It's Important That I know...And Not Based On Opinion

A

AUDDASEA

New Member
Okay guys here is the deal.
I'm pretty informed on computer's and technology but I wanted your guys's opinion...

ADM Phenom Core Vs Core 2 Quad Processor

I currently just transitioned to a low-budget audio studio for a career. Were in the process of building a new rig...What I need to know is what processor is going to let me do what I need to do in the studio...

I do want to say I am biased to AMD machines due to having an INTEL based machine before and not being able to run my audio applications on it. This was however a while back. I had a dual core INTEL based machine running and my AMD single core processor performed the tasks easier and more efficent than intel ever did.

Programs that we utilize in the studio eat up Processing and R.A.M...For me to even run some of the virtual instruments we implement and process it's mandatory that I don't have under 8g.b of ram in this rig... But not only eating up the R.A.M...After some songs when I play them w/ all patterns and vsti dxi wires I've had my cpu spike to 98 %...I need a machine that can handle the brutality lol

I know AMD is the gamers choice...I know that AMD for some reason runs AUDIO and GRAPHIC architectures better...with a smaller pipeline.

So what I'm asking you guys is what should I go with....AMD Phenom Or INTEL Core 2 Duo.......All opinions aside...Anyone??
 
Last edited:
you would be better to go for Intel for this sort of thing, they have are very good, and Intel is a gamers choice.
 
But why INTEL cohen?... What features make Intel The leading choice...specifically...People keep saying intel but what advantages am I going to have over an AMD core.

Thanks Guy
 
I know AMD is the gamers choice...I know that AMD for some reason runs AUDIO and GRAPHIC architectures better...with a smaller pipeline.
Click to expand...
AMD used to run games & graphics applications better than Intel, thanks to their integrated memory controllers which gave them a significant edge at ant memory-intensive applications. However, the Core2 architecture owned the Athlons, and while Phenoms are catching up with Core2, they're still hampered by their inability yo clock higher than Intel CPUs.
So what I'm asking you guys is what should I go with....AMD Phenom Or INTEL Core 2 Duo.......All opinions aside...Anyone??
Click to expand...
I would recommend Intel for now, but would you mind telling us what software exactly you're going to be using? If the software is specifically written for AMD CPUs, then you'll be better off with a Phenom.
But why INTEL cohen?... What features make Intel The leading choice...specifically...People keep saying intel but what advantages am I going to have over an AMD core.
Click to expand...
It's not called Phenom Core or AMD Core, Core(2) is the name of the current Intel CPU architecture ;)

Intel CPUs simply perform better than AMDs, that's all. Where do you live/are able of buying from? You'll probably want to consider price-performance ratio as well, so it's good for us to know where you're able to shop.
 
Last edited:
^^ like this guy lol...

Programs we utilize... Fruityloops, Reason, Several Vsti from Stienberg Hypersonic To Native Instruments...We run Sonar, Abbleton Live...Pro Tools for xp...I also need compatibility for external sound cards...delta 1010 specifically...which support like 32 bit audio applications now....wozers...I know when I run steinberg hypersonic right now...one channel eats up 556 mb of ram...FOR ONE CHANNEL..I also implement outside sources for sound...like the MPC series ...which is MIDI and AUDIO in at the same time, for real time recording...major R.A.M eater

Price isn't an issue...I can go up to 2k if need be...which brings me to my next question...Dual processing montherboard w/ 32gb R.A.M Support maybe?...I'll be buying everything offline and configuring myself......

Also need suggestions on a case and thermal cooling system probobly...
 
Intel Quad core CPUs would be great for real-time recording.

Since your hardware/software is a bit specialized, I would research if your stuff will be supported by Vista 64bit which would support lots and lots of RAM.

Since you are doing audio, either put your computer in a different room from the instruments or get a water-cooling system.

If your tools are not supported by Vista then stay with XP but do not get XP 64-bit, it has bad support.

If you are stuck with a 32-bit operating system, you will be limited to 4GB of RAM.
 
Vista does not support the drivers for the pci cards I will be using...Only XP does...Xp 64bit is not a good OS? And I guess I'll need to water cool it than because I cant put the chasis in a seprate room from my 32 channel mixers and vocal hardware processors...haha...that would be a lot of cords and extensions on cords which will bring the audio quality down....audio quality is determined by the length of cord and the housing....the farther away I try to run hardware that I will need real time recording w/ the less the audio quality would be...cant sacrafice that
 
Dual processing montherboard w/ 32gb R.A.M Support maybe?...I'll be buying everything offline and configuring myself......
Click to expand...
Dual processors are pretty much a standard nowadays, and for your job you should probably get a quad-core CPU anyways, but you DO NOT need 32GBs of RAM... and remember, if you use a 32-bit OS you can't use more than 4GB anyways, but 4GB should me plenty for you.

Also, AFAIK none of those programs is specifically written for AMD CPUs, I'll search around a little but in the meantime I recommend you stick with an Intel quad-core CPU.

Vista does not support the drivers for the pci cards I will be using...Only XP does...Xp 64bit is not a good OS?
Click to expand...
What card(s) are you talking about? If they don't have drivers for Vista, they're probably fairly old and you'll need to upgrade anyways. And no, from driver support point-of-view XP64 is not a good OS, if it has to be XP I recommend you get the 32-bit version.
And I guess I'll need to water cool it than
Click to expand...
No, you don't. Unless you're into hardcore OCing, you do not need to watercool - even a quad will easily stay cool enough on air, even with a fairly heavy OC as long as you don't raise the voltage much, but since it seems that you're not into OCing - and I wouldn't OC a machine anyways if you're using it for professional work - the stock cooler will do just fine.
that would be a lot of cords and extensions on cords which will bring the audio quality down....audio quality is determined by the length of cord and the housing....the farther away I try to run hardware that I will need real time recording w/ the less the audio quality would be...cant sacrafice that
Click to expand...
Have you though about using digital equipment (or is that even a possibility)? Digital signal quality won't go down even if you have a lot of long wires and cables, but it may require you to upgrade heaps of equipment so it may not be a viable option...
 
AUDDASEA said:
But why INTEL cohen?... What features make Intel The leading choice...specifically...People keep saying intel but what advantages am I going to have over an AMD core.

Thanks Guy
Click to expand...

Intels Core 2 architecture is FAR better and faster. Remember when all Intel had was the P4 and then AMD hit with the 64? Its kinda like that.
 
Pci cards that I am refeering to, would be the delta 1010 series.. it was not supported and either was my emu 0404.. Pretty standard cards but hey lol... Maybe I should run the mac os on this machine to get more than 4gb of support ?....And I can't go digital....our mainboard is an analog 32 track mixer...all are vocal processors run through the mixer...the mixer runs into our sound card lol...just not possible to go digital..nor would I want to lol...Is vista any better than when it first came out, because I know that before I couldnt run a vast number of apps...and not just production oriented programs..
 
SP1 has fixed most of Vista's initial problems, I am now running it as my full-time OS of choice and I haven't regretted it. I even find myself missing features if I have to use an XP machine.
 
Here goes my opinion, and my opinion is biased because I 1) work IT for a living and 2) have several independent recording studios and an independent record label as clients on the side.

My friends are in a semi successful band on a local label where i live, so I do all the IT work for the studios they record at and the label they belong to. In my experience just go buy a Mac. This is why:

1) No major bugs or glitches, it just works

2) No viruses

3) system lasts longer

4) Macs can run any audio program out there

5) they are well built and last a long time

6) in the end it will cost you less money

To give you an example, that last time I was in there was probably 5 months ago in the studio. I wasn't there working but just hanging out. I got invited to come check it out from my friends so I did. They were using a 6 year old G4 MDD Mac, running the newest version of pro tools mastering a song, that was get this, 64 tracks of audio.

Try doing that with a 6 year old PC and it will probably puke and crash. Granted, Macs are not bullet proof and they do fail and they do crash, otherwise I wouldn't have a job fixing them. I do also however, support and work on PCs and Windows devices all the time as well. So it is not like I don't know what I am talking about. Of course I won't tell you how to spend your money either. Since I do contract work in the past I always did what the customer paid me to do.

Just some thoughts
 
Only problem is^^ I don't want to spend 3k on a machine I can build for 1000.00...

Looks like I might be doing a mac Build...what goes into a mac anyways haha?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?...

Im willing to drop up to 2k...with tax...not 3 and some change lol...
 
AUDDASEA said:
Only problem is^^ I don't want to spend 3k on a machine I can build for 1000.00...

Looks like I might be doing a mac Build...what goes into a mac anyways haha?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?...

Im willing to drop up to 2k...with tax...not 3 and some change lol...
Click to expand...


You can buy a used dual G5 Mac with like 4+ gigs of ram for probably the $700ish range. Check craig's list, that is where I sold all my old macs.

A Mac Pro would probably be over kill, unless you are serious and you are mastering like say audio for a hit movie or something. High budget jobs use high budget equipment.

Also, you get what you pay for. Just remember to back up your data. A studio about 40 miles from where I lived had to hire me once for data recovery and they were not happy about it. They had lost 3 full albums of work, until I recovered most of it for them.
 
not sure what an ADM Phenom is? lol

go core 2 quad. you won't regret it.

also, choose other quality parts for your rig. it makes a difference. just because your old intel based machine performed slowly doesn't mean it was due to a slow processor.

try out the new seagate barracuda 7200.11 hard drives, the 320gb is the fastest for your money, but it's also the smallest. the 500gb is golden. a raid 0 array would make it even faster. faster loading times = faster computer. it takes my computer all of 10 seconds to boot windows vista... and a single one of those drives benchmarked faster than my raid 0 array O_O

also, memory bandwidth and timings make a huge difference as well. the difference is perfectly noticeable between ddr2-800 4-4-4-10 and ddr2-533 5-5-5-15 if you ask me. if you want split second timing (like when you're right click takes a whole second to scroll out your options) then get faster ram... especially low latency ram.
 
Last edited:
Only problem is^^ I don't want to spend 3k on a machine I can build for 1000.00...

Looks like I might be doing a mac Build...what goes into a mac anyways haha?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?...

Im willing to drop up to 2k...with tax...not 3 and some change lol...
Click to expand...
If you decide to get a Mac, it would be better if you got one of the newer ones with Intel CPUs - this way, you can also install Windows if you need any windows apps that aren't available on Mac. Many professionals use Macs, as well as do all universities around where I live, so even though I have personally used Macs very little I can tell that they would be a viable option for you.
 
Id definetely go for Intel. High clocked Duo or a Quad core.

I run cubase, FL studios, Miroslav Philharmonix, Ezdrummer, BFG, Real guitar, and a few more things, but those are my main programs and vsts.

I usually run all of those at once, which is why ill be buying a 22" monitor, and use my 19" to hold my vst windows. But the quad-core q6600 takes all of that and doesnt even seem to be near its limits.

I was on Vista, but Cubase sx3 was having problems with my dongle, then cubase 4 didnt work for me either. And Miroslav had horrible sound in Vista for some reason. I never went to sp1, but just went back to XP sp3.

I havent done too much multi-track recording. Only 3 tracks at a time, and there is no lag from it.

If all of you stuff can be worked out in Vista, stay in it, cause you can utilize more ram, which is very good for vsts.
 
Vista does not support the drivers for the pci cards I will be using...Only XP does...Xp 64bit is not a good OS?
Click to expand...

XP 64 is not XP. XP 64 is based on Server 2003 (vista was based on this too) so it has terrible driver support.
 
XP does have a 64 bit opion, but i heard its very unstable.

Vista is great. I hate that I cant be on it right now. What I plan to do is get back to vista, then run XP in a VM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top