• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Topic: Which intel core processor ???

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1
    Senior Member musicmad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Canary Islands
    Posts
    110

    Which intel core processor ???

    Hi

    i'm a PC musician working solo with VST plugins, piano/orchestral libraries etc. I'm in the process of purchasing a new PC but dont know which processor would be best for my needs.

    I'm trying to decide between intels (core 2 duo E8300) or the (core 2 quad Q6600) i'm looking for a strong fast processor but only what would be right for my projects, could anyone comment on these processors??

    Thanks
    Musicmad

  2. #2

    Re: Which intel core processor ???

    Hi,

    I would recommend you to look for:
    AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+
    or
    AMD Phenom X4 9500 processors.

    They have beter performance than Intels.

    Regards,
    AlexBG

  3. #3

    Re: Which intel core processor ???

    Well, I can see this could become another Intel versus AMD thing but.....
    This has been my experience-

    I have built a lot of DAWs and have done so for a number of years.
    I constantly research to keep up.
    I am NOT an expert but spend more time with computers than most.

    Currently I am running 3 DAW systems all of which are Intel based on the E8400 with Win XP Pro 32.

    At this very moment I believe the Intel is a more stable product.
    It certainly runs smoother with other outside applications that one may want for everyday use (non music)
    That being said it is best to have at least one machine dedicated to music only.

    I use strictly Cubase, Kontakt, Giga and Virtual instruments and sample libraries. This new Intel chip works wonders for me.

    The subject of Quad is a difficult one.
    Soon we will be there but not yet.
    I just don't believe there is sufficient support although many apps offer compatibility.

    Do some more research as I'm sure you have been, ask more questions and you will get there.

    Your other main consideration must be the MOBO.
    Take a close look at Intel also. The DP35DP (which was suggested to me by a user here) is amazingly stable, far more so than any Asus board I've used/tested.

    I've recently done a lot of comparisons.
    If you need more info there's a lot of good people here.

    Good luck!
    2 X Intel i7 920 sys. 12 gigs Ram. XP & Win 7 64
    Cubase 5. Kontakt 4. EWQL C.C.C. (Play)
    Vienna Instruments SE & Plus. Symphobia. GPO.
    RME HDSPe AIO KRK V8s Avalon Vt-747sp
    M-Audio Keystation Pro 88


    My two passions. Music and Cooking.
    Both require just the right ingredients....

  4. #4
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    4,045

    Re: Which intel core processor ???

    would recommend you to look for:
    AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+
    or
    AMD Phenom X4 9500 processors.

    They have beter performance than Intels.

    Hmmm... I've read quite a few reviews lately and Intels latest processors come out on top everytime. Can you post where you found AMD have better performance?

    Jim

  5. #5

    Re: Which intel core processor ???

    Hi Jim,

    Here you have quote:
    "iTunes is the only test on which the X4 9850 was able the beat Intel's Q6600 chip. If music encoding is your passion, perhaps this new Phenom is the chip for you. For everyone else, the Intel chip is the better choice, be it for multitasking, photo editing, video encoding, and gaming."
    from http://reviews.cnet.com/processors/a...-32908353.html

    One more:
    "Advanced Micro Devices was second in coming to market with a dual-core desktop chip, but it's first in benchmark scores, according to sites that test the chip.
    Both Anandtech and Tom's Hardware--two hardware benchmarking sites--have published reports stating that, in their own tests, the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 chips generally edge out the Intel Pentium D and the dual-core Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, although the results vary by the tests.
    Anandtech found that the fastest dual-core Athlon, the 4800+, and often other dual-core Athlons, typically outperformed the Intel chips on tests for single applications, such as running Adobe Photoshop or DivX.
    In multitasking tests, however, the Intel chips often edged out the equivalent AMD processors. In these tests, AMD chips outscored Intel on multitasking trials that involved games, but Intel had an advantage in tests involving Web surfing or burning DVDs.
    The tester at Tom's Hardware, meanwhile, came to similar conclusions, but generally gave slightly higher marks to the AMD chip, noting that the dual-core Athlon also consumes less energy.
    "If we had to recommend a single-core processor, the choice would depend greatly on the type of applications in use. But in the dual-core arena, though, there is not much that speaks for Intel: Go with the Athlon 64 X2," the reviewer concluded."
    from http://news.cnet.com/AMD-edges-Intel...3-5726935.html

    About Dell computers:
    "Multiple analysts in the past few weeks have issued reports stating that despite Intel (NSDQ: INTC)'s recent ability to manufacture a demonstration chip using an advanced 45-nanometer process technology, probably a full year or more sooner than AMD, Intel remains as much a full year behind AMD in being able to translate that technology superiority into better performance at the production level for processors actually being offered in the market, particularly in server applications.
    from http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...ised_to_f.html

    I have experience both with Intel and AMD and my personal opinion is that for multimedia applications (music) AMD have some advantages.

    Regards,
    AlexBG

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    233

    Re: Which intel core processor ???

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexBG View Post
    Hi Jim,

    ....
    "Advanced Micro Devices was second in coming to market with a dual-core desktop chip, but it's first in benchmark scores, according to sites that test the chip.
    Both Anandtech and Tom's Hardware--two hardware benchmarking sites--have published reports stating that, in their own tests, the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 chips generally edge out the Intel Pentium D and the dual-core Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, although the results vary by the tests.
    Anandtech found that the fastest dual-core Athlon, the 4800+, ....
    These particular benchmarks are comparing the older Pentium D with the older Athlon.

    The newest Core2 Duos from intel have had little to no competition from AMD since they came out.

    The latest reviews that I've seen (PC Authority Magazine, PCAuthority.com.au) place the Intel E8000 series (specifically the E8500) as being the best value CPU on the market today. That is, the most power, for the least (comparative) cost, with the Intel Q9450 CPU running a close second (similar performance but more cores and, or course, higher price tag)

    The Most powerful (desktop) CPU is the Intel QX9770 - but the asking price makes it an unappetising unless budget is of no consequence.

    Myself, I'm running an older Intel E6750 which I bought last year. I've been more than happy with the performance so far.

    As Chalfant suggested, research motherboards as well. Myself, I'm a fan of the ASUS boards (unlike Chalfant), running a P5N-E-SLI. When looking at motherboards, consider the mid to high range offererings. Steer clear of the lower end, budget products.

    Try and avoid motherboards with a built in video card. The built in video will eat into your system ram, as they don;t tend to have a lot of memory. It is also worthwhile forking out a bit extra for a graphics card with a bit of grunt. You may not want to play games, but it would be frustrating to have performance issues because the system is struggling to refresh the screen.

    Of equal importance is the memory that you buy. DDR2 Ram is probably the best value at the moment. Go for memory with a bus speed of 1066MHz or Higher. The faster your memory, the less performance issues you'll get with stuttering etc.

    Cheers...

    Daz :0)

  7. #7

    Re: Which intel core processor ???

    Intel Q6600 quad. very good value for the buck. Overclocks very easily. I have mind moderately overclocked to 3.2ghz and it barely breaks a sweat.

    Make sure you get a G0 stepping production model if you plan to overclock.
    "Music is a manifestation of the human spirit similar to a language. If we do not want such things to remain dead treasures, we must do our utmost to make the greatest number of people understand their secrets" -- Zoltan Kodaly

  8. #8
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    4,045

    Re: Which intel core processor ???

    One of the main issues at this time revolves around plugins that are not multi-processor friendly. Sometimes your better off with a faster duo core versus the quad core. I'm running Windows XP x64 and find that Kontakt 2 does not like have multi-processor working in Sonar. So I'm back to using just one core. I get nasty noises with multi-processing enabled. As soon as I shut it off, it plays fine. BTW, even with a 2.4 GHz model Core 2 Duo, I'm only hitting about 40% CPU usage with full orchestrations using 3 Kontakt 2's, 2VSL VE2, WIVI and the ARIA player. Not too bad for the load. Beware that libraries using convolution can up the CPU usage.

    Jim

  9. #9

    Re: Which intel core processor ???

    Quote Originally Posted by dewdman42 View Post
    Intel Q6600 quad. very good value for the buck. Overclocks very easily. I have mind moderately overclocked to 3.2ghz and it barely breaks a sweat.

    Make sure you get a G0 stepping production model if you plan to overclock.
    Daivd just ordered one of those last night Yes - good value today.

    Don't know whether or not I'll go X64 at this point. Certainly is tempting to get access to all that extra memory.
    Pat Azzarello
    http://www.patazzarello.com

  10. #10

    Re: Which intel core processor ???

    I will say, that generally it is well known that dual core's can get slightly lower audio latencies than quad core.

    In general, the tradeoff between quad core and dual core is that the quad core will be able to do larger mixdowns with more plugins (when you're typically using a larger latency anyway). When you're recording with your midi keyboard and need ultra-low latency, then the dual cores will get UBER low and the quads will only go down to 256 or 128. For most people this is low enough latency and and the upside of having all 4 cores for more power during mixing is a real benefit. But if you were going to be using it as a live machine where you want to get the absolutely lowest latency possible as a primary motive, I could see going with the dual core.

    I've seen some DAW benchmarks that cover all this.

    I chose quad core, have read many happy success stories and so far no problems here. The Q6600(g0) also overclocks really easily. I personally think Intel should have bumped it up in the factory and sold it as a 2.8ghz chip. i mean anyone can easily overclock it to 3.0ghz even with the stock cooling. I put on an aftermarket cooler for $25 and went to 3.2ghz. I have gone higher to 3.6ghz and it ran fine, but a little on the warm side, so I am sticking with 3.2ghz and quite happy with a 4 core machine running that fast, cool and quiet.
    "Music is a manifestation of the human spirit similar to a language. If we do not want such things to remain dead treasures, we must do our utmost to make the greatest number of people understand their secrets" -- Zoltan Kodaly

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
  •