AMD Athlon 64 X2 or Intel Core Duo

midi2 · Post by **midi2** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:59 am

I am thinking of an upgrade but I don't know what's the best for audio production.Does anyone have an opinion?Or they are equal?

Wiglaf · Post by **Wiglaf** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:41 am

Intel all the way. AMD really got smacked around in the latest round of processor wars.

Tofuik · Post by **Tofuik** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:46 am

midi2 wrote:I am thinking of an upgrade but I don't know what's the best for audio production.Does anyone have an opinion?Or they are equal?

isn't it a bit cheaper to go AMD?

Intel gets my vote those.. I love the Core 2 Duos...

midi2 · Post by **midi2** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:25 pm

Tofuik wrote:isn't it a bit cheaper to go AMD?

cheaper enough to make me think it again

Meso · Post by **Meso** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:40 pm

midi2 wrote:I am thinking of an upgrade but I don't know what's the best for audio production.Does anyone have an opinion?Or they are equal?

I recently bought a dual core Sony Vaio laptop and its much more powerful than i could imagine,
its a Core Duo 1.86Ghz and it kicks my P4 2.8Ghz desktop computers a*s (both have the same amount of RAM, 1024MB)

And speaking of AMD i never really trusted them, click here for video
but bear in mind this video is gettin a bit old now.

Post by **shaft9000** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:07 pm

AMD Opteron is one to consider, also.

my current audio workstation system is an Athlon X2/64 4200+ w/ 1 gb RAM and it screams easily 5 times faster than the PentiumIV I'm writing this on now. renders 10 minutes of 32-bit convolution reverb in about 8-10 sec.

imho I find Intel is generally overpriced and depreciates further, faster. Intel was really lagging the last few years and AMD smoked 'em, especially in data bus speed which is every bit as important as CPU speed.

overheating issues are instance-specific; not generally an issue unless you think overclocking your cpu is a good idea. there's also a lot of propaganda about concerning PC's....just keep your perspective and remember that these big companies are the big companies because they exceed a standard that is constantly rising.

midi2 · Post by **midi2** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:30 pm

shaft9000 wrote:my current audio workstation system is an Athlon X2/64 4200+ w/ 1 gb RAM

I am planning to get the same specs if I go for AMD.It seems goods for the price

Meso · Post by **Meso** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:26 pm

Here is a benchmark test results on a few of the main Intel and AMD offerings
LINK

looks like Intel is on top ATM

Soundwave · Post by **Soundwave** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:03 pm

Hi all!

Intels are a better CPU but much more expensive. The best bang for the buck still goes to AMD imho. Its all very well having the best all singing CPU which is good for games but when building an music PC there are many other things to consider. The right mobo chipset is very important when recording is involved and unless you want to use a more expensive USB or Firewire audio card hunting down a good mobo with an AGP slot will avoid any of the conflicts regarding bandwidth when using PCIe and regular PCI audio cards. Old PCI audio cards can still achieve a lower latency than any USB or Firewire interface.

I use/have....

AMD 939skt X2 3200+ overclocked to 2.6ghz
Asrock SATA2 mobo Uil1695 chipset
1Gb (x2 512) Corsair Twin XMS low latency
Terratec Phase 28 PCI soundcard
Western Digital SATA 80gb x2
Matrox G550 dual head 2D AGP card + x2 19" monitors.

and can get a comfortable 2.9ms latency running four Arturia MMV's in Sonar3.1 at 24bit 44.1khz with a good reverb and handful of effects with the CPU meter just stretching over 60%.

I'm sure Intel users will be getting good results too but the system I have above really won't break the bank and is more than I need at the moment. There's also plenty of room to upgrade to an FX60 in the future.

fingerbib2000 · Post by **fingerbib2000** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:36 pm

I went for Intel. mainly becasue there was apparant issues with AMD boards and my Creamware Scope card.

someone mentioned that AMD was better bang for your buck, but this isn't true at all!

The 2.4Ghz, 4MB,E6600 core duo is the same price as the 2.8Ghz, 2MB rated AMD but the intel outperforms it.
plus, the intel's are pretty good for overclocking and one can apparantly get 3Ghz pretty easily out of the E6600 without need for any specialised cooling fans etc...

Soundwave · Post by **Soundwave** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:19 pm

The larger cache AMD's aren't that cost effective next to Intels but does that really make a massive difference for audio and softsynths?
I was going to get a Toledo core but the dudes on the Sonar forum said it didn't make that much a difference so I didn't bother (yet).

AMD Athlon 64 X2 or Intel Core Duo

AMD Athlon 64 X2 or Intel Core Duo

Re: AMD Athlon 64 X2 or Intel Core Duo

Re: AMD Athlon 64 X2 or Intel Core Duo

Re: AMD Athlon 64 X2 or Intel Core Duo