• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

building music/gaming PC

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
first of all, GET AMD!

DFI LanParty Nf4 ultra (mod using no 2 pencil)

1 or 2 leadtek or bfg 6800 vanilla (unlock using rivatuner)

Amd venice or san deigo core processor (depends on how much you want to spend, and don't get dual core right now, personally I think it is a waste of money)

sataII hard drives

ocz modstream 420w

 
Originally posted by: smthmlk
Really, given the goals you've set up for this computer you're building, going Intel makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

why doesn't it make sense? Just wondering, do you ever deal with music recording software such as pro tools, cubase, adobe audition, sonar, etc? I mean really dealing like adding plugins, recording instruments, mastering, etc? I just been reading that Intel is usually used for this type of stuff.
 
Originally posted by: bball1523
Originally posted by: smthmlk
Really, given the goals you've set up for this computer you're building, going Intel makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

why doesn't it make sense? Just wondering, do you ever deal with music recording software such as pro tools, cubase, adobe audition, sonar, etc? I mean really dealing like adding plugins, recording instruments, mastering, etc? I just been reading that Intel is usually used for this type of stuff.
Click to expand...

Maybe because Intel has 85% of the market, but you are ignoring all the facts. Unless you can come up with a real benchmark that shows the exact software you use does better on Intel, you need to consider the fact that right now AMD owns every benchmark, and kills Intel on heat/power/price and performance. An X2 would not be much more than what you propose and would kill any benchmark you can come up with....
 
Originally posted by: bball1523
why doesn't it make sense? Just wondering, do you ever deal with music recording software such as pro tools, cubase, adobe audition, sonar, etc? I mean really dealing like adding plugins, recording instruments, mastering, etc? I just been reading that Intel is usually used for this type of stuff.
Click to expand...

Protools/m-audio stuff & sonar all work on my AMD XP2500mobile @ 2.2ghz and athlon64 3000+ venice setups. I've not used cubase, can't comment on it. As for recording instruments, that's entirely up to your soundcard & setup outside the computer.

It sounds like you're thinking of "intel" as a platform, like "MacOS vs. Intel vs. AMD" -- it's really "MacOS vs. Windows (which runs on Intel & AMD processors, etc)". The processor makes little difference in terms of compatibility, as long as the software is designed to work with Windows and the hardware you use uses standard stuff (pci slots, etc) then you'll be fine no matter what processor you choose. A lot of people here are telling you something, it's time to start listening. I'm not trying to insult you or anything, but it sounds to me like you've got it all mixed up. Hope that helps sort it out for you.
 
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Originally posted by: bball1523
Originally posted by: smthmlk
Really, given the goals you've set up for this computer you're building, going Intel makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

why doesn't it make sense? Just wondering, do you ever deal with music recording software such as pro tools, cubase, adobe audition, sonar, etc? I mean really dealing like adding plugins, recording instruments, mastering, etc? I just been reading that Intel is usually used for this type of stuff.
Click to expand...

Maybe because Intel has 85% of the market, but you are ignoring all the facts. Unless you can come up with a real benchmark that shows the exact software you use does better on Intel, you need to consider the fact that right now AMD owns every benchmark, and kills Intel on heat/power/price and performance. An X2 would not be much more than what you propose and would kill any benchmark you can come up with....
Click to expand...


I hate going back and forth, but I was considering AMD a while back, but then switched over to Intel, and now you guys are making me think about AMD once again. Sorry if I sound to fanboyish to Intel even though I have no proof of Intel being better.

One thing that bothers me right now is that someone (from harmon-central.com music forum) said AMD is not manufactured/built stable as Intel is at their manufacturing plants. For example, the Intel chips are built, I mean physically, more stabiliy then AMD.

Now I do not know what to make of that, but to ask for your guys' opinions on that.
 
Originally posted by: bball1523
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Originally posted by: bball1523
Originally posted by: smthmlk
Really, given the goals you've set up for this computer you're building, going Intel makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

why doesn't it make sense? Just wondering, do you ever deal with music recording software such as pro tools, cubase, adobe audition, sonar, etc? I mean really dealing like adding plugins, recording instruments, mastering, etc? I just been reading that Intel is usually used for this type of stuff.
Click to expand...

Maybe because Intel has 85% of the market, but you are ignoring all the facts. Unless you can come up with a real benchmark that shows the exact software you use does better on Intel, you need to consider the fact that right now AMD owns every benchmark, and kills Intel on heat/power/price and performance. An X2 would not be much more than what you propose and would kill any benchmark you can come up with....
Click to expand...


I hate going back and forth, but I was considering AMD a while back, but then switched over to Intel, and now you guys are making me think about AMD once again. Sorry if I sound to fanboyish to Intel even though I have no proof of Intel being better.

One thing that bothers me right now is that someone (from harmon-central.com music forum) said AMD is not manufactured/built stable as Intel is at their manufacturing plants. For example, the Intel chips are built, I mean physically, more stabiliy then AMD.

Now I do not know what to make of that, but to ask for your guys' opinions on that.
Click to expand...

the stability of a system will have little to do with the processor unless its defective. but the fact of the matter is currently prescott p4 run very close to their max operating temperatures and some of the higher end chips(3.8ghz) will throttle down under load because they are overheating. this could cause stability issues (though not very likely) if you ran the CPU at a 100% for extended periods of time. basically if either CPU would have stability issues, it would be intel, not AMD (though it is very doubtful either would).

AMD's are currently the better in almost every arena. the only reason that INTEL will continue to do so well is brand recognition and morons spreading worthless rumors.
 
Originally posted by: Dman877
"now with heat/power, I heard there are ways to cool down the intel's to reasonable levels"

Yes but they involve a lot more money and energy (phase change or water cooling) and aren't noob-friendly. IMO, look for a 3.0C (Northwood) chip, they run cooler and even faster in some cases then the prescot chips.
Click to expand...

Err - read up on the 6XX series, they run quite as cool, on par with AMD in some cases (I read up on this and this kind of surprised me)
 
To be on the helpful side of things (as opposed to Intel vs AMD debates):

You said you wanted a quiet computer.
I'd recommend a Seasonic S12 PSU since you're doing stuff with music (Extremely quiet).
Couple that Seasonic S12 with an Antec P180 case, and you have a quiet case on the outside.
Couple that combo with a Gigabyte 6800GT (they're passive) and you've got a really quiet computer because that motherboard doesn't have a chipset fan.

Next thing I'd worry about: Keeping that CPU cool. You're doing stuff with music, so I'm sure that you dont want noise bothering you. Best choice would be a Thermalright XP90 coupled with a 90mm Panaflo L1A. I have the 80mm version, and beleive me, it is quiet. It uses a different type of bearing, so the noise it makes is ... different I guess. No matter how weid this next statement might be: the pitch of the motor sounds like a whisper (you can't hear it unless you put your ear on it) as opposed to a whirring noise, so it sounds like you've got some crisp airflow running through your system. Search for "Panaflo L1A" on the Cases/Cooling section, I've got a review of it.

If you want cooling as WELL as overclocking, best option would probably be the XP120 coupled with a Nexus fan. I've heard great things about Nexus, with their high CFM + low DBA ratings. Don't quote me on any of this though, I haven't had firsthand experience with this.

What I have personally is the Zalman 7700AlCu. It's great, and quiet, but the noise it makes is sort of like a low grunt - it doesn't bother me at all because it's quiet, but since you're doing stuff with music.... I dunno, XP90 + Panaflo seems like the best option.

It's you who'll decide the Intel vs. AMD thing. If you're sticking with Intel, go for an i945 chipset and save the bucks as opposed to a 955. If you're going with AMD, then I'd recommend the Gigabyte GA-K8NXP-SLI for it's passive cooler (not sure if Gigabyte's lower end models have passive coolers) or the A8N-SLI Premium for it's passive cooler. Gigabyte's loaded with features such as a wireless card and a DPS module. The ASUS costs a bit more ($195 as opposed to ~$160) and I don't think it comes with wireless.

We can only provide you with options, it's up to you to make the decision.

-The Pentium Guy

 
what do you guys think would be the best AMD chip/mobo for the price compared to the speed, reliability, and stability of the Intel 630 3.0 ghz?

Also will the AMD have Hyperthreading comparability?
 
Man, you guys are hardcore about your AMD's. I actually went from a 3000+ to a P4 3.4 and I'm happy with the move. I do a lot of music encoding, picture editing in Photoshop (BIG pictures with an SLR camera), and gaming. I'm not disappointed with my move. Sure, the P4 3.4 isn't really comparable to a 3000+ (maybe closer to 3500+) but I was getting really frustrated with the multi-tasking on the 3000+...it was worth the price to switch over to Intel. I will agree 100% that the AMD was better for gaming, but it's not like the 3.4 is a crappy gaming processor.
 
Originally posted by: dbdynsty25
Man, you guys are hardcore about your AMD's. I actually went from a 3000+ to a P4 3.4 and I'm happy with the move. I do a lot of music encoding, picture editing in Photoshop (BIG pictures with an SLR camera), and gaming. I'm not disappointed with my move. Sure, the P4 3.4 isn't really comparable to a 3000+ (maybe closer to 3500+) but I was getting really frustrated with the multi-tasking on the 3000+...it was worth the price to switch over to Intel. I will agree 100% that the AMD was better for gaming, but it's not like the 3.4 is a crappy gaming processor.
Click to expand...

so then what's the truth? I hear valuable arguments on both sides. One person says they are multitasking on AMD and have absolutely no problems, and you say you had problems with multitasking on amd.

I am really getting really frustrated now 🙁
 
I didn't say problems...I just noticed that it didn't handle multitasking as well as my 3.0 P4 I had previously. After switching back to Intel, I see what I was missing.

It's not about truth, it's about different people have different experiences. There are a lot of variables...(ram, mobos, etc.) that will also effect performance. Just get what you want...no one should be able to convince you otherwise.

I'm in the camp that the Intels still perform multitasking processes a little better, and AMD's game better...for my needs, Intel fits. Others here will disagree because they love their AMD's. It's not fanboyism but still...people like to defend their purchases.
 
Originally posted by: SonicIce
you sound like a guy who needs dual core. check out the cheap intel dual core cpus.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. They have less ghz and don't have HT on them. Plus they still cost a lot and the AMD's seem to be cheaper for the Intel 630 equivalent I want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top