Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
AMD or INTEL
I work with Audio Streams, making Recordings on Harddisk, making samples
and sometimes i have to to some Master Tracks. Can you tell me something about the perfomence of those two differnt CPU´s ? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
AMD or INTEL
"Nicolai" wrote in message . .. I work with Audio Streams, making Recordings on Harddisk, making samples and sometimes i have to to some Master Tracks. You don't do anything of the kind do you, you're living in fantasy land. The way you have composed your question, betrays you do not know the subject. Can you tell me something about the perfomence of those two differnt CPU´s ? They produce processors, they slice silicon. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
AMD or INTEL
"Nicolai" wrote in message
I work with Audio Streams, making Recordings on Harddisk, making samples and sometimes i have to to some Master Tracks. Can you tell me something about the perfomence of those two differnt CPU´s ? The performance of AMD and Intel CPUs varies with the specific models. Trying to compare AMD and Intel CPUs by brand is like comparing all Fords with all Chevys. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
AMD or INTEL
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:07:35 +0200, Nicolai wrote:
I work with Audio Streams, making Recordings on Harddisk, making samples and sometimes i have to to some Master Tracks. Can you tell me something about the perfomence of those two differnt CPU´s ? There's very little difference, but if you pay for a software product and tell suppoprt "I'm using an AMD processor" and they only support intel then the automatic answer is going to be "**** you; we don't care; don't call us again unless you're running intel." Check with your software vender. Or at the very least, don't tell them if you run AMD and they don't support it. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
AMD or INTEL
Can you tell me something about the perfomence of those two differnt
CPU´s ? There's very little difference, but if you pay for a software product and tell suppoprt "I'm using an AMD processor" and they only support intel then the automatic answer is going to be "**** you; we don't care; don't call us again unless you're running intel." Check with your software vender. Or at the very least, don't tell them if you run AMD and they don't support it. What vendor have you had this experience with? How much difference *can* there be? It's not hard to test a CPU and find out whether it faithfully implements the specified instruction set. Debugging a CPU is much easier than, for instance, debugging a medium-sized computer program, because there is only a small set of things it has to do -- a few hundred things -- all of them very well-defined. What software actually has problems with AMD vs. Pentium? I'm curious. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
AMD or INTEL
mc spake thus:
Can you tell me something about the perfomence of those two differnt CPU´s ? There's very little difference, but if you pay for a software product and tell suppoprt "I'm using an AMD processor" and they only support intel then the automatic answer is going to be "**** you; we don't care; don't call us again unless you're running intel." Check with your software vender. Or at the very least, don't tell them if you run AMD and they don't support it. What vendor have you had this experience with? How much difference *can* there be? It's not hard to test a CPU and find out whether it faithfully implements the specified instruction set. Debugging a CPU is much easier than, for instance, debugging a medium-sized computer program, because there is only a small set of things it has to do -- a few hundred things -- all of them very well-defined. What software actually has problems with AMD vs. Pentium? I'm curious. I *think* that he knows all that you said; what he's trying to say is that some vendors will add this to their big bag of excuses--"oh, sorry, we only support [x] processors". Kind of like the old Ctl-Alt-Delete (x 5) runaround, where the tech support person would try to buy themself extra time by having you reboot your computer umpteen times for no reason. -- Pierre, mon ami. Jetez encore un Scientologiste dans le baquet d'acide. - from a posting in alt.religion.scientology titled "France recommends dissolving Scientologists" |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
AMD or INTEL
"mc" wrote in message . .. Can you tell me something about the perfomence of those two differnt CPU´s ? There's very little difference, but if you pay for a software product and tell suppoprt "I'm using an AMD processor" and they only support intel then the automatic answer is going to be "**** you; we don't care; don't call us again unless you're running intel." Check with your software vender. Or at the very least, don't tell them if you run AMD and they don't support it. What vendor have you had this experience with? How much difference *can* there be? It's not hard to test a CPU and find out whether it faithfully implements the specified instruction set. Debugging a CPU is much easier than, for instance, debugging a medium-sized computer program, because there is only a small set of things it has to do -- a few hundred things -- all of them very well-defined. What software actually has problems with AMD vs. Pentium? I'm curious. Actually, for audio recording and mixing purposes, the AMD chip is generally regarded as outperforming the Intel chips. I'll have to rely on others to explain why, as I don't know. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
AMD or INTEL
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... Actually, for audio recording and mixing purposes, the AMD chip is generally regarded as outperforming the Intel chips. I'll have to rely on others to explain why, as I don't know. It could well do some computations faster. If I were trying to build a Pentium-compatible chip without violating Intel's patents, I'd probably end up with somewhat different amounts of time taken to execute some of the instructions. Generally, when a CPU is redesigned from scratch, the redesigners end up making some of the instructions appreciably faster because they think of things the original designers didn't think of, or they know (from experience) that some instructions are more frequently used than the original designers foresaw. One of the things you'd do, of course, is study existing software to see which CPU instructions it's using in time-critical portions. As you can guess, I'm a computer scientist, not a musician... |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
AMD or INTEL
"mc" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... Actually, for audio recording and mixing purposes, the AMD chip is generally regarded as outperforming the Intel chips. I'll have to rely on others to explain why, as I don't know. It could well do some computations faster. If I were trying to build a Pentium-compatible chip without violating Intel's patents, I'd probably end up with somewhat different amounts of time taken to execute some of the instructions. Generally, when a CPU is redesigned from scratch, the redesigners end up making some of the instructions appreciably faster because they think of things the original designers didn't think of, or they know (from experience) that some instructions are more frequently used than the original designers foresaw. One of the things you'd do, of course, is study existing software to see which CPU instructions it's using in time-critical portions. As you can guess, I'm a computer scientist, not a musician... Interesting speculation. Thanks. Harry |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
AMD or INTEL
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... Actually, for audio recording and mixing purposes, the AMD chip is generally regarded as outperforming the Intel chips. I'll have to rely on others to explain why, as I don't know. It could well do some computations faster. If I were trying to build a Pentium-compatible chip without violating Intel's patents, I'd probably end up with somewhat different amounts of time taken to execute some of the instructions. Generally, when a CPU is redesigned from scratch, the redesigners end up making some of the instructions appreciably faster because they think of things the original designers didn't think of, or they know (from experience) that some instructions are more frequently used than the original designers foresaw. One of the things you'd do, of course, is study existing software to see which CPU instructions it's using in time-critical portions. As you can guess, I'm a computer scientist, not a musician... What you guys forget is that a CPU does not work alone. The motherboards, support chips and drivers for an AMD are different to Intel. The AMD problems with music seem to be sorted out now, but that certainly wasn't the case a while ago, and many software companies simply refused to support AMD. Personally I'd still recommend AMD for games and graphics, but Intel for music. Many programs are still not fully tested under AMD platforms unfortunately, but if you are prepared to stick only to software that supports AMD, then go for it. Although I don't see the difference in price or real world performance as all that great anyway. Most musicians worry more about fan noise, etc. and many of course prefer Apple computers (which are now using Intel as well :-) MrT. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Mac to Switch to Intel? | Pro Audio | |||
Flac Gives Inconsisten Results (Intel vs. AMD) | Tech | |||
Intel processors | Pro Audio | |||
AMD vs. Intel... | Audio Opinions | |||
AMD or INTEL for Samplitude pro.v7 ? | Pro Audio |