Pentium 4 vs Pentium D

[tone]

Has anyone compared these two for audio work? Is there an advantage to the Pentium D for working with ProTools LE and other audio programs?
Any and all comments would be appreciated.
Thanks,
R.

[tone]

I should mention that I'm not dying to buy the "D" but am reluctant to invest in the old (and soon to be obsolete?) technology.

[topslakr]

Pentium D = Dual Core

Pentium 4 = Single Core

With a Pentium D you have two seperate processors on one chip. With P4 you have one processor, and with a P4 with HT (Hyperthreading) You get a second 'virtual' processor. The virtual processor watches the data being processed and if it sees a spot not being used it tries to send a second 'thread' to be processed. HT is a boost over straight P4 but come no where close to a Pentium D.

I've not done any audio testing on P4 vs Pentium D but I did see a head to head for a video conversion. They put a Pentium D 2.8 GHZ againts a P4 3.6GHZ with HT on otherwise identical systems. The guy setup the conversion on the 3.6 and started it, then walked over to the 2.8 and setup the conversion and started it a minute or so after the 3.6. The 2.8 completed the conversion well before the 3.6 did, was done at least 2 minutes earlier. Huge performace boost.

You will notice a performance boost with Pentium D and the P4 are being phased out. The movement right now in the industry is toward multiple cores. The Intel chipsets that support Pentium D will support multiple cores so you are safe with any Intel board using D945 chipset or higher. As a side note, the D945 has been ok'd by Digi for compadibility with all flavors of PT.

By all means get Pentium D, it's not that much more money and it's make better long term sense. The Pentium Ds are working to use less power and generate less heat which means systems that are cheaper to run and less noisy. Getting setup with even a 2.8 Pentium D will be a much better investment then buying a 3.6Ghz P4 both right now and 3-5 years down the road.

Hope that helps...

Robert

[tone]

Thanks for your reply. Would you happen to know how the Pentium D compares to the Imac G5?

Richard

[theblue1]

What's going to be a lot more interesting is the coming generation of Yonah-class implementations.

The Pentium D is, crudely put, two P4's slapped together. Each processor has its own L2 cache.

In Yonah (the dual core successor to the Pentium M) the two processor cores share a single 2 MB cache -- which increases processing efficiency of the dual core system greatly.

You can read a write-up on the Yonah at Anandtech:

Pt 1: http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627

Pt 2: http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648

[mltamisin]

Something to keep in mind - Pro Tool LE doesn't support hyperthreading. The manual asks you to turn it off.

[True North]

Any reason you are not considering Dual Core Opterons by AMD?

They were the first to release the technology to the PC market. If memory serves me correctly the AMD's already a better cache design. There is no doubt that Multicore is the way to go. AMD have already announced that they will have a FOUR CORE ready sometime in 2006 !!!! If you can get a dual - four core rig built - look out PT-HD!!

I am including a link with great information on some independant head to head Intel vs AMD tests, check it out. It's a long read read but worth it if you are planning on making that type of investment, cheers!

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2...5/index.x?pg=1

[stag]

Because the original poster didn´t ask for them... .


The gamers benchmarck are little to do with Audio benchmarks:
ftp://ftp.steinberg.net/Download/Gen..._Tech_Info.pdf

there you can have an idea about CPU performance regarding Audio, notice that the dual CPU dual core G5 use firewire interface, also the Intel CPU isn´t tha top of the range since Dual core and HT are not suported at the same time by N3, so the AMD CPU tested the 4800+ costs almost the double of the Intel 840.

Bye.

[True North]

Originally Posted by stag

Because the original poster didn´t ask for them... ..

Thanks Genius, glad you figured that out but;
#1)That isn't a reason.
#2) I wasn't asking you , I was asking the poster. I trust that he is capable of answering his own question.

It is clear that he isn't considering the AMD and I am asking him why, hope that's OK with you.

Originally Posted by stag

The gamers benchmarck are little to do with Audio benchmarks.

If you read the article out of the 20 tests they performed, one was on gaming the rest were testing various multithreaded applications, the principles of which apply to any of the DAW's that have made commitments to optimizing their applications for muti-threaded use. (i.e. Steinberg, PT7, Sonar/Cakewalk etc..).

It also goes into a lot more detail about the architecture of the Opteron chip than any of the standard press releases from the various DAW companies. I included my link because it is not something that someone in audio applications would typically come across.

FWIW , techreport.com is one of the more highly regarded hardware review sites and is not considerd a gaming site.

Originally Posted by stag

notice that the dual CPU dual core G5 use firewire interface

Faboulous information, but how is that relavent in a disucssion about Opteron and Pentium CPU's

Originally Posted by stag

also the Intel CPU isn´t tha top of the range since Dual core and HT are not suported at the same time by N3, so the AMD CPU tested the 4800+ costs almost the double of the Intel 840.

- WOW, brilliant observation! Try proof reading before posting because I have no idea what your point is

[tone]

[quote=True North]Thanks Genius, glad you figured that out but;

Sorry to have caused any strife guys..................

The reasons I didn't consider the dual core Opteron and AMD in general are
1. price and
2. I haven't found an audio computer (from an audio familiar company, silent, and optimized for protools le) that incorporates these chips.

I'd actually prefer to try an AMD if I could find one like that.

It's possible to get a (seemingly) very nice Pentium d computer from Sonica for $1,844.90, that includes the 2.8 D chip, 2 gigs ram, 2 hard drives, etc.

I'm not particularly skilled with building things like computers and would also like to have customer support.

The Imac G5 17 inch is about $16-$1700 with 1.5 gigs, 200HD. I'd stll be interested in informed comments about its suitability for LE.

Computers are all somewhat "perishable" and I'd like to get something useful now without spending too much. Who knows where things will be in 2-3 years with 64 bit, etc?

By the way..does anyone have experience dealing with Sonica?

Richard

[stag]

Originally Posted by True North

Thanks Genius, glad you figured that out but;
#1)That isn't a reason.
#2) I wasn't asking you , I was asking the poster. I trust that he is capable of answering his own question.

It is clear that he isn't considering the AMD and I am asking him why, hope that's OK with you.


If you read the article out of the 20 tests they performed, one was on gaming the rest were testing various multithreaded applications, the principles of which apply to any of the DAW's that have made commitments to optimizing their applications for muti-threaded use. (i.e. Steinberg, PT7, Sonar/Cakewalk etc..).

It also goes into a lot more detail about the architecture of the Opteron chip than any of the standard press releases from the various DAW companies. I included my link because it is not something that someone in audio applications would typically come across.

FWIW , techreport.com is one of the more highly regarded hardware review sites and is not considerd a gaming site.


Faboulous information, but how is that relavent in a disucssion about Opteron and Pentium CPU's


- WOW, brilliant observation! Try proof reading before posting because I have no idea what your point is

WOW to you too.
Were you trying to be sarcastic, son, well i won´t: you are simply no genius, sorry.
You are an AMD fanboy full of it, thinking it´s okay to hack a perfectly legit Intel topic with your alleged superior chips, oh i forgot you got none proprietary it´s all about VIA crap et all.

I pointed the G5 CPU because the original poster asked about for comparisons about Intel and G5, i highlitgthed the use of firewire vs PCI on the other benchmarks because firewire eats more resorces than PCI so the G5 had an handycap worth to consider.

I also find interesting that the most powerfull CPU from AMD scores so close to the second most powerfull Intel dual core, costing half the price. Even more curious is the fact that AMD claims they CPU are it and Intel says their dual core is an halfassed solution they came up only to compete with AMD on the short coming.

last the link you point i didn´t check it out, but regarding audio i find more interesting the opinions from forum mates that have really try the CPU they talk about or else Steinberg and DigiDesign are more to be trusted from were i stand than any other sites regarding CPU audio performance.

CPU architeture??? man i´m a musician, tell me about plugin count, stability, compatibility and upgrade paths... architeture fffffff

[topslakr]

We don't need to start a war over who's chips are better, cheaper, high quality ect. The question was originally what the differences were between a P4 and a Pentium D. If user A wants to use AMD, great let them. If user B wants to use Intel, great let them. User B doesn't need to yell at user A about chipsets being crap, fans being to loud, power consumtion ect ect ect. If you don't like AMD use Intel. If you don't like Intel, use AMD. Yelling at each other is not productive or in anyway helpful. No one really gets any new information from a flame war on a message board. If User A or User B wants to offer some advice on why someone should choose one product over another then please, post information with facts to back it up.
To be honest it's all down to what you prefer at this point. PT 7 supports chips from both AMD and Intel offically so build whatever you like best for your own reasons. I prefer Intel chips and Intel boards, all my servers and desktops are Intel, they all run great. I'm a creature of habit, I've had good luck in the past, thats all. I've got nothing against the chips from AMD, I've just never used them. Maybe I'm missing out on something but at the end of the day, when the client walks in I want to know I'm running something I can trust. I know I can trust Intel based on my past with them. Others will go with AMD for the same reasons, and I say that that is great. These flame wars are really such a waste of time...

As a side not mltamisin, PT 6 and lower didn't support HT or dual Cores but PT 7 does fully support them and they ask that it be turned back on.... Finally.