Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by mrvomit, Dec 26, 2004.
i thought they were simply different speed PCI Express
I am not sure about that. You should check the article published on the tomshardware.com about new Intel stock cooler.
Compared to what? To AMD CPU's? Or to the Intel prices in other countries?
They are but optimized software uses SSE or SSE2 for floating point instead of FPU so Intel ends up faster.
I have yet to hear from people doing serious (note serious!) audio production on AMD with success. What I heard so far from those who tried to use AMD64 for audio is that compared to Intel there are still some stability/compatibility issues and that AMD CPU's cannot cope with that many synths and effects as P4 with HT.
And your thinking is based on what? Two Xeons with 400 MHz FSB have considerable gain over one P4 and they share FSB. Two physical cores will have 800 MHz FSB to share and will cost much less than two Xeons and adequate mainboard. From what I have heard dual-core 2.8 GHz CPU will cost around 240 USD. I would gladly pay for that anytime even if it is just a jiffy better than the HyperThreading. I can't stand working on a computer that doesn't have HyperThreading anymore. Encoding DVD to DivX and playing Need For Speed Underground 2 at the same time is what I call user friendly experience.
It would not. Intel has a complete solution. For example mainboard I have already supports EM64T (that is x86-64 or AMD64 equivalent) capable CPU's with latest BIOS revision (F4). Check it out here. And Intel Processor Spec Finder already lists those new EM64T CPU's. They are slowly becoming available. I would look for E0 stepping 3.2F chip (S-Spec = SL7PX -- that means product code on the box shoud end with those 5 characters). There are faster chips (up to 3.8) but I am on a budget right now and I am indeed happy even with 2.8 GHz I have now but for EM64T they won't make it any slower than 3.2 GHz.
True, already selling at 667 MHz and it is pretty affordable and consumes less power.
Don't mix PCI-X which is 64-bit server kind of a slot with PCI-Express (PCI-E is the right term) which is apparently not.
AMD has PCI-X for Opterons, Intel has it for Xeons. AMD has PCI-E only with nForce 4 (nobody sane would opt for VIA platform for audio production). Intel has it with it's own chipsets and soon to be out nForce 5 which will also offer SLI on Intel platform.
That is not true as I said above.
When the next generation of Opterons is released in the first half of 2006, the AMD microprocessors will be equipped with 1207 pins. So getting 939 pin mainboard may be future-proof as buying 64-bit system which cannot accept more than 4 GB of RAM (which is currently the case for majority of desktop mainboards). I am not saying that 939 system is not better option than 754 -- it is because dual-channel helps a lot.
I wouldn't like to be anywhere near that computer in which you would try to stick PCI card into PCI-Express slot! Whoever told you that should be spanked!
- It would produce 4x more heat
- It would require aproximately 4x more pins making board design too complex
- It would not give that much performance you think
REMEMBER: key performance limiting factor is MEMORY SPEED not the CPU.
If you do not believe this then run Cache and memory bandwidth benchmark in SiSoftware Sandra and observe how performance goes down tenfold when data set drops out of CPU L2 cache.
Let me put it to you this way. Intel is just putting together a dual-core processor just to have one. No research and no real work done to make it a real good product. They MAY make later ones better but the first ones are being made are a big dissapointment to me.
I don't think a jiffy faster is going to be it for the P4. As far as products go I wouldn't be suprised if they were actually slower than Intels current fastest P4HT processor. From what I have read I am wondering if the 2.8ghz = 2x1.4ghz cores or 2x2.8ghz cores.
AMD on the other hand has put a lot of thought into there dual-core chips. There should be a bigger performance gain with dual-core AMD chips than that of Intel's Dual-core chips.
Who said this the Inquirer? But then again that is the Opteron not the Athlon 64 desktop systems. Report back when they make a 1206pin or something. Because we are more worried about desktop applications, not server right now.
What are you talking about? I don't see any EM64T processors on the market. I see noone selling a 3.2F anywhere. For that matter a 3.xF. Show me where one is being sold. Provide a link please.
Yeah and from what I read 667 is where DDR2 equals DDR performance. Affordable? From what I have seen 512mb DDR3200 is around $62-77 USD whileDDR2-3200 is from $92-157 DDR2-4200/4300 is from $90-189 DDR2-5300/5400 is from $130-$190 USD. I don't think DDR2 is what I would call affordable. I'm going to buy 1gig of DDR-3200 for less that what some sticks of 512mb of DDR2 cost.
I think the most important thing with this is a really high quality and stable motherboard. With audio getting a motherboard with the least amount of electronic interference is the most important factor. So high quality cable's, capacitors, etc should be what you should look for. I think abit? made a board once for high quality audio. Not sure though
as for not hearing any "serious audio prouction on AMD"
that's probably due to myth, propoganda and bias, aswell as OEM choice - many of the target audience know next to nothing about computers
truthfully a mac is the better choice for audio production
i meant th., as for now , intel costs More than amd . I wonder if its worthy that difference.
Second,i'm curios about PCI-EX. IT WOULD BE backwards-compatible to pci (e.g my audio cards) or not athe end ?
from what i have read, the long slots (8x i think) that are 64bit 66mhz can be clocked back for PCI support, and some motherboards (ie my dad's server) has a 32 bit 33mhz (PCI speed) PCI express slot…
And who told you that? You have any insiders from Intel?
First, CPU design cycle is at least 2-3 years so it cannot be a quick hack.
Second, whoever thinks that it is possible to glue two chips together doesn't have a clue about electronics or simply put how those chips actually work. CPU is not a lightbulb and you can't wire two in parallel and make them work just like that.
Third, HyperThreading is very similar to dual-core, it is only that two logical cores share more resources than two physical will. That means Intel is way ahead in dual-core because last time I checked HyperThreading was available long before AMD even announced it's dual-core.
As for no research claim that is BS. Intel spent 5 bil. USD in 2004 on R&D. AMD just can't afford it because they are cheap so they get sponsorship from governments.
Where did you read that? Why would they reduce clock that much? No point in what you are saying. You are spreading FUD.
I agree that there will be bigger performance gain with AMD dual-core because of Hyper-Transport and different architecture in general but you must not forget that before Opteron they sucked heavily at MP in every way.
Then why are you mentioning dual-core Opterons? That is a server chip as far as I know.
Check here, I am not sure if their info is correct but it seems that they have EM64T chips.
Check Intel Processor Spec Finder and see for yourself that there are new CPU entering retail channels that have EM64T enabled. They are still shipping to OEMs but they will be available soon. Try searching for OEM Order Code (JM80547PG0881M) on Google and it may reveal you which online resellers and retailers already have those CPUs.
So basically you are saying that DDR2-667 is equal to DDR-400 performance-wise and that DDR2-533 is slower than DDR-400 (talking about regular sticks and not about some DDR-400 with 2-2-2-8)? Nonsense. I already said that you can chose mainboard that has support for both DDR and DDR2 so if you think that DDR is faster you can still use it.
DIMM 1GB, DDR DRAM, 400MHz, Corsair TwinX, 2x512MB Kit, CL2-3-3-6 LifeTime Warranty = 208 EUR
DIMM 1GB, DDR2 DRAM, 533MHz, Corsair TwinX, 2x512MB Kit, CL3-3-3-8, LifeTime Warranty = 292 EUR
DIMM 1GB, DDR2 DRAM, 675MHz, Corsair TwinX, 2x512MB Kit, CL4-4-4-12, LifeTime Warranty = 318 EUR
And if you want it on the cheap side:
DIMM 1GB, DDR DRAM, 400MHz, 2x512MB Kit, CL2.5, Corsair ValueSelect, LifeTime Warranty = 159 EUR
DIMM 1GB, DDR2 DRAM, 533MHz, 2x512MB Kit, Corsair ValueSelect, JT4-4-4-12, LifeTime Warranty = 213 EUR
Prices here in Serbia where everything new is more expensive. DDR2 is still more expensive than DDR but it won't last long. DDR2 is 90nm and it already has better yield so it can only get cheaper.
They have been sued over leaky capacitors on their mainboards. MSI had similar problems too.
Here in Serbia people make their own computers. Only minority of people buys brand or OEM.
I was talking with a friend of mine working as a producer in the real studio (having audio cards such as Creamware Luna, etc) who complained on A64FX not being able to perform the same tasks in audio that old Northwood 2.4C was able to perform without a hitch. There is not a single studio here he knows of which had success with AMD. They all stick to Intel. I wonder why.
PCI-Express is not backwards compatible. PCI was parallel interface while PCI-Express is serial. But don't worry, all mainboards with PCI-Express also have PCI slots where you can plug your soundcard.
Read this article. I may have overexaggerated a little but Intel still didn't put alot into it.
A lovely quote don't you think. The basic idea is they have done nothing with this particular product to make dual-core go as far as it could. They took the easy way as far as chips go.
READ WHAT I SAID. I am not spreading anything. I am just stating that I don't KNOW. I was only saying that I don't know if the rated speed is the Total combined speed or the speed of a single core.
I didn't. I mentioned AMD's dual-core chips. Since they are releasing a desktop version the dual-core Athlon64FX would be the one I would be referring to with their dual-core chips.
what's your point. I was referring to one board I read about. I am not even sure Abit was the one that made it. It was awhile ago anyways.
That is very contradictory. Saying someone doesn't have the money yet later say they don't want to spend it doesn't make any sense. Although you are right they don't have the money, but they also work with other companies like IBM to get their research done through trading.
Do you guys think you are smart?!?
just i wonder :why speaking about amd and intel "maybe ''will release", instead of what they offer Now/or what they "sure" offer really soon.
claiming "we'll"do that "greater and better" is typical for every company ,but
for a Comparation i would take what you can touch with your own hands , not future "possible" chips/core or whatever.
Once you 've touched , you can discuss with facts.
I've followed since you were speaking about past/present chips , after i've lost the point .
As for now :
Ht seems valuable for audio , but still i dunno if that IS THE difference to justify the difference of price between intel and amd.
Pci -ex compatible is a unknown thing ,but for what you say (the old-)Pci-support on motherboards will last long permitting us to switch system with less fear.
also opteron chips are not server-only, they are also work-station chips - useful for audio too
Well I would say it is not desktop class. It is more on the lines of a Intel Xeon chip. Not something you would see a gamer or normal user using. Unless maybe for a game-server/file-server.
well, intel didn't have as far to go as amd did.. intel already had partial pipeline parallelization with the introduction of hyperthreading. their cpus with ht have the logic necessary to schedule and divide instructions based not only off out-of-order execution.. but "parallel" execution too. only problem with that was that it sucked in the everyday environment.. nobody was willing to write code for it. even if you use intel's c++ compiler, you still won't get the benefits of hand-optimized code.
son of a.. just realized that someone already made thsi point. oh well..
they'll be bringing out a dual-core chip based off the dothan.. codenamed yonas or some crap like that. whenever that comes out, that'll give amd a run for their money. but for now.. they'll be coming out with the prescott dual-core.
ddr2 has really pulled itself.. ddr2-533@3-3-3-8 outperforms ddr400@2-2-2-5 in memory benchmarks. real-life.. can't really say. but it has lower latency and higher bandwidth.
just of note - prodigal jenius here on DH uses a dual xeon system
I don't know but this article doesn't show much if any improvement by going to DDR2 and it sure isn't worth the extra $50+ you pay in parts.
Personally I am just going to wait for a true benifit. And a major price drop. Of course this is from a poor college students perspective. Otherwise if you have the money and you really think it's worth it. Go ahead be my guest. I wish I had the money to spend.
Someone asked about the availability of Intel 64-bit desktop chips.
Ok, lets deal with here and now:
- Pentium 630
That is at TigerDirect, and I am sure they are available everywhere right now, even here in Serbia.
They can be plugged into any LGA775 mainboard based on i915 or i925 chipsets. I have one Pentium 640 (3.2 GHz) here at the moment and I am testing it in Windows XP Pro 64-bit RC2 -- it works really nice.
Ne mislimo da smo pametni, znamo da smo pametni i ne volimo kada neko siri dezinformacije. Takodje znamo da se svi sa podrucja bivse Juge kunu u AMD i to nam vec malko ide na zivce jer AMD jeste trenutno brzi u nekim stvarima ali vise nije jeftin kao sto je bio -- ako hoces dobar AMD bez FX-a nema nista.
Separate names with a comma.