I think that was more from back in the day, like early 00s when AMD was still at the top of their game. I read somewhere , its definitely Core2 or i7.

No contest.

That said, I do record with a 7 y/o Athlon 2400+ XP.
It works decent, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it for a new build. :lol:

It's probably to do with the Pentium's former inability to handle floating point.

These days, AMD are the budget/lower-performance manufacturer and Intel are where to go for speed.

If you want the most compatibility and speed, go Intel. I am using an AMD 64 3600+ X2. It's ok but the equivalent Core2 Duo will smoke it. (I've clocked it over to just 2.1Ghz.)

thanks a ton guys, quick, concise. beautiful answer.

nothing about VST's liking AMD more, so, that's probably just drivel i heard and not worth getting into.

and i hear a resounding "INTEL"

so, damn, you guys are awesome.

anyone want another poll?

Bear in mind it's a resounding Intel if you want performance (which you do).

If anyone wants to save money (to get onto the gear ladder) and not be top of the line, AMD is still worthwhile.

Remember, 70% of Steam users (gamers) use Intel.

is 'steam' a physics type engine like 'havok'?

and i was going for speed. i guess i'd like a nice intel, even if it's a duo over an AMD. and that's just based on lack of experience with AMD. if someone else in my band had one and i could try it first hand, i'm sure it'd be pretty good.

but when making a purchase, i like to stick with something that most people know.

i wasn't trying to say AMD wasn't worthwhile, maybe just worthwhile in this particular case, which is almost a faith-in-brand type of thing than actual experience.

Steam is to gaming what ProTools is to studios.
Only, free and less hated.

Re: 2009:Which processor brand is better and why? AMD or IN

rainydayglory wrote: Hi. I'm looking at putting together a Windows box. I've heard a rumor that VST's actually *LIKE* AMD processors.

Is this true?

If I were using VST's, would building an AMD box be a good start?

What are other advantages or disadvantages one would consider when constructing a new box for 2009.

for samples the very best is Core i7
next would be an AMD Phenom II preferably with DDR3
after that would be core 2 duo (or quad but quad does not thing for samples) overclocked to 1600 FSB

intel i7 and intel motherboard. this combo smokes anything i've work with in the past. please don't make the mistake of buying a la cheap just to save some $. it is not worth the headaches. i've been down that road before...never again.

C2Duo/Quad isn't necessarily worse - personally an i7 is perhaps too expensive for a benefit you won't get a chance to make use of.

a beneft you wont make use of? how is that exactly?
he asked for low latency.

So you put together a system with SATA HDDs/fast FSB and low latency RAM and what not.

Does it matter whether it's a Core2Quad or a Core i7, really? Sure, the i7 is faster but is it that much faster that you simply gotta have it regardless of the extra cash involved?

There's no point cutting unnecessary corners but there's no reason to put gold leaf and red stripes on everything either.

Core2 Quad 2.5: $209
I7 : $270

cost difference: $61
performance advantage: priceless

I think you would do good with an Intel E5200, a P43 or P45 motherboard, 2 x 2GB RAM, a 320GB HD, and a 640-750GB HD. Bring your multiplier down to 7 or 8, your FSB up to 400, and maybe tweak up your CPU voltage (probably keep it just under 1.3V) and RAM voltage (check the specs on your specific brand; some brands behave better with 2.1V or higher at DDR2 800 speed) a hair. Actually, you should probably just see how it works for you before delving into overclocking. My guess is that you won't run out of CPU or have latency issues anyway.

If $2500 is your budget for your computer, softwares, mics, monitors, etc; then you should really consider skimping a little bit on the computer. As long as you get a decent motherboard, you can always pop in a quad core processor and add more harddrives later.

holy cow!!!!!!
you guys are awesome!!!!!!!!

reggie: i'm going to read up on those motherboard specs more today, i was looking at some stuff this morning and got confused, so, those 2 numbers (P43 or P45) helped narrow the field.

i'm stuck with a mackie onyx 1620, it's firewire 24 bit 96K. i've heard that firewire sends info in 'packet's or 'groups' or something like that? will that contibute to latency.

latency during tracking is my key obstacle. it drives my lead guitarist nuts. i can definitely submix to help out, but any other advice on the hardware end is appreciated

thanks again all

If you want zero latency without having to put a whole system together, give him a mix from off the Onyx and use DAW software which can delay-compensate the output to align it with the input.

Well, it looks like the Onyx doesn't do the whole zero-latency monitoring thing that alot of interfaces can do, where the inputs are routed directly to the outputs without going through the computer latency. However, your new computer build may be able to handle latency settings around 1.5ms or 1ms, depending on how good the Onyx drivers are.

What!
I was under the impression that the Mackie Onyx is a mixer (a series thereof). Most analog mixers (even with ADCs fitted) will still do zero-latency mixing of inputs to outputs.

Perhaps he actually has a hunk of jet black rock?

[quote=Codemonkey]Bear in mind it's a resounding Intel if you want performance (which you do).

If anyone wants to save money (to get onto the gear ladder) and not be top of the line, AMD is still worthwhile.

Remember, 70% of Steam users (gamers) use Intel.[/quote

Also realize that probably 50-60% of steam users are playing with store bought 2-3 year old desktops with integrated graphics. 90% of computers in stores are Intel.
And I'm not saying by any means that AMD makes amazing CPU's or anything. But Intel just has a great advantage in that they make some really badass cpu's (Core2Duo, all of their quad-cores), and some really crapppppy cpu's (celeron.... enough said)

Intel has the ground on the low quality. AMD has the ground on the mid level, low cost, efficient qualities. And Intel controls the high end by a long shot. So i agree with your point, but your reasoning is completely porous... perhaps incomplete.

Codemonkey wrote: What!
I was under the impression that the Mackie Onyx is a mixer (a series thereof). Most analog mixers (even with ADCs fitted) will still do zero-latency mixing of inputs to outputs.

Perhaps he actually has a hunk of jet black rock?

Oh yeah; duh. I was really overthinking things and forgot that we are dealing with an actual hardware mixer and not just an interface. Don't matter then if it doesn't have ZLM via software mixer. Looks like there is actually a button to assign the firewire return from the computer to the main mix of the board too.

>>>Core2 Quad 2.5: $209
I7 : $270
cost difference: $61

This is true until you factor in Motherboard cost, a mobo for i7 is gonna set you back $300.
Thats why I recently went with an AMD Phenom 2, it fits in a tried and true 790 chipset where even for a nice ASUS motherboard was only $139. The Phenom performs great, its VIsta that was the mistake. Glad I still got a copy of XP around!