PeeWee Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Any views and experience on which way to go.Been impressed with Amd in the past but not used them for some time now.Give reasons, pro's & cons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 AMD are not on a strong one at the moment.. the 45nm intel chips are pretty much better in every way per clock cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmicnutter_1993 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 id have to go AMD, had bad experiences with intel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 why not quad core, I7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoo2000 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Phenom II Quad Core Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Phenom II Quad Core cheap skate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeWee Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) Only looking at spending up to 60-70 quid on the processor so its a dual core 2.4 or phenom triple core 2.3.choices.phenomIntel Also is there a difference between Dual core & core 2 Duo? Edited March 26, 2009 by PeeWee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee_2f2f Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Pete, Personally I would go with the Phenom. AMD have had more experience with the Dual cores than Intel, so they have the know how on creating a triple, quad etc.... Intel are use to Hyper Threading. and personally there Dual cores to me are sh!te. I know that my AMD Turion X2 Dual core runs better on my laptop than my mates Intel core 2 Duo on his Optiplex tower (ran 3d mark on it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeWee Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 Hmmm, thing is most net reviews are stating amd to be behind on advancing technology, I have a specific purpose for this mobo im building not everyday normal use so stable & fast are priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidrick Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Pete, Personally I would go with the Phenom. AMD have had more experience with the Dual cores than Intel, so they have the know how on creating a triple, quad etc.... Intel are use to Hyper Threading. and personally there Dual cores to me are sh!te. I know that my AMD Turion X2 Dual core runs better on my laptop than my mates Intel core 2 Duo on his Optiplex tower (ran 3d mark on it) Wot. So Intel can't make a good multi-core processor, and their core 2 duo's are 'sh!te'? :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoo2000 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Wish I'd known that when I bought 18 core 2 duo's last year Did go for [Quad Core] Opertons in the rack servers though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee_2f2f Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) No Sidrick. I said shite purely through putting my AMD processor and my mates Intel through there paces with testing programs, and mine came out more most of the time. I take back that there Shite, I just personally dont like them at all, I feel I get more performance from AMD processors, have used Intel for some time (currently using a core 2 Duo now in work) and I have 2 AMD computers at home (along with the laptop) and I just feel they perform better when there needed ----------------- Pete, so what is this Specific Purpose?? might shed more light on what to aim for? I find it strange that there behind.... There usually quite good and up to date (wonder if its because they have taken over ATi and spending too much time on GPU's?) Edited March 26, 2009 by Escort_2f2f Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeWee Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 Ok! I wasnt going to list the purpose of this build due mainly to most not realizing what its use was.Im building a new DAW, Digital Audio Workstation.It will be running Steinberg Cubase SX & Reason4, need enough power to use Vst & Vsti's (virtual effects & instruments).One of my Virtual synths is the latest Spectrasonics Omnisphere Vsti plugin(over 40gig install comes on 6 dual layer dvd's & high cpu/ram usauge).I will be recording multiple audio tracks inc vocals & guitar both with virtual effect plugins (Vst).I have a dedicated audio card (not a soundcard) which is an Echo Mia 24bit 96khz recording card with balanced 1/4 jacks for multiple ins & outs.Basicaly this is a purpose built PC for studio recording purposes.This will all be built into a purpose made rackmount unit so i can mount it in my rack.http://www.aria.co.uk/dynres/cHJvZHVjdF9pbWFnZS53aWR0aD0yMDA=/bWFpbmltYWdlcy9DU0UtU1ZSLTRVLmpwZw==.jpghttp://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/Cases/Server/mainimages/CSE-SVR-4U-1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee_2f2f Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Ok, I Kind of understand some of that. Have you looked at what Rain Recording has to offer? they have the know how on whats best for a DAW? Rain Recording Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeWee Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 Im building one myself, I dont want to buy a ready built pc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now