Floating pt. crunching for music softwares

Anyone here know for sure if the INTEL processors are better than the AMDs for the number crunching floating point issue with regard to music sequencing software like Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 Delux and Cubase VST 5.0 ? Would like to know from anyone with experience here. I have mostly AMD chips in my boxes. Wondering if the Intels are more suitable. Any ideas?? Thanks.
7 answers Last reply
More about floating crunching music softwares
  1. I don't use any music software, but the PIIIs are faster at churning out SETI workunits which I think are 100% floating point calculations. I find that the PIIIs are 15% faster at the same clock speed (same memory and components). The funny thing is that the Sisoft Sandra series of benchmarks says my Athlon is way faster at number crunching, but in the "real" world it doesn't seem to be that way. My PIIIs are running at 124FSB (& memory) while the Atlon is running at a double pumped 100FSB with a 133MHz memory bus so I bet a PIII running at 133 of 140 would do even better. Just goes to show you - you can't always trust benchmarks.

    - JW
  2. I have an T-Bird 750 and run Cakewalk. Performance has been really good. Have not had any issues at all. Haven't tried the PIII, but the T-Bird seems to handle the software just fine.
  3. I htink your wrong JCLW, AMD's FPU is 20% faster than intel.
  4. well I know for a fact that there are issues regarding performance with Protools w/audiomediaIII and the Amd/via solution.

    If you record using an athlon chances are that you will have substandarned performance, including glicthes and other anomalies in your audio tracks.

    it has something to do with Via bus holding up the interrupts far too long.

    however, there are many who are getting good results with protools using Athlon based solutions but these are very few ppl mostly they are just recording and sequencing loops(short repetative sounds)

    as for cakewalk and cubase they seem stable under the Amd domain.

    try Protools free version, see if you can actually run it.
    <A HREF="http://www.digidesign.com" target="_new">http://www.digidesign.com</A>
  5. I had a P3 700@973 and my average seti time was about 4.5 -5 hrs. Now I have a Tbird 900@1050 and my time jumped to 9 hrs...

    Why do I even try?
  6. Take a look at my post under: P4 V Athalon: Number crunching
    Fpu calculations for graphics or sound is the same.
  7. Did you upgrade to the latest SETI software between CPU's? SETI made some changes to better analyze the RF blocks and it increased the amount of time per work unit. Might explain why it's taking longer

    Remember! There is no such thing as a bad beer. Some are just better than others.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Music Processors