically is the best choice.
T
TheDewd
New member
While the GPU takes most of the duty about graphics, the CPU has to make the link between the GPU and the hard drive/CD drive.cortexx said:
Guess what happens when you play 64 tracks? The CPU has to make a link between your HDD and your soundcard, just like it does between the HDD and GPU when playing games.
S
sixways
New member
Cortexx...what audio apps are you running?
6
6
C
cortexx
Member
I use Sonar home studio 4 .
Ohh and clock works to program my MOTU MTP AV ( if that counts , not strictly audio software )
I also have a novation x25 attached through USB for audio and midi transfer
roland v-synth , VARI-os and a few other gadgets running interfaces through USB
Ohh and clock works to program my MOTU MTP AV ( if that counts , not strictly audio software )
I also have a novation x25 attached through USB for audio and midi transfer
roland v-synth , VARI-os and a few other gadgets running interfaces through USB
Last edited:
C
cortexx
Member
This is untrue , the CPU creates a 3d mesh ( or several 3d meshes ) to make up a 3d environment , this info is stored in memory. The Video cards GPU transfers this info from the systems memory through the systems front side bus to the video cards memory directly without cpu intervention ( its called bus mastering ) , the GPU then displays this and adds textures to the image to give you a fully textured , light sourced image on the screen , of course all this happens many times per second.
The reason the video cards are called 3d accelerators is because they take the majority of the work away from the CPU to allow it to concentrate on other tasks. Hence the name 3d acceleration ( it appears to accelerate the PC`s power )
The IDE interface and recently serial ATA interface AKA SATA also work the same way , the Northbridge chipset in any mainboard is designed to control the transfer of data between the memory and the hard drive itself , same for the optical drives . The cpu itself actually does very little in these actions ever since IDE became available (stands for Integrated Drive Electronics, needs no CPU intervention for data transfer).
The CPU itself just processes batches of information in ram and thats pretty much its only job.
Now an AMD 64 processor has a higher front side bus ( around 1000MHZ also known as the hypertransport system ) , this means that for tasks that need lots of data going between the GPU , HDD , optical drives and other subsystems it is usually faster ( games prime example ) but the applications that require true processing power based on raw clock speed benefit from the Intel CPU over the AMD . For this reason anything that the computer has to compress, decompress , encode etc that uses primarily CPU power Will run better on an intel chip.
Take a look at our average DAW , it is all basically processing sound through the CPU . analog to digital conversion for example is a highly CPU intensive task and for this task a DAW based on an Intel cpu will have a advantage ( not too much but still an advantage ) over a similar generation AMD processor. You have to see that this is the intels strong point. The DAW does not immediately benefit from the AMD`s higher frontside bus (1000mhz as opposed to intels 800Mhz fsb) .
Ironicly the mainboard you use has a bigger bearing over the whole thing in an AMD platform , if you dont base it on the Nvidia Nforce 4 platform with it`s dual channel architecture you are not making the best of the AMD platform anyway. What you save on the CPU by going AMD you spend on getting a good mainboard setup anyways so price is 1/2 dozen or 1 and 6 of the other.
At the end of the day Ram is probably more important than a fight over Intel and AMD , the more you can shove in the computer the better. And the less sticks you use to achieve this the better the performance will be. If you use too many sticks of ram, your mainboard uses bank interleave mode to read them all decreasing performance by up to 6% overall .(especialy prevelant in the Via KT800 chipset) That`s noticable and it`s something 99% of people do not realise
C
cortexx
Member
Let me try to explain what happens here ....
when you play a track from an audio application the cpu grabs the data from ram addresses it has allocated, it loads it into the CPU cache and processes it 32 bits at a time ( none of you have real 64 bit audio software yet btw so 64 bit layer processors do not help you ).
The cache sends the processed info a chunk at a time back to a different memory address. The soundcards processor ( lets use a SB audigy4 here, bad exmaple i know for audio quality ) is told by the program code to grab the data at the memory address in the memory that the cpu just left it. this info flies down the front side bus through the north bridge and across the PCI bridge to the sound card. The soundcard then processes it and either makes a sound , sends it back to another memory address for more processing by the cpu or for storage on the hard drive , again all flying through the FSB (front side bus) of the computer.
What you need to understand is that the CPU is just a processor and thats all , it processes data from ram and that is all. the soundcard interface , video card , hard drive and every other device in the computer interfaces with ram, with little ( and most of the time no ) CPU intervention.
Once you understand the underlying principles of todays PC architecture its easy to understand how to optimize it for certain tasks.
I simple example is this .....
When you pc crashes the screen will usually freeze. Why is this ?
the Video card is displaying the last thing it had in its own memory, it cant get its next frame from ram because the Machine`s bus has ground to a halt. The video card is in fact still running independantly of the computer it just cant get an update .
Why when you do drive intensive tasks does the screen update slow in windows ?
because the bus has so much data streaming through it from drive to where ever that video is considered a lower priority service and has to wait for bus bandwidth, very similar to the way the bandwidth on your internet connection restricts how fast you can download to and from the net.
Ok way way off topic, I deviated alot but i hope some of you learn a few of the basics here and that may help you to understand how to get the best out of your PC
T
TheDewd
New member
Thanks for the course...cortexx said:
But based on what you said above, a faster front side bus is better, since a DAW does NOT perform compression and encoding, but transfers data. This is why I say AMD is better dude. The FSB is faster...
With a DAW, you don't care about encoding and compressing data !
Also, I must add that due to this faster FSB, for the same clock speed, an AMD will be better in "brute power", which is what I said all along, but it seems you want to compare a 2 GHz Athlon64 to a 3.4 GHz P4...DAH! Of course, the P4 will be faster for computing intensive tasks, but the AMD is much faster clock speed for clock speed.
C
cortexx
Member
But the thing is it does perform CPU intensive tasks , when you take a track and add effects etc you are using cpu power and you are encoding etc. Or when you use a soft sampler or soft synth its all using tons of cpu power .
processing wav files using an absoulte ton of cpu overhead , same with avi , mp3 , mpeg4 etc etc
W
.:Wyze Loc:.
New member
ok
just to let you know i will only be using this pc for recording and editing only. no internet use at all
just to let you know i will only be using this pc for recording and editing only. no internet use at all
drummerdude666
immature
This thread is full of crap. 
BUy either - seriously you will not notice a diffrence in their comparable products. People saying that AMD runs hotter is utter shit - Intel have in fact been hotter for the last few years. People saying that Intel only is a 'home pc' chip is utter crap.
I'm assuming your running Microsoft XP. In which case unless you buy the 64bit version of XP then your 64bit PC will be sitting there doing nothing that a 32bit PC would be doing. Even then, once you have a 64bit PC and a 64bit OS then you still need to use the programs that are written for 64bit. Of which there are hardly any for Windows
Most programs say that they support a 64 bit system. IT DOES NOT SAY THEY UTILISES THE CAPABILITEIS OF A 64 BIT SYSTEM!
With a 64 bit system you CAN have access to 4Gb worth of RAM which is nice.. but you have to ask yourself - would you use 4Gb RAM at this stage.
Everyone knows Intel and so they think is it the best. Utter Bollocks. Lets just see how you now them.. could it be that they have a HUGE advertising budget and every PC advert you see has a nice little "Intel Inside" logo or clip in it.
THE ONLY REASON INTEL PLAYS SUCH A LARGE PART IN PC ADVERTS IS THEY WILL PAY ALMOST THE ENTIRE COST OF AN ADVERT FOR DELL ETC SO LONG AS THEY INCLUDE THE INTEL INSIDE JINGLE AND CLIPS. THIS DOES NOT MAKE THEM BETTER.
PLEASE dont listen to all the people in this thread who think they know the first thing about PCs just becuase they can know a little html or once overclocked a processor.
PICK EITHER. No-one can tell you which is the best - they can only offer the pros and cons of each chip. By asking this question i'd say its safe to assume that you couldnt make an educated guess from the information given to you - which is all people can do - just give information, neither is better, as with everything IT DEPENDS and CHANGES every 6 months or so. Last year AMD had a larger market share than Intel.. does that mean that for that week AMD were better? NO It just means that they had a higher market share for a week.
JUST PICK EITHER. PLEASE!
If you want to learn or are intrested then listen to cortexx - he is the only one making sense in this stupid thread.
BUy either - seriously you will not notice a diffrence in their comparable products. People saying that AMD runs hotter is utter shit - Intel have in fact been hotter for the last few years. People saying that Intel only is a 'home pc' chip is utter crap.
I'm assuming your running Microsoft XP. In which case unless you buy the 64bit version of XP then your 64bit PC will be sitting there doing nothing that a 32bit PC would be doing. Even then, once you have a 64bit PC and a 64bit OS then you still need to use the programs that are written for 64bit. Of which there are hardly any for Windows
Most programs say that they support a 64 bit system. IT DOES NOT SAY THEY UTILISES THE CAPABILITEIS OF A 64 BIT SYSTEM!
With a 64 bit system you CAN have access to 4Gb worth of RAM which is nice.. but you have to ask yourself - would you use 4Gb RAM at this stage.
Everyone knows Intel and so they think is it the best. Utter Bollocks. Lets just see how you now them.. could it be that they have a HUGE advertising budget and every PC advert you see has a nice little "Intel Inside" logo or clip in it.
THE ONLY REASON INTEL PLAYS SUCH A LARGE PART IN PC ADVERTS IS THEY WILL PAY ALMOST THE ENTIRE COST OF AN ADVERT FOR DELL ETC SO LONG AS THEY INCLUDE THE INTEL INSIDE JINGLE AND CLIPS. THIS DOES NOT MAKE THEM BETTER.
PLEASE dont listen to all the people in this thread who think they know the first thing about PCs just becuase they can know a little html or once overclocked a processor.
PICK EITHER. No-one can tell you which is the best - they can only offer the pros and cons of each chip. By asking this question i'd say its safe to assume that you couldnt make an educated guess from the information given to you - which is all people can do - just give information, neither is better, as with everything IT DEPENDS and CHANGES every 6 months or so. Last year AMD had a larger market share than Intel.. does that mean that for that week AMD were better? NO It just means that they had a higher market share for a week.
JUST PICK EITHER. PLEASE!
If you want to learn or are intrested then listen to cortexx - he is the only one making sense in this stupid thread.
Last edited: