Digital Signal Processing - Which microarchitecture is better?

[PrinceXizor]

I'm looking into setting up a computer based home studio system. The better the processor the more audio tracks, effects, eq, etc. can be used at one time. While Intel is traditionally better at media encoding, I don't know if the effects processing is similar enough to encoding to be an apples to apples comparison. Additionaly, the A64 beats the P4 in a few encoding tests. The question is as in the title. Which microarchitecture is better for this type of task? Does anyone have any experience using Cubase on either platform?

Thanks!

P-X

 

[myocardia]

Either one would be fine, for what you're planning on doing with it. Just make sure you at least have the best soundcard that Creative makes, with the spdif in & out, or better.

 

[daedalus411]

I'm running a 2.0a P4 and it's for a lot of tracks and effects.. I've recorded 40 track records at 20bit/44.1kHz. I'm a Sony Vegas fan for multitracking.. and Waves plug-ins

While I argee with myocardia about a good sound card.. I highly recommend you go pro for something like that.. something designed for recording not playing games. I use an Echo Layla 24.. but plenty of companies now make 2 track in and out boxes that attach via USB. Some of them have decent built in mic pre's too.

billwadman.com

 

[myocardia]

That's why I said "or better". I don't do any of that type of thing, so I didn't know the names of any pro soundcards, just that the poorest quality he should use, should be the best that Creative makes.

 

[PrinceXizor]

LOL....I wouldn't touch Creative cards with a 20 foot pole (Creative fans...don't even bother to flame...please, the only creative card that even remotely comes close is the new ZS, and that's discounting Creative's poor ASIO drivers). I would be using a card that has proper ASIO 2.0 driver support. Something from M-Audio or RME (both companies have excellent ASIO driver support). For those that know, right now I'm leaning towards the M-Audio Delta 66. 24-bit/96kHz ADC and a break-out box with 4-in 4-out 1/4" analog connectors that can be set-up to be balanced or unbalanced. Anyway, I know that both the A64 and P4 will do fine, its just a matter of getting the most bang for my buck. I know that Intel, in general, holds a lead in encoding, but I'm not sure that the type of effects algorithms used in DSP work is that related to encoding. Where are the resident chip guru's

P-X

 

[Soulkeeper]

well Intel claims their media capabilities with the P4 are superior to AMD's offerings, but the truth is they are very close and some programs favor one or the other

just hit the right price point on either side and your set

 

[PrinceXizor]

Not really a claim....its the truth. Overall the Intel architecture is better suited to media encoding than the Athlon architecture, thought A64 is a beast and cut into that in many benches. However, miniscule a lead it may be, multiplied by 16 audio chanells by two effects per channel and the "savings" add up. I know there are some microprocessor engineers and other knowledgable folks out there. What type of micro-ops are involved in digital signal processing? Is it FPU heavy is it integer heavy? Would cache affect it? Memory bandwidth? Clockspeed? There has to be someone who has dealt with DSP tech out there.

P-X

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: PrinceXizor
Not really a claim....its the truth. Overall the Intel architecture is better suited to media encoding than the Athlon architecture, thought A64 is a beast and cut into that in many benches. However, miniscule a lead it may be, multiplied by 16 audio chanells by two effects per channel and the "savings" add up. I know there are some microprocessor engineers and other knowledgable folks out there. What type of micro-ops are involved in digital signal processing? Is it FPU heavy is it integer heavy? Would cache affect it? Memory bandwidth? Clockspeed? There has to be someone who has dealt with DSP tech out there.

P-X

There are, but you aren't going to find them here, especially since you've come to the Overclocking forum to ask your question. Why aren't you going to one of these $500-1000 soundcard's homepage(s), and see what they're using on their systems??

 

[PrinceXizor]

While I'm sure that a good deal of overclocking chit-chat goes on here, the first part of the forum title says CPU/Processors, thus the post here....and I know that there are at least a few members (probably more) that work in the various areas of microprocessor design and manufacture. So, they know a little something about this topic. I'll patiently wait for someone with said experience to chime in. Thanks for the advice though. I've posted similar threads on other forums, but as far as audio forums go, sadly, I'm considered a computer guru on such sites...lol!

P-X

 

[PrinceXizor]

Steinberg, makers of Cubase, did some of their own testing and the Athlon architecture gave the best performance overall before Hyperthreading. Hyperthreading has narrowed the gap somewhat, but the price/performance target still resides with the Athlon. Furthermore, with the Athlon64 you get the added benefits of SSE2 and the ability to address large ammounts of memory (critical for real-time audio dubbing of multiple tracks at once).

Additionally, specifically for Cubase, they make use of one of the best software reverbs (very similar to high-end reverb modules) and this code is optimized for Athlon. So the Athlon could handle 9 instances of this reverb, while the Intel chip could only handle 5.

I'd hazard that in general, the Athlon64 would be the chip to get for a Studio Audio set-up. If I find a link to the direct steinberg test data, I'll post it. This information was culled from a SoundonSound magazine article.

P-X