Support |
> so yes Kim you're right, if they _just_ want performance they'd go with > AMD. but they'd have to take a number, and Intel seems to like them. I think it is more complicated than this. There is a lot of comparison data and tests out there, but not all of them compare apples with apples, and it is even difficult to compare apples with apples anyway...and when/if you are able to, they may fair differently in different orchards. For instance, comparing just processor speed may be comparing apples to apples, but from a performances standpoint, it's about the systems and how they fair in different usability contexts. When you compare one PC performance with another, there are many ways to do this using different benchmarks. Desktop? Notebook? For which applications? For which users? Commercial or Consumer? etc If we are talking mobile notebook computers, neither Intel nor AMD is beating the other across the board on ALL the benchmarks, meaning using all the possible criteria, usage models, markets, customer satisfaction indexes, etc. All these performance tests assume a specific set of criteria. They control the parameters and select a set of criteria and benchmark where one system out-performs another other, but you can easily change the usage model or criteria and get different results, where your criteria is not how fast the processor is or how well the system performs in some specific context (like gaming), but how well does it perform with business apps, different environments, etc Basically, what I'm saying is, after we get past the AMD/Intel/Apples dick measuring contests, that there are two sides to the story depending on the context....this makes it difficult to make generalizations like A is flat out better than B, when there a hundreds of contexts to test this, and hundreds of ways to represent A and B. Bringing this back to looping, one acid test is to get some of these systems that claim to compete with each other (like an IBM, HP, and Dell with both Centino and AMD processors, an Apple, etc), based on similar specs (RAM, relative processor speed, etc), load them up with the same applications, like a VST host (EnergyXT, Plogue, Chainer, etc), the same VST effects, and the same looping software (e.g., Mobius)...and then let's see what happens. Has anyone done this? Until someone does, we just have to base our choices on what others are using in our looping community. Kris