Author |
Message |
Ivity
Joined: Dec 29, 2005 Posts: 233 Location: Moscow, Russia
G2 patch files: 57
|
Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:18 am Post subject:
Athlon 64 X2 vs. Pentium 4D |
|
|
I want to purchase brand new PC for recording/production/mastering and that's a general question:
What's the best solution for computer music workstation: dualcore Pentium 4D and Athlon 64 X2 or singlecore Athlon 64 and Pentium 4?
I saw many discussions with various opinions, but, unfortunatly, at didn't find the answer
Somebody tells that Pentium 4D is the best solution (even better than dual processor AMD workstation ) somebody tells, that multicore processors works in singlecore mode in most of DAW environments (such as Cubase and etc.) and good singlecore processor is better than dualcore and so on...
Any thoughts? _________________ Igor
www.myspace.com/phoiod
www.bl-project.com/Ivity.html |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Afro88
Joined: Jun 20, 2004 Posts: 701 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Audio files: 12
G2 patch files: 79
|
Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Anyone who says a singlecore is better than a dualcore is either jealous or very badly misinformed. With a dual core machine, you can run specific apps in single core mode. Cubase supports x2, so it's not an issue, but something like Protools has a spack if you try and run it with both cores assigned to it. When you only assign one core it runs fine. I don't know of any scenario where it would be better to have a single core cpu, especially when using your computer to write dsp intensive electronic music! Dual core essentially means twice the power. Real world, because of bussing and memory sharing slow downs, you'll see at least a 50% increase, probably more. I used to run Cubase sessions at 80% with 10ms latency, and I can now run the same session at 40-50% at 3ms latency.
Beware though, there have been issues with PCI-x/PCI-e motherboards, I'm not sure if they have been resolved. Check out your DAW's forums to see what runs best. I'm running an Athlon64x2 on an nForce3 motherboard and it runs great.
As for Athlon vs Pentium in the dual core market... I went for the Athlon because it was designed from the ground up for dual core operation. The Pentium D's weren't, and suffer in some areas because of this. I saw some benchmarks around that showed the Athlon's performing better than the D's in audio codec translation, so I went for the Athlon. But to be honest, there really wasn't that much of a difference. There's a site around that hosts a huge table of results of a Nuendo performance testing session that people have run. Can't remember the name of it off the top of my head though sorry.... |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Ivity
Joined: Dec 29, 2005 Posts: 233 Location: Moscow, Russia
G2 patch files: 57
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003 Posts: 18197 Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 212
G2 patch files: 60
|
Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:13 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I just got a single core AMD 64. (I'm runing 32 bit XP). Single core was much cheaper. I'm upgrading from a single processor 1.4 GHz AMD Athalon to a 2.4. The 1.4 never gave me any problems so I figured a single core would be fine and I could save a $120. If in a couple of years I find I want a dual core, I'll just buy a new chip - they'll be cheaper and I'll use this slow single core ( ) on another computer - maybe a file server.
I agree with Afro88, a dual core shouldn't be slower except under some perverse benchmark.
BTW, I'm using an Asus motherboard. Seems to be supreb. My old G2 USB hangs are a thing of the past.
Only problem is now the computer is complaining about it hurting when I reboot it. _________________ --Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Ivity
Joined: Dec 29, 2005 Posts: 233 Location: Moscow, Russia
G2 patch files: 57
|
Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:17 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Thanks for the answer Howard
Also, a good point of view...
BTW: Does Live support multicore CPU? _________________ Igor
www.myspace.com/phoiod
www.bl-project.com/Ivity.html Last edited by Ivity on Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Afro88
Joined: Jun 20, 2004 Posts: 701 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Audio files: 12
G2 patch files: 79
|
Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:25 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
No it doesn't unfortunately |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Ivity
Joined: Dec 29, 2005 Posts: 233 Location: Moscow, Russia
G2 patch files: 57
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
mosc
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 31, 2003 Posts: 18197 Location: Durham, NC
Audio files: 212
G2 patch files: 60
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:50 am Post subject:
|
|
|
BTW, I would always pick more memory over a faster processor if one is to make a choice. _________________ --Howard
my music and other stuff |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
jksuperstar
Joined: Aug 20, 2004 Posts: 2503 Location: Denver
Audio files: 1
G2 patch files: 18
|
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:24 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I have a dual core pentium, and it *screems*. My friend has a single core, which is higher freq. (my dual core is 1.82 GHz each, while his single core is 3.2GHz). We both run the same apps (live + VST plugins), and don't see much difference. I do expect to see a change when Live is recoded for dual core, which is scheduled for v6.
Point is, with all CPUs, don't buy for the future, just buy the best deal for what you need now. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
glitched
Joined: Mar 25, 2006 Posts: 80 Location: phila., pa USA
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:47 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I know this thread was left for dead in July, but I thought I'd update it by saying that Live 6 does indeed have multicore/multiprocessor support.
My question for those who have gone the dual-core route is this: Have you noticed any significant performance increases in Live (or other apps/plugins)?
Although I'm running just fine with my AMD 64 3000+, it's been a couple years since I've upgraded anything.
Is it worth it?
-d |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|