• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Topic: AMD 64 & RAM???

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    AMD 64 & RAM???

    Hi,
    I have still not decided whether to get a Pentium IV 3,0 or an AMD 64 3200+. I wanted to go for the AMD but just now read that in order to get use of DDR-400 Timing you can not use more than two RAM-modules (2x15 =1GB) as with every module more it will go down to 333 Mhr or even 266Mhz. Any thoughts on this? (I think I need more than 1 GB RAM)
    And then there remains the question regarding VIA chipsets. Are they o.k with Audio today?
    thankx in advance
    Harry

  2. #2

    Re: AMD 64 & RAM???

    Harry, hello again. The benefits of the AMD 64 still aren\'t worth the price of admission. The windows 64 bit operating system is still a fews years away and none of the programs coming out in the next couple will take advantage of what it offers. The 32 bit emulation mode of Windows 64 bit is still very buggy from what I understand so you may not even be able to use your favorite audio programs until they\'re ironed out or have a 64 bit counterpart released. For processor heavy operation it has always been my understanding that the Pentium\'s win out (not to start a war.) Pentiums are better at crunching out more calculations faster than an AMD and this is essential in graphic design and in music creation, however this may have changed with the AMD 64. From everything I\'ve seen, the 64 still doesn\'t beat the Pentium or its Athlon XP rivals in the 32 bit world, so wait for Windows 64 bit OS and Gigastudio 4 or whatever. Save yourself a few bucks and go P4 2.8 with hyperthreading, the performance increase with the 3.0 isn\'t worth the extra 200.00. You\'ll never notice it. And unless you\'re encoding DVD\'s or doing CAD architecture, the memory speed isn\'t going to hurt you either. I\'d try to keep it at 333 Mhz though.

    Edit: The via chipset still isn\'t the greatest thing since sliced bread, but come to think of it the Nforce is pretty buggy too, at times. That\'s the problem with AMD chips in my opinion is that they really don\'t have a good chipset manufacturer. And if you\'re going to be using more than one gig of ram make sure you have it dispersed in pairs. Like two 512\'s and two 256\'s or 4 512\'s or you won\'t get the duel channel speed anyway.

  3. #3

    Re: AMD 64 & RAM???

    I\'ve always been a fan of AMD. Their $100 CPUs simply kill anything from Intel at a similar price point.

    But Joseph\'s right. AMD does well with business apps because of architecture optimization. But when it comes to signal processing, it\'s all about clock speed. The top AMD processors are fast at media processing, but the P4 holds the edge due to its clock rate.

    For a budget system, I still like AMD. The non-Barton cores are the way to go, since the extra cache of the Barton doesn\'t help with media processing. And for a Giga 2.5 box the Athlon XP has more grunt than you can use. But with GS 3.0 and GigaPulse the rules of the sample player game have shifted towards Intel.

    The 2.8 GHz hyperthreader looks pretty sweet in early 2004. When Windows64 and Giga64 are real, the playing field will likely tilt yet again.

    Another advantage with Intel is that the P4 isn\'t as power hungry as a competitive Athlon. That\'s good for building low-noise systems.

    I haven\'t build an Intel box for many years. Who knows? That may change before too long.

  4. #4

    Re: AMD 64 & RAM???

    Thankx guys. Joseph: With the Pentium IV with hyperthreading: do you mean the new Prescott or those Northwood ones. I ask because I can\'t get the price difference of 200 from 2.8 to 3.0 that you mention. It is about 50 Euro (about $40) here in Germany (if you spoke of Ghz). Or did I get something wrong?
    thankx again guys. you rule!!!
    Harry

  5. #5

    Re: AMD 64 & RAM???

    Originally posted by Joseph Burrell:
    Harry, hello again. The benefits of the AMD 64 still aren\'t worth the price of admission. The windows 64 bit operating system is still a fews years away and none of the programs coming out in the next couple will take advantage of what it offers. The 32 bit emulation mode of Windows 64 bit is still very buggy from what I understand so you may not even be able to use your favorite audio programs until they\'re ironed out or have a 64 bit counterpart released. For processor heavy operation it has always been my understanding that the Pentium\'s win out (not to start a war.) Pentiums are better at crunching out more calculations faster than an AMD and this is essential in graphic design and in music creation, however this may have changed with the AMD 64. From everything I\'ve seen, the 64 still doesn\'t beat the Pentium or its Athlon XP rivals in the 32 bit world, so wait for Windows 64 bit OS and Gigastudio 4 or whatever. Save yourself a few bucks and go P4 2.8 with hyperthreading, the performance increase with the 3.0 isn\'t worth the extra 200.00. You\'ll never notice it. And unless you\'re encoding DVD\'s or doing CAD architecture, the memory speed isn\'t going to hurt you either. I\'d try to keep it at 333 Mhz though.
    <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">What nonsense ! [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img]
    And such a incorrect information! [img]images/icons/mad.gif[/img]

    First, there\'s no problems with Athlon FX or
    64 in Win XP 32 bit and actually 64bit Athlons
    are little bit faster than XP Athlons in 32 bit
    WinXP. No need for emulations here!
    It\'s such bull**** to claim that P4 wins out
    in processor heavy calculations, especially in
    audio, althought P4 gives more Mhz than Athlons,
    but Athlon\'s FPU is unbeatable. In many tests
    Athlon FX and 64 rivals P4, and even Athlon XP
    rivals P4 in many cases:
    http://cubase.freezope.org/perftest/shoresults
    and check this threas too;

    http://www.kvr-vst.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36341

    So, the answer to original question,
    is Athlon XP3200 better choice than P4 3.0 ?
    I would say it depends !
    They say GS 3.0 is optimized for P4, but what
    does this really mean, well, we\'ll see when
    GS 3.0 is finally released! But for CPU
    intensive VSTi/Dxi plugins Athlons give you
    more raw power! [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
    Remember Athlon FX and Athlon 64 includes those
    SSE2 instructions. If GS 3.0 is optimized for
    SSE2,Athlons benefits them too.

    For pricewise, I will recommend Athlon 64 3000+ !
    http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=277

  6. #6

    Re: AMD 64 & RAM???

    besides of troubles with one or another chipset (which has been also valid for intel-chipsets - HX or so was it\'s name IIRC) it\'s not so much the processor or the application - it\'s the used compiler (the program which generates an application from pages of usually C++ code). it would be also a good idea to look at the compiler settings when citing or pointing to benchmarks - you could set various optimization flags there to outperform one or another processor architecture.
    christian

  7. #7

    Re: AMD 64 & RAM???

    Didn\'t mean to start all this [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] Anyway, as you can tell, processor choice is a hot topic, and a personal preference. Go to a tech site and look at the benchmarks yourself. Like anandtech.com.

    And if you want the Longhorn early, just go to China. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] Hey, I wish it would come out this year, but I\'m pessimistic. It looks great, but I think I\'ll let them get the bugs worked out this time before jumping in. I wish Windows OS were as stable as Mac and Linux.

  8. #8

    Re: AMD 64 & RAM???

    Windows 64 ist not YEARS away, it\'s months. ETA is second half of this year!

    Nevertheless applications need to be adapted to take use of the increased memory-addressing-capability.

    For most drivers (at least the ones written with a little care) it should just be a recompile with the Longhorn Driver Kit and off you go...

    Tobias

  9. #9

    Re: AMD 64 & RAM???

    Originally posted by Joseph Burrell:
    Didn\'t mean to start all this [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] Anyway, as you can tell, processor choice is a hot topic, and a personal preference. Go to a tech site and look at the benchmarks yourself. Like anandtech.com.

    <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">The problem is that these benchmarks are not related to audio, and then may not tell the truth.
    So, we need benchmarks related to audio
    sequencers, Sonar and Cubase etc.
    But, hey, there are some test which might
    interest musos [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]
    http://service.steinberg.net/knowledge_pro.nsf/show/cpu_performance_tests_2003_11_18
    this is for Cubase SX
    http://www.cakewalk.com/forum/tm.asp?m=34827&mpage=1&key=
    and this for Sonar 3! [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

  10. #10

    Re: AMD 64 & RAM???

    I believe it was TechTV that recently did benchmarks on the new Pentium chip and the AMD 64. When it came to audio applications, the 64 came out on top (and that\'s running in 32-bit mode). With Video, the Pentium won.

    But the differences in speed were barely noticable, if at all.

    The moral of the story: either AMD or Pentium will do fine. Maybe you should look at price, instead.

    And this is where AMD usually wins.

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •