Posted: 4/2/2009 4:20:02 AM EDT
|
I'm going to build a new computer, because my old one is slowly going the way of the Yak.
I primarily use this computer for recording/sound production and usual web/word processing stuff. I'm really just trying to decide between an Intel and an AMD dual-core processor that's not too expensive, but will work well for the recording studio and the speed that it needs to function. I guess the question is, is there any discernable difference between the Intel/AMD dual-cores out right now, and would either benefit a recording setup more? |
|
Don't buy an Intel Pentium D. These are slightly older but still available, and are marketed as a dual-core processor (which they are.) But they have memory bandwidth issues. The newer Intel Core2Duo is fine. It's the CPU I choose whenever I build a budget video editing computer for my clients. The AMD's are fine. Their multimedua performance has always been good, and you can generally get more CPU speed for the dollar. But I've always been leery of the longevity of the AMD design, since they tend to run very hot, compared to their Intel brethren. |
|
Quoted:
Don't buy an Intel Pentium D. These are slightly older but still available, and are marketed as a dual-core processor (which they are.) But they have memory bandwidth issues. The newer Intel Core2Duo is fine. It's the CPU I choose whenever I build a budget video editing computer for my clients. The AMD's are fine. Their multimedua performance has always been good, and you can generally get more CPU speed for the dollar. But I've always been leery of the longevity of the AMD design, since they tend to run very hot, compared to their Intel brethren. Yea, I remember seeing an Intel/AMD thing on youtube showing what excessive heat would do to both brands. I knew the Pentium D was now that great, but what about just a standard Pentium Dual-core, not the C2D, that puts me a little out of my price range. |