View Full Version : How to build a dual athlon d.a.w ?
02-19-2002, 06:15 AM
Need step by step directions for building a dual athlon d.a.w. I know prorec has roll your own, but it's outdated Already. The standard stuff for building a good d.a.w. 3 hardrives 1 for OS two for audio ,512 ram, 2- 2000 xps, cd burner, dual head video card, xp pro. And the MAIN hardware of them ALL. THE Motherboard. One that has a good rep for a dual D.A.W. Not a game playing computer. Thanks
02-19-2002, 07:01 PM
I'm sure you've already thought of this, but we do killer pcs for daws. Complete daws as well. Call me during business hours or email me offline at if you like.
03-12-2002, 01:48 PM
Tyan s2460, or maybe one of the even newer ones. I have a 2xAthlon MP one. Note that you have to use Athlon MP processors, not XP.
03-17-2002, 10:02 PM
I don't know what software you are using but if your software isn't written to utilize two processors you might want to build a single proc machine and use the money you save for your storage.
03-18-2002, 03:26 PM
I know one reason I prefer AMD over Intel is price. Amd's high end processor cost's less, has a lower clock speed but (from what I understand and experience) is matching the overpriced Pentium 4's with the massive clock speeds.
I built a machine with the following specs for one my customers.
AMD Athlon XP 1600
768 MB DDR
Adaptec 2960 SCSI interface
2x18G Ibm U160 SCSI
60 GB Backup IDE drive
Sonar recording software
In the past 3 months the system has crashed only 4 times do to certain directx plugins. I wish my Pentium III machine was that solid. I have heard nothing but trash talking on Pentium 4's and had nothing but joy from my beloved AMD's.
Well this is just my experience and not the word of a saint. So don't take it personally if your Pentium gets your work done. :)
04-16-2002, 11:13 PM
A huge reason I prefer the AMD CPUs over Intel is that Intel has consistantly relied on their name rather than inovation.
Intel published a white paper when the P4 was released (don't ahve it any longer after a HDD crash, but I keep looking for it) that said to the effect that the P4 was within 10-20% of P3 preformance levels. Basically saying that a 1.0 Gig P4 runs 10-20% slower than a 1.0 Gig P3. That's just wrong.
Also, look at the benchmarks between the P4 line and the AthlonXP line. I was recently 'debating' benchmarks with a Best Buy salesperson. He was telling me that the P4 2.2 Gig beats the AthlonXP2100+ in most benchmarks. After looking on-line, he was not even half right -- I'd say the P4 out ran the AthlonXP 20% of the time -- it won all the benchmarks that were SSE2 (Intel chipset instruction set) specific. But here's the kicker: the AthlonXP2100+ runs at a clock speed of 1.73Gig. And it was up against the new Northwood P4 with more L2 cache. Funny thing: what's 20% slower than 2.2Gig?-- 1.76 Gig, or roughly the speed of the AthlonXP 100+ -- rits into the white paper from Intel (P3 and Athlon T'Birds were very comparable in terms of speed and benchmarks).
So the AthlonXP gets the job done quicker at a slower clock speed. Some people will say that the weakest link for AMD CPU's is the chipset -- I would have agreed a year ago. But the AMD760 chipset, nVidia chipset and VIA KT266a/KT333 chipsets are all rock solid -- not to mention fully supported now by Windows 2000 and XP. Even Microsoft admits the AthlonXP will run their higher-end OS's (2000 and XP Pro) better than a comparable Intel CPU (there are even more critical XP updates related to Intel CPUs than for Athlon CPUs).
I've been running a custom build DAW with a Athlon 1.0Gig Thunderbird for about 8 months now. Windows 2000 and now XP Professional. The only problem I had was a hard drive failure -- not CPU related. Otherwise, everything has been rock steady stable with no conflicts with software/hardware/CPU. Until Intel stops trying to convince the world they're number one based purely on speed, I'll continue to use AMD CPU's. Intel is capable of quality CPUs (look at the Zeon and Itanium CPU's), but you have to be Bill Gate's to afford those.
05-01-2002, 12:38 PM
Unfortunately, when you look at AMD systems, you won't be looking at Dell. It would probably help us all if you were to let Dell know your feelings on the situation.
As for mobile platforms, I don't care what CPU brand it is, it will run slower than it should and break when you really need it. I use a laptop only because I have to.
Stay away from buying a manufactured PC at any cost!!!
You'll pay too much and recieve a product with discontinued parts. They'll advertise a p4, and you get a p4. Also, you'll recieve: a substandard mobo, piss poor audio card, proprietary almost everything (what, upgrade? sure we can sell you that!), and customer service that can find all of you answers in a book (if they cant, you be low-level formatting your hdd).
You do not need to spend $$$ on that. You can build a PC on your own with half the cost, and MUCH better performance...
...if you need help, well, your on the net right?
about AMD v. Intel-
floating point processing (math).
05-08-2002, 02:50 PM
The Athalon XPs have a higher effective bandwidth, too. More gets done in one computing cycle, so even though the P4 has a higher clock rate, it's not nearly as efficient.
Also, the superiority of floating point math in the Athalon is especially important for audio processing.
05-08-2002, 02:52 PM
... I don't know why I always misspell Athlon.
05-31-2002, 05:53 PM
I built my own DAW using the new asus a7m266-d. I did not install the dual processors but rather used an amd 1800xp. I purchsed a zallman fan because they are real quiet and have a hugggeee heat sink. I also use a wd 100gig hd at 7200 ata 100. I have a delta 1010 card. It has a clean sound and is well supported by sweetwater and m-audio. One word of advise do not use your daw for any other use if at all possible and try to settle on as few apps as possible. The more you load on the greater chance of conflict.
07-12-2002, 06:15 AM
i never had anything with amd as a processor manufacturer.but i realy started to disrespect them passionately when they started with their
speed tactic change.calling for example a 1.4 ghz proc. 1600+ or 1800+and on and on.that shows a misguided tactics,simply lying to their consumers if you dig in realy.
since the pros do the tests and if amd has nothing to be ashamed of or nothing to hide,they would be more proud to know their 1.4 ghz proc exceeds the 1.7ghz intels proc. so why hide the reality?one reason ,misguide the consumers.
it always been that for heavy audio and video,the pros have recommended intel period.its not my words its the articles of the pros.
amd has always shined on the price side,and dont get me wrong its good processers but never blew the performance of intel for heavy apps use.
lets put it this way realy,if amd and intel were the same prices,now which would u realy go with since its your cash thats involved?
07-12-2002, 09:29 AM
They don't "lie", they just named their CPU. If you "dig" just a little, you know that it's not a 1600MHz CPU, it's a 1600+ CPU running at 1400MHz, outpacing 1.6MHz P4's at most things important to DAW users (like floating point operations).
And if a P4 1.6 costs as much as an AMD 1600+, I'd buy the AMD because it's better at floating point operations. If a P4 1.8 costs as much as a 1600+, I'd have to look at the motherboards to see which direction I wanted to go in. If Intel was still stuck on RDRAM, It would be a hands down AMD choice every time.
If you followed Intels's actions, you would probably disrespect them pasionately as well.
07-12-2002, 04:01 PM
ok,i am not arguing exactly the speed issue,everyone knows in some apps amd shined better or performed better.thats not my beef to be honest with you.and in some apps intel always blown amd.so the issue with me as i said above not the manufacturers cpu,but the tactics they used and still are.ofcourse me and u who know some about speed gigaherts etc etc know the reality,but the average consumer who dosnt know anything about cpu or ram or etc,those consumers are misguided and in plain english been lied to,its that simple.
even the magazine articles werent happy in the industry when amd pulled this dirty trick and they were questioning it than and now.
so,the bottom line why do you have to name 1.4ghz a 1600+?most consumers naturally will assume its 1600 mhz or 1.6 ghz or should they assume its 1.4gh?
check this site out it will give u some ideas.
07-12-2002, 04:27 PM
07-12-2002, 04:40 PM
hey teecee,another thought came to mind while writing this.
i was wondering if intel 2.5 gighz outpaced an AMD 2.5 gighz, what is Amd gone call their 2.5?may be a 2200-?lol
07-13-2002, 09:40 AM
AMD is not likely to have a 2.5GHz any time soon, of course.
Here's a better lie for you. Intel offers a PIII at 1.2 GHz and a P4 at 1.4 GHz. But the PIII is faster. At everything. MHz is no longer a good speed reference thanks to Intel's method of getting higher clock speeds. Intel buffered the piss out of the P4's instruction pipeline as one step towards getting higher clock speeds.
You see, you shouldn't buy a processor based on MHz, because ever since AMD's designs smoked Intel's, that's like comparing MPH and KPH. They aren't equal. So who's lying to the public? Who's lying to themselves? What AMD has done is an attempt to level the playing field. AMD wants you to see what it's processors can do, not what speed they run at. The processor ratings are typically below the CPU capabilities, anyway.
And to separate the men from the sheep, it's nice what RME would like you to buy. It would be nicer if they could back it with a "why". They tell you that Intel screwed up in the beginning, being locked into RAMBus among other things. They used to back the T-Bird Athlons, but don't even mention the XP's or MP's.
07-13-2002, 05:40 PM
looool,ok now we know that wheteher its intel or amd regardless it boils down to business ethics for either one.btw,rme has shown amd and intel
at some point amd blew intel with their config if you look at the site i posted.my point teecee,is not to praise intel or amd its about business ethics for either one if it boils down to either.as i said i like amd and have nothing with their cpu s.but the tactics they adopted was childish and immiture.it was known at some point ago that amd outpaced intel with their lesser cpus,so there was no need for amd to go beyond by manupilation of the real specs,thats what i am saying.
some people say speed is not everything.i completely disagree with that.speed is everything to start with among other constructions which come as secondary but equaly important,but to start with u need the speed to be based on.speed is the essence of all communications without it we'd still be on horses and camels.
computers are sold by their specs and i say every manufacturer should honor the truth and let the consumer and the pros decide the rest,whether who outpaced who and whatever else etc etc.
07-15-2002, 04:59 AM
So, speed is everything and everyone knows that Athlons stomp P4's at equivalent MHz. But, people don't know that in general and MHz does not equal speed.
10-29-2002, 11:35 AM
Try close to 90% to better performance than the Intel P4's at atleast half the cost per processor.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.