P4 3Ghz HT or AMD athlon 3000+ ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilwe
  • Start date Start date
I'm not sure of the benefits of HT or duals cpus for that matter.

Your DAW won't be running more than 1 app at a time, so there's no requirement for multitasking.

As for multithreading, is Sonor for example designed to exploit HT? Does it even need to be. Or does the software just need to be compiled for HT?
 
i was trained as a computer engineer

only 3 things count for audio multitracking
1. processor speed
2. how fast the channel is between the HD and the CPU
3. how fast the HD and memory is
without all working in tandem nothing else matters.
eg : if the processor is super fast but the HD is no good.
as i said before. save your sheckels boys and girls cos a new round will start which will make todays systems look like pikers.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: P4 3Ghz HT or AMD athlon 3000+ ?

Shakuan said:
And where the hell did u get that from? wow just stfu instead of making shit up.
Click to expand...

For the way you jumped all over my ass about saying how I felt about dual processors.

How about you shut the fuck up? I'll even spell it out instead of using Internet short hand.
 
Last edited:
You know what's interesting, is that the Apple G5 dual 2Ghz got its ass kicked in the majority of the benchmarks in the Nov. Maximum PC by an AMD 64 FX51 and an Intel EE P4.

Seeing as how the MP 2400+ is also clocked at 2Ghz, but is an x86 chip and not a RISC chip, I don't quite see how a dual Athlon 2400+with lower cache (256KB as opposed to 1MB)and a lower FSB (266 as opposed to chip integrated 800Mhz) would out-do an Athlon 64.

Granted the Athlon 64 and 64 FX are different chips, but still, I think the Athlon 64 would be faster.

I'd like to see that comparison made by a magazine or online site.

BTW, the Athlon 64 3200+ is $405, not $619.
 
polaris

much as i respect your opinion. a fast amd processor plus a motherboard is about 180 bucks max. i dont think now is the time to spend more with the speed of technology change.
i know people getting 48 tracks easily out of a 2ghz processor.
who needs more ? as a computer engineer let me tell ya ,
athlon 64 though nice is the first salvo in a new generation of processors. i believe the 2500+ is the sweet pricing spot right now.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: P4 3Ghz HT or AMD athlon 3000+ ?

Polaris20 said:
For the way you jumped all over my ass about saying how I felt about dual processors.
Click to expand...

Ya ok and I killed a spider, call me murderer....

I was far from jumping all over your ass. The solitaire thing was just a fuckin joke. I know your're not playing solitaire with your daw.......... don't make me use the smileys all the time..... why is it that ppl always assume the worst from what someone writes here. Did you ever consider the fact that I could be kidding you??

If I were to jump all over someone's ass, I would be pretty clear about it. Geeez relax and have a beer.
 
Shakuan said:
I'm canadian, and it's 629$.

http://www.microbytes.com/cpu.php
Click to expand...

That page doesn't work for me. Anyway, there's a $60 dollar difference between CN$ and US$ for the 2400+ and a $200 difference for the A64 3200+ doesn't sound right.

Besides, as Bulls Hit said, the convention is to post in US dollars, since this is technically a US site.

When you factor in the higher motherboard price of a dual processor, the price comes in at about the same price, give or take.

Add to the fact that the duallie board does not support SATA, doesn't have onboard firewire, has a lower FSB, lower cache and has an obsolete chipset.
 
Re: polaris

manning1 said:
much as i respect your opinion. a fast amd processor plus a motherboard is about 180 bucks max. i dont think now is the time to spend more with the speed of technology change.
i know people getting 48 tracks easily out of a 2ghz processor.
who needs more ? as a computer engineer let me tell ya ,
athlon 64 though nice is the first salvo in a new generation of processors. i believe the 2500+ is the sweet pricing spot right now.
Click to expand...

I was comparing the A64 to the duallie, not saying it's the only way to go.

I myself just bought a 2500+, because for a home recording guy, I think spending over $300 on processor alone is kinda dumb, when the money could be spent elsewhere for better audio results. But that's just my opinion.
 
polaris

you did right with the 2500+. smart move.
mark my words the year 2005 or maybe 06 will mark some important developments. the 2500+ will do you nicely till then.
 
Re: polaris

manning1 said:
you did right with the 2500+. smart move.
mark my words the year 2005 or maybe 06 will mark some important developments. the 2500+ will do you nicely till then.
Click to expand...

I almost never spend more than $100 for a processor. My last one was an 1800+ that's still going to be used, possibly with the FX Teleport program that runs VSTi's over Ethernet.
 
what amazes me polaris

is a lowly duron 1.3 ghz even beats a lot of other system with fast hard drives. on my tests in tough benchmarks the 2ghz systems in dsp algorythms beat it max by a second or two.
people always skip over the duron. but it still gives you 48 tracks and a hunk of floating point performance. in my tests i had to go up to a p4 at 3ghz to beat it handsomely.
remember its also the drive speed is a factor !!
 
Re: what amazes me polaris

manning1 said:
is a lowly duron 1.3 ghz even beats a lot of other system with fast hard drives. on my tests in tough benchmarks the 2ghz systems in dsp algorythms beat it max by a second or two.
people always skip over the duron. but it still gives you 48 tracks and a hunk of floating point performance. in my tests i had to go up to a p4 at 3ghz to beat it handsomely.
remember its also the drive speed is a factor !!
Click to expand...

I've noticed a lot of audio has to do with HD performance more so than it does processor speed, especially sheer track count.

Having said that, my Gateway notebook with a Celeron 1.3Ghz is running Reason flawlessly, which really surprises me.
 
Bulls Hit said:
Your DAW won't be running more than 1 app at a time, so there's no requirement for multitasking.
Click to expand...


Say for instance..as in my case, I'm running cubase SX through 1x Delta 1010 and 2 x Felta 410's to give me 24 outs back to my desk ( Allen & Heath saber 24/16/16/2 and on mixdown going BACK IN through the stereo out (one of them) on the desk back through 2 chanels of the Delta 1010 into Wavelab4.0 to record my mixdown...... is hyperthreading going to help me here?

I can go straight out the desk and master to minidisk but that means going back in via S/PDIF and yet another digital conversion to wavelab before burning to CD

Any thoughts?
 
Bulls Hit said:
Your DAW won't be running more than 1 app at a time, so there's no requirement for multitasking.
Click to expand...


Say for instance..as in my case, I'm running cubase SX through 1x Delta 1010 and 2 x Felta 410's to give me 24 outs back to my desk ( Allen & Heath saber 24/16/16/2 and on mixdown going BACK IN through the stereo out (one of them) on the desk back through 2 chanels of the Delta 1010 into Wavelab4.0 to record my mixdown...... is hyperthreading going to help me here?

I can go straight out the desk and master to minidisk but that means going back in via S/PDIF and yet another digital conversion to wavelab before burning to CD

Any thoughts?
 
There's a big list of processors and benchmarks on www. tomshardware.com. The AMD XP 3000+ comes in just below the P4 2.8 in nearly every category. The Athlon64's come in below the Pentiums of similar speed as well.

This article is about the Prescott chip, but includes benchmark comparisons for just about any processor you would buy nowadays.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

Straight to the benchmarks (there are many pages of them):

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/prescott-06.html
 
charger said:
There's a big list of processors and benchmarks on www. tomshardware.com. The AMD XP 3000+ comes in just below the P4 2.8 in nearly every category. The Athlon64's come in below the Pentiums of similar speed as well.

This article is about the Prescott chip, but includes benchmark comparisons for just about any processor you would buy nowadays.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/index.html

Straight to the benchmarks (there are many pages of them):

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040322/prescott-06.html
Click to expand...

Interesting. A64's do better in this review.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040601/socket_939-22.html

Must be the 939, which is what I am holding out for. I can't afford that much just for a CPU though.
 
Ok, I've heard what everyone else says about this but not what they're using. I have a laptop with a AMD64 3000, 512ram. I've clocked my bus speed at 200, and cpu at 1800. So why 64 so early in the game? hardware drives software. This is the future of music pc's because of the bit size and massive ram and hard drive support in the upcoming 64bit OS's. I imagine it will lead to up to 64 bit recording happening smoothly. Word length is a big deal. Textures on games will be twice as smooth and imagine if music could be twice as smooth. Perhaps this will give the final advantage over tape?

My next pc home system will likely be a dual processor setup. I had the chance to try one out the other day and wow. Killer. Just killer. Wicked fast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top