...and if so, how are you getting on with it? I'm (still) planning a PC upgrade, and my budget is going to be very tight...




(budget? maybe I shouldn't use that word today)

Quote DG:

---

...and if so, how are you getting on with it? I'm (still) planning a PC upgrade, and my budget is going to be very tight...




(budget? maybe I shouldn't use that word today)

---

Go for Intel i5 - its better

What part of your system is actually being maxed out at the moment?

What kind of workload are you planning to run? Soft synths / romplers / lots of audio tracks?

Are you planning on reusing any of your existing system ?

The current Intel crop of i range processors are good, but there's no point having an i7 if your budget then only stretches to 1G of RAM and a single disk when you plan to run lots of audio tracks and a softsynth rompler.

A workable DAW system is more than just a fast processor.

- Joe -


Rockrooms Studio

A set of very sensible questions there from Joe - you need to focus on what isn’t coping at the moment. Perhap this feature I wrote for SOS July 2006 entitled ‘PC System Overload Problems & Workarounds’ will help:

www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul06/articles/pcmusician_0706.htm

Hope so anyway!


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic

I'm running cubase studio 5.5 on a 3.2ghz P4 with 1gb of RAM. This has been quite sufficient up to now - my typical projects have been 20-30 audio tracks (mostly mono), each with 1 or 2 inserts, 3 or 4 send effects, and no VST instruments. I have been using high latency settings to increase the number of plug-ins I can run, and this hasn't been a problem.

However, I'd now like to have a few more options - using more insert plug-ins as sound shaping tools, moving from a hardware to a software sampler, chucking some VST instruments into the mix...
This is because I'm becoming increasingly aware that my floppy disk based sampler isn't going to live forever (I've been through 3 in the last 5 years), likewise my old synths, and also because I feel it's time to move on artistically.

I don't really know how much more power I'll need, but I'd like to not feel constrained by the limits of my PC, and also to not have to upgrade again for a long time. I guess the main areas I'd like to see improvement in are the amount of VST fx I can run in a project, and being able to work at low latency settings.

I've been looking at i7 based systems (based on advice from this forum), but I'm really not sure if I can afford one. I also don't know whether to buy new mobo, CPU, RAM and power supply, a second hand PC, a cheaper i-series processor... or an AMD system.

I don't expect anyone to answer all that, but I am interested in the feasibility of basing a DAW on an AMD processor. Even if they're not as suited to music production as intel's offerings, surely I'll still see a pretty big performance boost with (say) an AMD quad core?

Any advice / opinions would be much appreciated!

Quote DG:

---

I'm running cubase studio 5.5 on a 3.2ghz P4 with 1gb of RAM. This has been quite sufficient up to now - my typical projects have been 20-30 audio tracks (mostly mono), each with 1 or 2 inserts, 3 or 4 send effects, and no VST instruments. I have been using high latency settings to increase the number of plug-ins I can run, and this hasn't been a problem.

However, I'd now like to have a few more options - using more insert plug-ins as sound shaping tools, moving from a hardware to a software sampler, chucking some VST instruments into the mix...
This is because I'm becoming increasingly aware that my floppy disk based sampler isn't going to live forever (I've been through 3 in the last 5 years), likewise my old synths, and also because I feel it's time to move on artistically.

I don't really know how much more power I'll need, but I'd like to not feel constrained by the limits of my PC, and also to not have to upgrade again for a long time. I guess the main areas I'd like to see improvement in are the amount of VST fx I can run in a project, and being able to work at low latency settings.

I've been looking at i7 based systems (based on advice from this forum), but I'm really not sure if I can afford one. I also don't know whether to buy new mobo, CPU, RAM and power supply, a second hand PC, a cheaper i-series processor... or an AMD system.

I don't expect anyone to answer all that, but I am interested in the feasibility of basing a DAW on an AMD processor. Even if they're not as suited to music production as intel's offerings, surely I'll still see a pretty big performance boost with (say) an AMD quad core?

Any advice / opinions would be much appreciated!

---

i5 is the best option I think. Its a lot cheaper than the i7 but still gives extremely good performance - better than AMD. You will need new mobo, cpu, ram and possibly power supply too.

---

i5 is the best option I think. Its a lot cheaper than the i7 but still gives extremely good performance - better than AMD. You will need new mobo, cpu, ram and possibly power supply too.

---

I have the feeling this opinion is perhaps not based on practical experiments by yourself. The AMD3 Dual core 3Gig gives way better performance than a 2.9 Intel 775 - Having the pleasure of running both side by side - The Quad Cores like the AMD 640 run very nicely and can give the i5s a run for their money

Enter the Dragon

HOWEVER the new AMD3 Dragons are a different story - these Six core monsters will eat up the i5s for breakfast, and if you want to compare benchmarks then it will come of a surprise that only the i7 Extreme bets it... but the AMD3 1090T is a fraction of the price $1150 vs less than $300

I am busy doing a write up on this exciting development, but also busy getting ready to play a few dates

Anyway my advise is forget Intel... AMD3 is the way to go - Just make sure the Mobo you get has the right chipset for the bigger CPUs - eg Asus M4A79XTD EVO

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

i5 is the best option I think. Its a lot cheaper than the i7 but still gives extremely good performance - better than AMD. You will need new mobo, cpu, ram and possibly power supply too.

---

I have the feeling this opinion is perhaps not based on practical experiments by yourself. The AMD3 Dual core 3Gig gives way better performance than a 2.9 Intel 775 - Having the pleasure of running both side by side - The Quad Cores like the AMD 640 run very nicely and can give the i5s a run for their money

---

Hmmm... Unless your going to give the chip numbers when offering up statements like that then that lot was more conjecture than fact. What revision of the AMD chips are you on about and a 2.9 intel 775 what exactly?

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Enter the Dragon

HOWEVER the new AMD3 Dragons are a different story - these Six core monsters will eat up the i5s for breakfast, and if you want to compare benchmarks then it will come of a surprise that only the i7 Extreme bets it... but the AMD3 1090T is a fraction of the price $1150 vs less than $300

I am busy doing a write up on this exciting development, but also busy getting ready to play a few dates

Anyway my advise is forget Intel... AMD3 is the way to go - Just make sure the Mobo you get has the right chipset for the bigger CPUs - eg Asus M4A79XTD EVO

---

So based upon pratical experiments I say your wrong.

The 1090T's bench well with multithreaded cpu intensive testing such as CAD and video and this has been well established by a lot of reviewers.

What you probably haven't discovered if you haven't done enough pratical testing is that the lack of memory bandwidth on the AMD boards mean that the new AMD's are still far behind Intel in real world use.

Pretty much the only Benchmark for audio that matters is still Dawbench and the results for the 1090T's are:

1090T

Buffer Instances
setting

32 80
64 104
128 118
256 144

i7 920

32 130
64 151
128 158
256 163

The 860 is only slighty below the 920 in benching and bang for buck is about the same value as going to the 1090T once you take into consideration the parts required for a build.

I honestly got excited when the first cpu scores for the AMD's tipped up but they've just taken an ageing chip and board designs and shoehorned in a few more cores thier 6 cores are nothing special and as the Intel prics creap down over the coming few months until they reposition the prices in August ( http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=25163 ) they'll either have to price cut again or remain a poor choice in the run up to xmas.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

Hi Pete,

thanks for those DAWbench results for the AMD3 - like you, DAWbench is one test that I take very seriously


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic

Quote:

---

Hmmm... Unless your going to give the chip numbers when offering up statements like that then that lot was more conjecture than fact. What revision of the AMD chips are you on about and a 2.9 intel 775

What you probably haven't discovered if you haven't done enough pratical testing is that the lack of memory bandwidth on the AMD boards mean that the new AMD's are still far behind Intel in real world use.

I honestly got excited when the first cpu scores for the AMD's tipped up but they've just taken an ageing chip and board designs and shoehorned in a few more cores thier 6 cores are nothing special

---

Memory Bandwidth... you have to laugh because it was Intel that held that one back for a long time, now that they are running triple and direct to CPU its suddenly become cool - but this will not be an issue for AMD for much longer

The AMD3 Dragons are far from a reworked design, when DirectX 11 comes out there are going to be some big surprises and Intel know it, for Audio it is going to be a major plus for AMD - Prices coming down you say, why because of competition, people need to lose this Intels a better chip mantra... its brainwashing and bad for business

The Intel CPUs were the E5400 (over grown Celeron) and the E6500 which only comes to life when you turn it to 11 and even then the AMD 240 kicked its butt

Here we have someone that is asking about people using AMD systems (the thread starter) and frankly I do not think Intel have that much more to offer, and would recommend get a AMD3 system - there is a lot more to it than that, but I don't have the time to get into that, and Dragon is such a good name for a CPU

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

BTW the remark about testing was directed to Johnny h - as I do not think his opinion was based on practical testing

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Very happy with my AMD Phenom 2 X4 965 here - Win 7 64 bit and Cuvase 5.5. Running my RME FF400 at 64 samples and I've even abandoned my music only partition as unecessary these days - I'll turn-off the wireless network card when I'm seriously tracking but it's never been an issue. YMMV.

A.

--------------------
Andi, www.thedustbowl.net Mixing, Mastering, Audio Editing at The Dustbowl Audio

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Memory Bandwidth... you have to laugh because it was Intel that held that one back for a long time, now that they are running triple and direct to CPU its suddenly become cool - but this will not be an issue for AMD for much longer

---

Hopefully. It'd be nice to see some well priced parts to compete and drive the Intel price down. It's taking too long so far through and the end isn't really in sight. The current 6 core AMD's not only have that bandwidth issue but the's a thermal throttle at around 80 degrees which hampered my testing whilst using a stock cooler (hell it hampered my testing whilst using an aftermarket one as well) so in a real world situation where the doesn't happen to be an air con the size of a large freezer hanging above the desk is anyone's guess.

Quote:

---

The AMD3 Dragons are far from a reworked design, when DirectX 11 comes out there are going to be some big surprises and Intel know it,

---

Direct X 11 has been out for a good year and I don't really see how it's going to have any impact on Intel in the none gaming sector as Intels already given up on larrabee it seems.

Quote:

---

for Audio it is going to be a major plus for AMD

---

Once again why? No audio applications I can think of will be impacted in anyway at all by what is essentially a gfx instruction subset.

If I'm missing anything here please let me know, because i'm really failing to make the connection.

Quote:

---

- Prices coming down you say, why because of competition, people need to lose this Intels a better chip mantra... its brainwashing and bad for business

---

The prices are coming down because we're in the "tock" cycle of Intels release schedual and that's what happens. They are dropping the prices of the older parts as the new one's are released and the recent announcement is nothing new. The product cycle has been up online since before xmas and the dates haven't changed. They always drop the prices of old tech to allow the new stuff to come in at the old price point.

Intel parts never get cheaper they just get better at a given price point every 12 - 18 months

On the other hand AMD continue to sell parts for what the market will pay for them. Remember the last time they were ahead? Top end chips going for 3 - 4 hundread quid. Both firms are just as bad it's just one is currently lagging behind.

Quote:

---

people need to lose this Intels a better chip mantra... its brainwashing and bad for business

---

I own 2 AMD machines and 2 Intel machines. I purpose my machines to carry out certain tasks and they are both completely capable of doing what i need them to do.

I recommend Intel and not because I've been brainwashed. I think we were the first system builder (and i'm sure Martin will currect me if not) to submit AMD based system to Sound on Sound for review many years ago.

I don't belive hardware reviews that I read on most tech sites because I know the's many factors that can slant a review. I also know a lot of manufactors will bend over backwards or even twist facts to get good reviews.

I honestly test everything we sell. I develop solutions for a living and it's in my interest to test everything so that when a client comes to me asking for the best posiable combination for his set up I can give it.

I take a flat wage and I don't get bonus's or kickbacks from anyone.

Why would it be in my interest to recommend Intel if it was all a lie?

Surely I'd be pitching the solution that came in £200 cheaper and performed better. They'd be happier, I'd undercut everyone else and business would go through the roof because of it (and then I might get a bonus but hey that doesn't count).

I don't recommend AMD because of the simple fact that they are not the better firm. They offer the same bang per buck as Intel and maybe little more at the bottom end of the range.

Some of the £100 one's are alright and perform better than the Intel chips in the same price range. But if you go up the range then a £150 Amd chip performs the same as a £150 Intel chip.

And then a £250 performs the same as a....

Hmmmm...

Amd has some great budget chips, some average mid range and nothing that touchs the top tier Intel. With the prices of those coming down and the Intel range being rejigged in the coming months Amd either has to come up with some serious price cutting again or loose any advantage in the home user market they might currently have.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

The Intel CPUs were the E5400 (over grown Celeron) and the E6500 which only comes to life when you turn it to 11 and even then the AMD 240 kicked its butt

---

Hmmm... yeah agreed. But those were chips we wouldn't even sell to a customer when they were new, as we viewed them as nothing more than office machine staples (your overgrown Celeron pretty much sums it up).

Yes the 240 was better but the budget Intel sucks. At the point they came I think everyone was offering the Q6600 as thier chip of choice with Intel rigs and the wasn't a single AMD chip that could touch it at that point.

Quote:

---

Here we have someone that is asking about people using AMD systems (the thread starter) and frankly I do not think Intel have that much more to offer,

---

Yeah, fair enough. If you don't need all the grunt then of course AMD is fine and will do the job. It was just the comments about testing and AMD being better than the quad i7's. They are not in all areas and the key one that applys to is audio.

Quote:

---

and would recommend get a AMD3 system - there is a lot more to it than that, but I don't have the time to get into that,

---

I'm intrested in hearing through. I fully admit 'm no longer the expert on AMD I once was but I always appreciate learning something new.

Quote:

---

and Dragon is such a good name for a CPU

---

Yeah, thought you'd say that

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

I'm still using a dual core athlon (2.9G I think) - does everything I need.

--------------------
It wasn't me!
(Well, actually, it probably was)

Quote DragonLogos:

---

BTW the remark about testing was directed to Johnny h - as I do not think his opinion was based on practical testing

---

My personal experience has been that intel systems always perform more reliably, for longer and with fewer glitches than AMD.

There are very well researched audio benchmarks which show i5 and i7 chips performing extremely impressively, especially with low latency. This is why there are a better choice.

..when I specced my last build towards the end of last year the overall build cost including mobo was significantly cheaper. As a matter of interest, how many people actually use (as against test) their machines at or close to full capacity.

--------------------
Andi, www.thedustbowl.net Mixing, Mastering, Audio Editing at The Dustbowl Audio

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote DragonLogos:

---

BTW the remark about testing was directed to Johnny h - as I do not think his opinion was based on practical testing

---

My personal experience has been that intel systems always perform more reliably, for longer and with fewer glitches than AMD.

There are very well researched audio benchmarks which show i5 and i7 chips performing extremely impressively, especially with low latency. This is why there are a better choice.

---

Sorry, am I missing a point here, the theme of the thread is " Anybody using an AMD based system? " I could write a few comments of my own, but then people will say that the way I am going about things will not win me friends, also I'm up to my eyeballs with preparation and tired as hell

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote DragonLogos:

---

BTW the remark about testing was directed to Johnny h - as I do not think his opinion was based on practical testing

---

My personal experience has been that intel systems always perform more reliably, for longer and with fewer glitches than AMD.

There are very well researched audio benchmarks which show i5 and i7 chips performing extremely impressively, especially with low latency. This is why there are a better choice.

---

Sorry, am I missing a point here, the theme of the thread is " Anybody using an AMD based system? "

---

This thread is about PC upgrading. If you've made up your mind about AMD already, why ask?

But you did ask, and the answer is "no, don't go AMD." For the reasons Peter explained. Look at the audio benchmarks and prices.

"...My personal experience has been that intel systems always perform more reliably, for longer and with fewer glitches than AMD..."

BLa...

I've tested PC/server/workstation systems for 7 years and benched over a rough 3000 systems, there is no such thing as AMD being more "glitchy" or more "unreliable" or have a shorter lifespan, neither do we have spooky chipsets (like Nvidia in the past) anymore that annoy your soundcard or cause other DAW related problems.

x86 is x86 and it is about the performance you can get for the money you are able to spend.

memory speed/access/bandwidth is hardly the problem these days and CPU power is what you will need mostly. In cases you will be using massively large gigasamplers it might be useful to have a look at it, but still then the amount of RAM is more important then speed or bandwidth.

I myself use an Intel system but if you're on a budget it can be better to consider an AMD. My advice is to have a look at your budget and check how much you are able to spend on the CPU, anything below a €140,- you'll get more performance buying AMD, above it usually the Intels will give better performance. Besides this motherboards for AMD will usually be cheaper too.

Do consider buying a motherboard with a decent chipset(read: enough PCI-e bandwidth and a decent HDD controller), it will enable you to expand your system later adn keep it upgradable for a longer time.

other advantages of AMD: upgradability! for instance, if one bought an AMD AM2+ system 3 years ago, it can still be upgraded with a 6-core monster, effectively increasing your performance roughly by an 80%, with Intels socket and platform changes you are not able to do this with a S775 /S1156 or s1366 based system, right now these sockets will be replaced by 1155 (1 pin difference! )and a follow up for the 1366 by the end of this year.

Another tip: buy a many cores CPU, DAW software already quite efficiently makes use of more cores and will only get better.

Edit: I see I mentioned Euro's...€140,- is at around 115 British pounds at the moment.

--------------------
who is Kees and why is he so special?

Edited by Vlaaing Peerd (24/06/10 08:13 AM)

Thanks for your replies folks. And especially to Pete - your posts are always informative and in-depth, and I'm very grateful to have a truly professional opinion. And for free - that doesn't happen often these days!

I debated the same thing a little while back. With the money I saved going with AMD I was able to do lots of other things. The AMD Phenom 2 X4 965 that I have (8GB RAM) is awesome. But I have to say the best thing was the fact AMD is really doing a great job reusing the same CPU sockets. I have been using the same ASUS AM2 motherboard for years. At least with AMD (as it has been for the past couple generation of chips), if you get a good solid motherboard, every other year you upgrade the CPU (with AMD, that's not bad) and your set. My motherboard will even work with the new 6 cores that I will eventually get (someday, not anytime soon). I wouldn't get to worked up over the stats either, you are paying a lot of extra money for intel for very little benefit.

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

I recommend Intel and not because I've been brainwashed. I think we were the first system builder (and i'm sure Martin will currect me if not) to submit AMD based system to Sound on Sound for review many years ago.

---

Hi Pete!

Only just noticed this, so I'll reply for the sake of completeness

I'm afriad it's close but not cigar this time Pete - yes, you were the first company to supply an AMD Dual-Core Audio PC to SOS (which I reviewed in SOS January 2006), but I in fact reviewed two AMD-based mahcines prior to this:

1. Inta Audio Opteron PC in SOS December 2004

2. Dawsons Music Athlon 64 PC in SOS March 2005

Not a lot of people know that


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic

Quote Martin Walker:

---

Not a lot of people know that

---

I imagine it's not a stat that come's up in polite conversation all that often!

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

You’d be surprised - the last time I attended an Annual Nerds Convention it was a hot topic


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

What you probably haven't discovered if you haven't done enough pratical testing is that the lack of memory bandwidth on the AMD boards mean that the new AMD's are still far behind Intel in real world use.

---

Pete, to which AMD boards do you refer ?

--------------------
Cubase 6.5; Windows 7 Premium 64bit; Motu 828mk2; UADe; Liquid Mix. ASUS mainboard 16 Gig Ram; AMD3 Core 6 @ 3200 X 6

All of them as it's a chipset controller limitation/bottleneck from what we could establish. Hypertransport appears to be getting a bit long in the tooth now and they seriously need to stop hanging onto boards that are half a decade old and give the whole lot an overhaul.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

All of them as it's a chipset controller limitation/bottleneck from what we could establish. Hypertransport appears to be getting a bit long in the tooth now and they seriously need to stop hanging onto boards that are half a decade old and give the whole lot an overhaul.

---

My board is certainly NOT half a decade old, and, I sucessfully run large professional orchestral libraries on a system which, causes no difficulties, with low latency - mixing almost entirely in the box.

--------------------
Cubase 6.5; Windows 7 Premium 64bit; Motu 828mk2; UADe; Liquid Mix. ASUS mainboard 16 Gig Ram; AMD3 Core 6 @ 3200 X 6

Quote Fantashable:

---

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

All of them as it's a chipset controller limitation/bottleneck from what we could establish. Hypertransport appears to be getting a bit long in the tooth now and they seriously need to stop hanging onto boards that are half a decade old and give the whole lot an overhaul.

---

My board is certainly NOT half a decade old, and, I sucessfully run large professional orchestral libraries on a system which, causes no difficulties, with low latency - mixing almost entirely in the box.

---

This isn't a particularly hard task for a modern computer really. Its mainly dependent on hard drive speed and memory.

Maybe right at the bottom end AMD makes sense, but that's all. Intel all the way for audio performance.

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote Fantashable:

---

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

All of them as it's a chipset controller limitation/bottleneck from what we could establish. Hypertransport appears to be getting a bit long in the tooth now and they seriously need to stop hanging onto boards that are half a decade old and give the whole lot an overhaul.

---

My board is certainly NOT half a decade old, and, I sucessfully run large professional orchestral libraries on a system which, causes no difficulties, with low latency - mixing almost entirely in the box.

---

This isn't a particularly hard task for a modern computer really. Its mainly dependent on hard drive speed and memory.

Maybe right at the bottom end AMD makes sense, but that's all. Intel all the way for audio performance.

---

I didn't mention the dozen or more professional processor plug-ins - in addition to those that are processed on a card - which DO NOT run from hard drive and are computed in real time.

It (AMD) makes a great deal of sense to me, as one that keeps his clients happy with large scale projects tracked with professional products.

Clearly Peter you are wanting to sell as many Intel-based systems to keep you in business. However, my view and experience over several years with the AMD platform is in response to the owner of this thread.

To summarise:

I have no axe to grind, no PC systems to sell, and AMD3 works - it works for a professional user who needs to lock sound to picture, for my customers projects.

AMD3 platform suits very well as a cost- effective, reliable, powerful foundation.

I am not of course a PC manufacture. I only use PC's to earn my living in sound-to-picture.
I see no reason to jump ship.

Yet, you poo poo the AMD platform ?

--------------------
Cubase 6.5; Windows 7 Premium 64bit; Motu 828mk2; UADe; Liquid Mix. ASUS mainboard 16 Gig Ram; AMD3 Core 6 @ 3200 X 6

Quote Fantashable:

---

Yet, you poo poo the AMD platform ?

---

Never ignore a poo poo.

Quote Fantashable:

---

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

All of them as it's a chipset controller limitation/bottleneck from what we could establish. Hypertransport appears to be getting a bit long in the tooth now and they seriously need to stop hanging onto boards that are half a decade old and give the whole lot an overhaul.

---

My board is certainly NOT half a decade old, and, I sucessfully run large professional orchestral libraries on a system which, causes no difficulties, with low latency - mixing almost entirely in the box.

---

I didn't say your board was.

I said the underlaying tech was half a decade old.

Hypertransport made it into the public eye late 2006. Since then the's been little to no overhaul of the AMD chipset or it's basic design.

It was revolutionary at the time and gave AMD the advantage for a few years but the latest testing shows that the chips are pushing what the chipset can handle now, and the whole memory subsystem is now the bottleneck if your trying to push it.

The last time we saw a company trying to flog a chip design that was clearly past it's prime was probably Intel's Prescott revision and look how that played out.

Just because your software works fine on a rig doesn't mean it's going to have the grunt for everyone.

What Orchestral libraries are you running? Is it something like Garriton where it's all disk streaming based or is it something like Vienna where you need to model the samples into a real space and acturly require the processing power?

Quote Fantashable:

---

I didn't mention the dozen or more professional processor plug-ins - in addition to those that are processed on a card - which DO NOT run from hard drive and are computed in real time.

---

That's it through. That's the point. With the highend Intels you don't need need an additional processing card and we're talking hundreads of plugins and not dozens.

Fantashable Quote:

---

It (AMD) makes a great deal of sense to me, as one that keeps his clients happy with large scale projects tracked with professional products.

---

It makes sense, because it works for you. I've never said that Amd soltuions don't work or are not suitable for doing audio. All I've ever maintained is that one isn't better bang for buck than the other and that the Intel based machines have more power should you require it at a higher price point.

Fantashable Quote:

---

Clearly Peter you are wanting to sell as many Intel-based systems to keep you in business. However, my view and experience over several years with the AMD platform is in response to the owner of this thread.

---

Hmmm...

I'm sure I covered that above.

It's doesn't benefit us either way as we work with both AMD & Intel and the margins are the same on both. If you bought two machines off us and the only difference was cpu and motherboard our margin would still be the same no matter how much more one machine cost than the other.

It's a cut throat business. If I could sell an AMD system for £200 less and it was more attractive performance wise then I sure as hell would.

But I can't as it's not.

Quote Fantashable:

---

The owner of the thread...............
To summarise:

I have no axe to grind, no PC systems to sell, and AMD3 works - it works for a professional user who needs to lock sound to picture, for my customers projects.

AMD3 platform suits very well as a cost- effective, reliable, powerful foundation.

I am not of course a PC manufacture. I only use PC's to earn my living in sound-to-picture.
I see no reason to jump ship.

Yet, you poo poo the AMD platform ?

---

He's not jumping ship through.

He has an Intel P4 right now. If he had an AMD and an upgrade path then as it's cheaper and he's got a limited budget I'd say get the AMD and you'll be fine.

But he doesn't. And bang per buck AMD isn't better than Intel.

He also doesn't have a co-processing card and wishes to move everything inside the box with a software sampling and processing which he currently doesn't do, so who knows what apps and plugs will be bought in the next few years that will put a drain on his system.

The best plug in count he'll get on a budget would probably be the i7 860 on a UD3 board and 4GB of memory for around £400.

If someone can show me a AMD rig for £400 that can clear a 90 plug count in Dawbench at a 32 latency setting let alone the 130 that an 860 will do then I'll be quite happy to revise my statements, but until then my comments stand.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

Quote:

---

Just because your software works fine on a rig doesn't mean it's going to have the grunt for everyone.

What Orchestral libraries are you running? Is it something like Garriton where it's all disk streaming based or is it something like where you need to model the samples into a real space and acturly require the processing power?

---

Vienna Symphonic Cube (Standard)

Quote Fantashable:

---

I didn't mention the dozen or more professional processor plug-ins - in addition to those that are processed on a card - which DO NOT run from hard drive and are computed in real time.

---

Quote:

---

That's it through. That's the point. With the highend Intels you don't need need an additional processing card and we're talking hundreads of plugins and not dozens.

---

Oh, I'm sorry I think I misunderstood you; you are saying ar you, that the tens of thousands or more of professional UAD2 users who, if they work on an high end Intel-based system will not need to purchase the UAD card to run the UAD plugs, as the PC can process them instead ?

Quote:

---

It makes sense, because it works for you. I've never said that Amd soltuions don't work or are not suitable for doing audio. All I've ever maintained is that one isn't better bang for buck than the other and that the Intel based machines have more power should you require it at a higher price point.

---

Thank you for clarifying that, Pete.

Quote:

---

He's not jumping ship through.

---

I was referring to me I do not need (yet) to go over to Intel.

That that said - and I don't purchase ready-made computers preferring to assemble for my particular need - one day, as the processing-power requirements of my audio tools increases, and should AMD fail to 'keep up' with that particualar need, then I will indeed be forced to 'Jump Ship'

--------------------
Cubase 6.5; Windows 7 Premium 64bit; Motu 828mk2; UADe; Liquid Mix. ASUS mainboard 16 Gig Ram; AMD3 Core 6 @ 3200 X 6

Quote Fantashable:

---

Vienna Symphonic Cube (Standard)

---

Have you tired running MIR with it? Can the machine handle recreating the whole orchestra in it's current configuration?

Quote:

---

Oh, I'm sorry I think I misunderstood you; you are saying ar you, that the tens of thousands or more of professional UAD2 users who, if they work on an high end Intel-based system will not need to purchase the UAD card to run the UAD plugs, as the PC can process them instead ?

---

No, not exactly.

When the cards came out computers were still unable to handle everything inside of the box from start to finish. Now they can.

The argument for keeping them now is more that a lot of pro level software will only run on those cards but this has only happened because of the lack of power available in the past. I imagine you could run those plugin's on the host cpu with the power available now but the UAD card itself has become pretty much the perfect software security key.

What I was trying to say is that if every firm released both powercore and standard vsti revisions of every single one of their software clients then the UAD's hardware in the current market place wouldn't be anywhere as near as attractive as it is with the exclusives it has.

Quote:

---

He's not jumping ship through.

Quote:

---

I was referring to me I do not need (yet) to go over to Intel.

---

---

Ahh but I was still on topic. That now reads like you just chewed me out for answering a question you hadn't asked yet!

Quote:

---

That that said - and I don't purchase ready-made computers preferring to assemble for my particular need - one day, as the processing-power requirements of my audio tools increases, and should AMD fail to 'keep up' with that particualar need, then I will indeed be forced to 'Jump Ship'

---

That's it through it's all situation specific. If your board still supports the current generation then your going to get at least one more upgrade on the cheap to keep you going a couple more years and then you'll be able to re-evaluate the market at that point too see if the's anypoint in "Jumping ship" at that point.

Speaking of AMD upgrades my AMD based V-Stack box has been getting maxed out by my Omnisphere abuse. Think I might heading for one this week too.....

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

BTW - I am still on tour, back for a day then off tomorrow... will look forward to showing all you Intel Fan-ppl the error of your ways... (makes note to self, write song I think Intel Sucks)

PPS - DX11 thing was about development of DX11 apps... when read myself did not make sense either, lack of sleep does that, now have lack of sleep and parties

the bus awaits

Intel... haha ha - foolish Earth creatures

(Exit stage left)

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Quote DragonLogos:

---

BTW - I am still on tour, back for a day then off tomorrow... will look forward to showing all you Intel Fan-ppl the error of your ways... (makes note to self, write song I think Intel Sucks)

PPS - DX11 thing was about development of DX11 apps... when read myself did not make sense either, lack of sleep does that, now have lack of sleep and parties

the bus awaits

Intel... haha ha - foolish Earth creatures

(Exit stage left)

---

Yeah I guess when there are loads of DX11 apps .. and AMD looks at the date and realises its not 2006 anymore...

Until then, i5 or i7 for audio all the way.

Haven't posted here for a while, mainly because left the IT game a while ago



Personal use :


2008 autumn bought a Gigabyte GA-MA78GM (AM2+) mobo & paired it with a AMD Sempron Le1250 single core & a cube case. Had 4GB DDR2 mem laying around as well as a Seasonic 380w & sata hds. TC was approx £120.

2009 autumn bought an AMD quad core 900e Phenom II X4 65w energy efficient. Slotted it into same mobo added 4GB mem. TCof U £130.

2010 summer, thinking of six core Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8GHz 95W £160 will slot into same mobo. I don't need it but I think I can sell the 900e 65W II X4 approx £70-£80. TCof U to six core approx £80-£90.






2008-2010 with AMD has given me

1. Long term peace of mind to just concentrate on music, creativity, enjoyment.

No concern about selling current pc, buying a whole new pc. No recurring questions about which motherboard, which cpu, which memory.

If i upgrade to AMD 6 cores i will have peace of mind for another two years.

Thats 4 years peace.



I.e. i looked beyond the end of my nose ...



2. Understanding that should i need more processing power all i need do is upgrade the cpu.
AMD keeping the same socket and the low cost of upgrade has been excellent. No different sockets (intel quad 775> i 1366/1156/1155). No shelling £££ each time for a different socket & whole system.



3. Memory controller on Phenom II cpu, no fsb bottleneck, independent L2 cache for each core & shared L3 cache. All of which Intel realised they need for their i7 and implemented.



...........



Until i5 came along about 9 months after Phenom II AM3, AMD Phenom II AM3 was the better choice outside of i7 as an overall music system that needed sample playback as well as plugins softsynths.

i5 doesn't have qpi nee hypertransport, rather dmi rather like fsb of old intels (i7 1156 doesnt have qpi either) but intel hides this deficiency by having turbo boost and large L3 cache.

AMD's "long in the tooth" Hypertransport 3 of Phenom II X2 X3 X4 X6 4.0GT/s matches up pretty well with Intels "new" qpi 4.8GT/s i7 920 960 and eats i5 680 750, i7 860 875, all of which have dmi of 2.5GT/s.



...........



Server, Workstation :


AMD kept same socket F : Quad core (Barcelona, Shanghai) to Six core Istanbul.
Again the upgrade path and low cost of upgrade has been excellent ... fair amount better than intel.



AMDs Magny-Cours Opteron 8, 12 cores per cpu (two Istanbul's in each cpu) with Direct Connect 2.0 and two NUMA nodes per Opetron (two memory controllers on each Opteron giving four memory channels per cpu) eats up anything intel Nehalem EP westmere xeon 6 core has to offer. Also Nehalem EP is only two socket, Magny Cours is four and more.

This is the start of the fabled Bulldozer platform. Will take 16 cores per cpu on the G34 socket sometime next year ... thats 64 cores in a four way system, currently takes max 48 cores.

Having actual cores instead of intel hyper threaded cores is still preferable as any program that makes proper use of actual cores will see less benefit form virtual cores.
Magny - Cours will compete with intels Nehalem EX X7 8 core (& 8 virtual cores), which takes 4 sockets or more. Nehalem EX X6 is only 2 socket.


...........


Magny Cours HyperTransport has max 6.4GT/s. Nehalem EX has max qpi 6.4GT/s,


...........



Again it is at the price performance that AMD will take Intel in the server workstation ....

8 core Magny Cours Opteron 6124HE $550 is approx 1/5 of $2400 8 core X6550 Nehalem EX (lowest priced) , which is just two way, not four like the Opteron.

This Nehalem EX's 130W TDP is twice the consumption of the 65W Opteron.


4way Nelahem EX 8 core X7550 130W lowest priced $2729.
4 way 95W Nehalem EX 8 core L7555 lowest priced $3157 ... 6 times that of Magny Cours.

And Intels' TDP is still higher.


12 core Magny Cours Opteron 6164HE 65W lowest price $900 almost 1/3 of lowest priced 8 core Nehalem EX.
This Magny Cours 12 is cheaper by $$$ than even the 6 core intel westmere and some 4 core westmere !



In the upgrade path AMD Magny Cours Opteron will also take Intel Nehalem Xeon.


...........



Intel is like Chelski ... spend the wonga, take the best players, buy way to the title.
AMD is like Arsenal ... spend little, lovely smooth style, technically superb, just doesn't have the power of Chelski nor funds.


Intel is like Tesco, buy and pressure to number one. Massive ad campaign to ingrain itself in the minds of people.
AMD is like the independent trader. The little guy who doesn't have the clout of Tesco nor funds, yet provides excellent products.


Intel is like a flash harry with the big house and fast cars. Hang out with flash harry we can speed about town have a dip in harry's jacuzzi, then get chucked out for a new "friend".
AMD is like a best buddy with a small house and self engineered beautiful car. Hang out with our best buddy and he will show us the sites, invite us back to his pad time and again for a bevvy. And keep us as a buddy

Quote table for two:

---

Haven't posted here for a while, mainly because left the IT game a while ago

---

Welcome back

Quote:

---

Personal use :

2008 autumn bought a Gigabyte GA-MA78GM (AM2+) mobo & paired it with a AMD Sempron Le1250 single core & a cube case. Had 4GB DDR2 mem laying around as well as a Seasonic 380w & sata hds. TC was approx £120.

2009 autumn bought an AMD quad core 900e Phenom II X4 65w energy efficient. Slotted it into same mobo added 4GB mem. TCof U £130.

2010 summer, thinking of six core Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8GHz 95W £160 will slot into same mobo. I don't need it but I think I can sell the 900e 65W II X4 approx £70-£80. TCof U to six core approx £80-£90.

2008-2010 with AMD has given me

1. Long term peace of mind to just concentrate on music, creativity, enjoyment.

No concern about selling current pc, buying a whole new pc. No recurring questions about which motherboard, which cpu, which memory.

If i upgrade to AMD 6 cores i will have peace of mind for another two years.

Thats 4 years peace.

---

Hmmm.... If you bought a x58 based board in 2008 which out performed anything AMD had then it would still be running rings round anything that's out now for audio

That's without any upgrading or tinkering or messing about. Your someone who likes to tinker I feel and doesn't mind the odd upgrade after all it is the best way to get constant performance without going all out case wise.

Except on a like for like system the difference between a high end amd rig and a low end i7 rig was about £250 back in 2008.

If you spent £290 on two upgrades above and only got £70 back then in total you've saved £20 and you still have a machine that benchs 30% less in Dawbench (assuming you now have the 6 core amd) and have spent a good few hours messing about with upgrading and retesting the machine. To be honest if I do an inline upgrade I still have to allow a few hours each time for tweaking and testing meaning that unless your time is worth less than a fiver an hour you've spent more on the AMD than the Intel and still have far less performance to show for it.

Quote:

---

I.e. i looked beyond the end of my nose ...

---

and yet still somehow walked into a brick wall

Quote:

---

2. Understanding that should i need more processing power all i need do is upgrade the cpu.
AMD keeping the same socket and the low cost of upgrade has been excellent. No different sockets (intel quad 775> i 1366/1156/1155). No shelling £££ each time for a different socket & whole system.

---

Processors through are not the only key in getting the maximum performance for your money...

Quote:

---

3. Memory controller on Phenom II cpu, no fsb bottleneck, independent L2 cache for each core & shared L3 cache. All of which Intel realised they need for their i7 and implemented.

---

Yeah, but this industry always rely on leapfroging in technial inovation and blatent copying of design ideas (Nvidia. Ati. Play nice now at the back please....). The thing is AMD hasn't inovated in about 4 years now and that's an eternity in component time as you know and Intels own cycle is 2 - 3 years. To keep trotting out the "Well Amd did direct memory addressing first" is the most annoying argument that get's brought up by AMD fanboi's.

It's almost as annoying as England fans droning on about the 1966 world cup! It was half a centry ago and most of you wern't even alive then.... shut the f*ck up already.
The side is now outclassed by the opposition... deal with it. Oh and that goes for England team analogy well.

Quote:

---

Until i5 came along about 9 months after Phenom II AM3, AMD Phenom II AM3 was the better choice outside of i7 as an overall music system that needed sample playback as well as plugins softsynths.

---

Yeah, but that was down to Intels release timetable. But your right it was the better & cheaper option and if you only have £500/£600 to spend now it still is. All depends on your requirements through.

Quote:

---

i5 doesn't have qpi nee hypertransport, rather dmi rather like fsb of old intels (i7 1156 doesnt have qpi either) but intel hides this deficiency by having turbo boost and large L3 cache.

---

Not really as the p55 still gives the memory direct access to the cpu rather than going through another controller (like the northbridge) so it's still running in the same fashion as the x58 but just not allocated as much bandwidth.

Quote:

---

AMD's "long in the tooth" Hypertransport 3 of Phenom II X2 X3 X4 X6 4.0GT/s matches up pretty well with Intels "new" qpi 4.8GT/s i7 920 960 and eats i5 680 750, i7 860 875, all of which have dmi of 2.5GT/s.

---

Hmmm it's a default of 4.8Gt/s on the i7 but I don't know of anyone who runs them at less than 6.4GT/s and I know all our overclocked machines tend to go out at 7.2GT/s. The bottle neck in our testing with the 6 cores has been the AMD memory controller. When that is resolved then it's worth another look but at the moment it for me a stumbling block when it comes to recomending them.

Quote:

---

Server, Workstation :

---

Whole different ballgame!

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

All of them as it's a chipset controller limitation/bottleneck from what we could establish. Hypertransport appears to be getting a bit long in the tooth now and they seriously need to stop hanging onto boards that are half a decade old and give the whole lot an overhaul.

---

Hypertransport is controlled by the MCH in the CPU, not the chipset. Total bandwidth is not that much lower of a comparably priced Intel CPU and not at all is the bottleneck in the system if needed for a common DAW, usually it is the CPU and HDD.

besides this, Intels Quickpath technology is almost a direct copy of the HT bus from AMD, so you could say Intel was very slow to implement such an old method.

Chipsets for AMD systems mostly control PCI-e bandwidth, USB and is the HDD controller, none of this in the chipset is slower or has less bandwidth then Intels current flagship chipset for desktop the X58, actually AMD chipset already natively support USB 3.0 while you need to add another controler chip on an Intel system for USB 3.0 support, making it more expensive then needed.

Also nobody ever looked at what Intels CPU controlled PCI-e/MCH will have as effect in the future, when these hi-bandwidth protocols are fullly utilised in the near future. I don't expect we will still be able to utilise the full PCI-e 2.0 bandwidth and the 8,5GB/s memory bandwidth together pumped through the CPU.

and this coming from an Intel user ...


edit: Server/workstation; totally different ballgame?

maybe not. Have a look at AMD G34 chipset boards, for the price of a system based on the the topmodel Corei7 you can build a 24core (yes indeed: 24 cores) AMD system w. Also AMD server/WS boards widely support desktop operating systems in comparison to the Intel Xeon chipsets do not.

yes, Intel has the fastest chip/highest memory bandwidth, but only if you pay dearly for it. If like most of us you are on a certain budget you'd be plain stupid to discard AMD as a possible option. Even if someone representing a PC reseller recommends otherwise.

Edit2: Sorry I made a mistake, Quad CPU AMD boards are still a little expensive. For the price of Intels fastest desktop CPU + MB you can only get a 16 core AMD system and still save a few hundred euro's.

Anyone already benched a dual 8-core Opteron vs the i7 980?

--------------------
who is Kees and why is he so special?

Edited by Vlaaing Peerd (02/07/10 10:38 AM)

Quote Vlaaing Peerd:

---

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

All of them as it's a chipset controller limitation/bottleneck from what we could establish. Hypertransport appears to be getting a bit long in the tooth now and they seriously need to stop hanging onto boards that are half a decade old and give the whole lot an overhaul.

---

Hypertransport is controlled by the MCH in the CPU, not the chipset. Total bandwidth is not that much lower of a comparably priced Intel CPU and not at all is the bottleneck in the system if needed for a common DAW, usually it is the CPU and HDD.

besides this, Intels Quickpath technology is almost a direct copy of the HT bus from AMD, so you could say Intel was very slow to implement such an old method.

---

Irrelevent; intel are still faster for the same money, and at the top end demolish AMD.

Quote:

---

Chipsets for AMD systems mostly control PCI-e bandwidth, USB and is the HDD controller, none of this in the chipset is slower or has less bandwidth then Intels current flagship chipset for desktop the X58, actually AMD chipset already natively support USB 3.0 while you need to add another controler chip on an Intel system for USB 3.0 support, making it more expensive then needed.

---

Hmm yeah, about 5 pennies more expensive. Big deal.

Quote:

---

Also nobody ever looked at what Intels CPU controlled PCI-e/MCH will have as effect in the future, when these hi-bandwidth protocols are fullly utilised in the near future. I don't expect we will still be able to utilise the full PCI-e 2.0 bandwidth and the 8,5GB/s memory bandwidth together pumped through the CPU.

---

This is pure (and wild) speculation which has nothing to do with buying a system today.

Quote:

---

and this coming from an Intel user ...


edit: Server/workstation; totally different ballgame?

maybe not. Have a look at AMD G34 chipset boards, for the price of a system based on the the topmodel Corei7 you can build a 24core (yes indeed: 24 cores) AMD system w. Also AMD server/WS boards widely support desktop operating systems in comparison to the Intel Xeon chipsets do not.

yes, Intel has the fastest chip/highest memory bandwidth, but only if you pay dearly for it. If like most of us you are on a certain budget you'd be plain stupid to discard AMD as a possible option. Even if someone representing a PC reseller recommends otherwise.

Edit2: Sorry I made a mistake, Quad CPU AMD boards are still a little expensive. For the price of Intels fastest desktop CPU + MB you can only get a 16 core AMD system and still save a few hundred euro's.

Anyone already benched a dual 8-core Opteron vs the i7 980?

---

Getting a server is ridiculous for an audio system! Quietness, speed and reliability are the priorites. Having a weird system which probably gets very little testing by the small world of audio software doesn't make sense. Neither does doubling or quadrupling the CPU fans. Also the massive case needed, huge expensive/noisy power supply...

Just get an i5 or an i7, whatever your budget allows. Its by far the best option. Read the benchmarks. Then the prices.

Listen to Peter, he knows his stuff.

Peter seems to me a person that works for a system reseller that primarily sell Intel systems.

Besides his remark that AMD systems main bottleneck is the chipset/controller tells me more then enough about his knowledge of computers systems.

an AMD G34 system can fit on a normal ATX-form factor tower chassis, yes you have one cpu fan more, noise is however completely neglible and you are able to passively cool the CPU, provided you use a large (but very silent) case cooler.

the G34 MB's and octocore AMD's are already on the market...and quite affordable too.

being an appplication engineer for worlds largest OEM and ODM motherboard manufacturer and having tested more then 3000 systems over the last 7 years I think I know a little about this and yes I do tend to ignore comments that strike me as plain fanboyism or even worse, marketing.

Don't get me wrong, I am a happy Intel user myself, but read the starters post, DG is on a budget, he needs to get the best performance he can get for thwe money he has to spend, is the i5 you mention a better performer then the AMD you can get for the same price? And you're all shooting off AMD based on vaguely described arguments from an Intel systems integrator?

Show me the benchmark, show me the price and I'll be happy to change my opinion.

and eh..oyea, server/workstation system is ridiculous for a DAW? what does the last letter of DAW stand for?

btw, very strong arguments in your post Johnny!!

--------------------
who is Kees and why is he so special?

Edited by Vlaaing Peerd (02/07/10 11:43 AM)

Quote Vlaaing Peerd:

---

Peter seems to me a person that works for a system reseller that primarily sell Intel systems.

---

Peter works for a company building audio (and other) PCs to order. it wouldn't be in their interests to blindly favour one manufacturer over another as their customers (i.e. US) care about real world performance, not which brand name is under the hood.

--------------------
hourglass | random thoughts | doubledotdash!? collective

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote Vlaaing Peerd:

---

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

All of them as it's a chipset controller limitation/bottleneck from what we could establish. Hypertransport appears to be getting a bit long in the tooth now and they seriously need to stop hanging onto boards that are half a decade old and give the whole lot an overhaul.

---

---

Hypertransport is controlled by the MCH in the CPU, not the chipset.

---

Yeah, I know (I refer to this in a later part of the thread) I just put the slash in the wrong place. For clarity I should have put "chipset/controller limitation".

Quote:

---

Total bandwidth is not that much lower of a comparably priced Intel CPU and not at all is the bottleneck in the system if needed for a common DAW, usually it is the CPU and HDD.

---

We we're maxing it out to hit the limit and your right in current day to day use it's fine. But the fact that we could hit the limit means that upgradablilty is questionable as your right, it is normally the cpu that's the bottleneck.

All I'm trying to say there is "Yes you've all had a nice upgrade path for the last 5 years, but the chipset is showing it's age and you shouldn't expect it to continue and if it does be aware that further generations of 6 core AMD's may tax the underlaying design".

Quote:

---

besides this, Intels Quickpath technology is almost a direct copy of the HT bus from AMD, so you could say Intel was very slow to implement such an old method.

---

I did.

I also pointed out that,that has very little to do with the arguement.

Quote:

---

Chipsets for AMD systems mostly control PCI-e bandwidth, USB and is the HDD controller, none of this in the chipset is slower or has less bandwidth then Intels current flagship chipset for desktop the X58,

---

My applogies for the slip up then. When I was writting that I was thinking along the lines of how you can adjust the available memory bandwidth on the Intel boards via the bios and I assumed mentally that you would be able to raise this as well on the AMD ones. That's what I ment by the chipset ability. If the Cpu to memory bandwidth is locked out then it's just another negitive.

Quote:

---

actually AMD chipset already natively support USB 3.0 while you need to add another controler chip on an Intel system for USB 3.0 support, making it more expensive then needed.

---

USB 3 support will native with Sandybridge by the end of the year.

Quote:

---

Also nobody ever looked at what Intels CPU controlled PCI-e/MCH will have as effect in the future, when these hi-bandwidth protocols are fullly utilised in the near future. I don't expect we will still be able to utilise the full PCI-e 2.0 bandwidth and the 8,5GB/s memory bandwidth together pumped through the CPU.

---

It's a fair if not widely speculative question. I'm having trouble trying to think of any common combination that would max it out currently. We did pretty much manage it by attaching 2 dozern raided SSD drives via multiple pci-e controller a pair of qudro's and 24Gb's of memory and proceeded to run analyst software that was custom written for a oil drilling company. The speed of the data coming from the PCI-E buss bottle necked in the end.

Quote:

---

This is pure (and wild) speculation which has nothing to do with buying a system today.

---

Unless your drilling for oil

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

edit: Server/workstation; totally different ballgame?

---

maybe not. Have a look at AMD G34 chipset boards, for the price of a system based on the the topmodel Corei7 you can build a 24core (yes indeed: 24 cores) AMD system w. Also AMD server/WS boards widely support desktop operating systems in comparison to the Intel Xeon chipsets do not.

---

I know the AMD server chips are the better chips. That what I ment by a different ballgame. I really need to go and bench some AMD solutions now you mention it as last time I tried was a real lack of quiet coolers for Opteron boards.

Quote:

---

yes, Intel has the fastest chip/highest memory bandwidth, but only if you pay dearly for it. If like most of us you are on a certain budget you'd be plain stupid to discard AMD as a possible option. Even if someone representing a PC reseller recommends otherwise.

---

Currect.

Think I recall saying that already.

I love how everyone is having a go at me for simply answering a few previous comments.

Timeline of thread:

Yes I'm aware that he was asking how the AMD upgrades were going.

Johnny replyed in his ever so blunt and loverable fashion.

Dragonloops had a pop at him and stated some facts I don't agree with from personal experiance and testing.

The was some debate about facts.

This thread may have the topic about AMD but the original OP made it clear that he was upgrading from Intel and the was no cheap valid upgrade path in either direction.

Yes it would be cheaper to go AMD short term. But the reasoning that it'll save you money long term isn't a certainity. I was laying out the reasons and all of a sudden I've been turned into a spokesman for Intel to be burned at the stake.

Quote:

---

Edit2: Sorry I made a mistake, Quad CPU AMD boards are still a little expensive. For the price of Intels fastest desktop CPU + MB you can only get a 16 core AMD system and still save a few hundred euro's.

---

Hmmm....

G34 board is about £400
2.4Ghz 8 core Opteron 6136 is about £600

So 2 of those and one of those would be £1600
A 980X and a motherboard will cost about £1000

I'm not seeing a saving...

I'm honestly out of the loop on the Opterons as I've not tested any this year. This is because the was no suitable cooling to use them in the audio/video realm. I'll look into these again but I don't fancy my options with finding suitable cooling.

Quote:

---

Anyone already benched a dual 8-core Opteron vs the i7 980?

---

No but now you mention it, it's on my to do list somewhere in the next couple of weeks. Bare in mind through that a single 980X will absolutly flatten all the quad core Xeons in dual chip configurations. Even through Dual Xeons are lagging behind dual Opertrons the 980X may hold it's own. It'll be interesting to see anyhow.

Quote Vlaaing Peerd:

---

Peter seems to me a person that works for a system reseller that primarily sell Intel systems.

---

We'll sell what ever works best for the customer. If someone wants an AMD we'll build an AMD. If someone says "I need a machine to run this but I'm not sure which will be better" we'll bench a AMD and a Intel if required and establish that for them. Over the years we've developed solutions for AMD, Intel, ATI, Nvidia as well as testing and working on launchs with them.

We'll work with whoevers best at the given time as it's our customers we have to please.

Quote:

---

an AMD G34 system can fit on a normal ATX-form factor tower chassis, yes you have one cpu fan more, noise is however completely neglible and you are able to passively cool the CPU, provided you use a large (but very silent) case cooler.

---

Now that interests me. Passivly cooled server chips is a interesting idea but it would be very case dependent and it's find one of those that would be the pain.

Quote:

---

Don't get me wrong, I am a happy Intel user myself, but read the starters post, DG is on a budget, he needs to get the best performance he can get for thwe money he has to spend, is the i5 you mention a better performer then the AMD you can get for the same price? And you're all shooting off AMD based on vaguely described arguments from an Intel systems integrator?

Show me the benchmark, show me the price and I'll be happy to change my opinion.

---

Dawbench

i5 750

32 : 104
64 : 114
128 : 120
256 : 124

Amd 1090T Black

32 : 96
64 : 110
128 : 119
256 : 142

Parts used:

Intel

Intel Core i5 750 - £159.98
Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD3 - £109.92
Corsair XMS3 DDR3 PC3-12800 - 96.49

Total - 366.39

AMD

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition -£239.58
Gigabyte GA-870A-UD3 - £87.62
Corsair XMS3 DDR3 PC3-12800 - 96.49

Total - 423.69

And that folks is why I recommend Intel over AMD.

Quote:

---

and eh..oyea, server/workstation system is ridiculous for a DAW? what does the last letter of DAW stand for?

---

Heh. Fair comment. His point was is that they are normally too noisy to be suitable.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

Timeline of thread:

Yes I'm aware that he was asking how the AMD upgrades were going.

Johnny replyed in his ever so blunt and loverable fashion.

---

That make me chuckle

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Show me the benchmark, show me the price and I'll be happy to change my opinion.

---

Dawbench

i5 750

32 : 104
64 : 114
128 : 120
256 : 124

Amd 1090T Black

32 : 96
64 : 110
128 : 119
256 : 142

Parts used:

Intel

Intel Core i5 750 - £159.98
Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD3 - £109.92
Corsair XMS3 DDR3 PC3-12800 - 96.49

Total - 366.39

AMD

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition -£239.58
Gigabyte GA-870A-UD3 - £87.62
Corsair XMS3 DDR3 PC3-12800 - 96.49

Total - 423.69

And that folks is why I recommend Intel over AMD.

---

Thanks for clearing that up for us, Peter. Though I am a little at a loss as to exactly what those numbers represent.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

and eh..oyea, server/workstation system is ridiculous for a DAW? what does the last letter of DAW stand for?

---

Heh. Fair comment. His point was is that they are normally too noisy to be suitable.

---

Yeah. Also I think there would be less testing of audio software on multiprocessor machines.

Quote johnny h:

---

Thanks for clearing that up for us, Peter. Though I am a little at a loss as to exactly what those numbers represent.

---

Latency setting on the left and number of Reaxcomp instances on the right. Sorry I should have added identifiers above the figures.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

Quote table for two:

---

Haven't posted here for a while, mainly because left the IT game a while ago

---

Welcome back

---

Thanx Pete

Hope you are well.


I thought of posting a lengthy prose, then i remembered, and this thread reminded me, why i left IT, and also to an extent left this PC forum.
I wish i hadn't written that earlier post.

You know, if one system offers % more less than another It doesn't help improve our songwriting, our music making.
Neither does the acquisition of gigaybtes of sample libraries, softsynths, plugins..

I think we know material acquisition hinders our creative spirit ... which thrives on the non material, as well as simplicity within ourself ... uncultured unfettered.


We only need one instrument to express our heart.


............



This trend towards the "heavy" in tv, movie, ad scores has made the requirement for ever more powerful DAWs, larger and larger sample libraries, this n that soft synth, plugin.
Yet all of these are in a way redundant, when we just need a basic pc, basic gear to express the emotiveness of the visual, to express our soul.


And that's why my AMD quad is hardly ever used and is going to a good home.


............


At the same time the people who work in the DAW industry, the audio software industry, this is their livelihood, how they feed their families.
If everyone went simple it would be hard on them.


............



With regard to where AMD Intel are, it is a point of principle for me that i support the little guy, the underdog, who happen to have excellent products.
There are thousands of AMD employees whose families depend on AMD being in the market and doing well.

Also it is competition from the little guy, the innovations from the little guy that push the big guy to give better products, else the big guy would just give what it felt it should ... drip feed for most profit.

You know Peter we are going to have to watch you like a Hawk, firstly you would find that the AMD Quad would give pretty much the same bench... and then there is the mobo you use, one would think that because you are stuck on Intel, you are likewise stuck on Gigabyte... and have the same meal every night

The GA-870A-UD3 has a 870 chipset

Quote:

---

AMD's Turbo CORE technology is now available in 'Thuban' Phenom-II AM3 desktop processors, beginning with the 2.8GHz X6-1055T and 3.2GHz X6-1090T CPUs. Turbo CORE senses when three of the six processor cores are not in use, and automatically boosts the clock speed up to 500MHz. Paired with the AMD 890FX chipset found on ASUS' Crosshair-IV Formula ROG motherboard, the AMD Phenom-II X6-1090T Black Edition CPU can reach 4.0GHz on all six cores with an additional 4.3GHz Turbo CORE

---

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Quote DragonLogos:

---

You know Peter we are going to have to watch you like a Hawk, firstly you would find that the AMD Quad would give pretty much the same bench... and then there is the mobo you use, one would think that because you are stuck on Intel, you are likewise stuck on Gigabyte... and have the same meal every night

The GA-870A-UD3 has a 870 chipset

---

Have you ever been on robot wars by any chance?

No but I've been an IBM systems engineer for over twenty years and in the electronics trade for over thirty

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Quote:

---

Pete Kaine - The current 6 core AMD's not only have that bandwidth issue but the's a thermal throttle at around 80 degrees which hampered my testing whilst using a stock cooler (hell it hampered my testing whilst using an aftermarket one as well) so in a real world situation where the doesn't happen to be an air con the size of a large freezer hanging above the desk is anyone's guess

---

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-crosshair-iv-formula-review/

Quote:

---

The Crosshair IV Formula is the Mc Daddy of AMD 890FX motherboards, the alpha dog motherboards loaded with features like the aforementioned, but also USB 3.0, automated overclock switches ..and get this four PCIe x16 slots and even core unlock functionality by pressing a button.

The Crosshair IV Formula oozes with features and performance, the six-core Phenom II X6 processor review which you probably just read was overclocked towards 4.1 GHz on a cheapo CPU air-cooler .. based on this motherboard.

All in all we got a thing or two to tell ya .. show ya .. and explain to ya. Head on over to the next page, where we'll head deeply into the AMD 890 FX chipset and the ASUS Crosshair IV Formula motherboard that has the 890FX chipset embedded.

But first have a look at one of the most attractive looking motherboards of all time ...

---

I am not going to pull that image in... but everyone do yourselves a kindness, click on the link and have a look

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-crosshair-iv-formula-review/2

Quote:

---

New in the 890 FX chipset, is IOMMU support. Not something that the majority of you guys would be interested in but it allows for virtual addressing of memory by system devices. This enables devices to use their native drivers in a virtualized environment for enhanced performance. In a non-virtualized environment, IOMMU provides memory isolation and protection capabilities - device access to system memory is vetted by the IOMMU such that critical/unrelated memory information (e.g. kernel pages, protected content …) can be protected, leading overall to a more robust system. With an updated Hyperlink (revision 3) we now can connect to the SB850 chip with a well-appointed 2GB/sec bandwidth (full-duplex)

---

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-crosshair-iv-formula-review/3

Quote:

---

The Crosshair IV Formula deploys the latest chipset architecture from AMD, opening up the current performance CPUs on the market. Enabling processors to come into their own is exactly what a good motherboard does, and the new Crosshair achieves this in several ways—not least of which is ROG Connect, a built-in overclocking engine that maximizes benchmark scores by tuning and monitoring from a remote PC via USB, like a notebook. This way users can overclock while benchmarking, so all resources remain available to better performance. ROG Connect also serves as an in-depth monitoring tool—gearheads can easily obtain readings to see the effects mods such as overvolting have on their system.

ASUS and Republic of Gamers also announce Core Unlocker, an exclusive technology praised by worldwide media, to inject great value and performance into gaming setups. It’s well known that many CPUs come with multiple cores deactivated during fabrication, and Core Unlocker brings those back to life. Users simply have to press one button on the board and the AMD CPU placed in the socket goes through a physical scan in search of dormant cores. Dual core CPUs can become triple or quad in minutes, with obvious computing horsepower benefits

---

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Quote DragonLogos:

---

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-crosshair-iv-formula-review/3

Quote:

---

(snipped) A lot of AMD press releases

---

---

Did you not understand the audio benchmarks? AMD is slower and significantly more expensive! Especially under low latency settings.

Yeah I understand them, you also have to do your tests on the right board, the weakest link concept apples

Do you perhaps understand that only the i7 980X unlocks, and that is why it does what it does, the other i7s do not and neither do the i5s - But the AMD Dragons can - and not one of your i5s even come close to the unlocked Dragons... and yet you recommend the i5 - BTW as said before the i7s can use triple memory and have a good bandwidth rating because of that, it would mean putting in three two gig high end memory modules to get it... your i5 is only dual, and yet you still feel people should go that route - have faith, believe in a company that got nicked for dirty tricks, mind you they could win the EU anti trust appeal

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

I haven't even got into the audio side of it yet, maybe waiting for someone to say, yes but that's OK for gamers

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Wow,

Who needs MAC v PC when the AMDian lobby are around ?

@ Peter,

Take it from experience, no matter what evidence you present, when it involves AMD v Intel you will be opening yourself up to to this manner of melodrama, as people will always find their own truth.

I always find it entertaining when 3D and/or synthetic benchmarks are pulled out as some yardstick to how a chip is supposedly performing comparative in an audio application. They have never bared any resemblance , nor will they. The whole idea of developing the DAWbench incremental benchmark methodology was to get a better idea of audio specific scaling of the subsystems, and no matter how much hype and bubble is presented, the fact of the matter is that the AMD architecture is not on the same playing field as the current Intel architecture for audio specific application.

The AMD 6 cores are simply 2 extra cores bolted onto the existing sub system architecture that didn't have the required extra overhead to cater for the added I/O, whether that is the memory controller, the HT I/O subsystem or a combination isn't that important, the end results is the important factor here ,and the numbers do not stack up to anything but a hack and patch job IMO. Not to mention the throttling at 80 degrees and we don't really have much to be excited about.

The Intel 6 cores are a totally different beast, amble overhead available with the Tri Channel memory controller, no issue with the QPI overhead and temps that on a current Xeon W3680 I have on the bench at the moment are between 18-23 degrees at idle, and barely going above 40 at full throttle with an ambient room temp of about 15 degrees. The low latency scaling is pretty much a linear improvement going from 4 to 6 cores ( 8 to 12 threads ).

I wasn't expecting anything from these desktop variants from AMD as the Dual Socket Hexacore Opterons were a non event, the Magny-Cours that were mentioned earlier are an even bigger non event despite a huge amount of hype that was attempted a while back on the Nuendo forum, but when push came to shove they collapsed into a heap. That thread was interesting because the O.P is one the loudest opponents to my benchmarking methodology and refused to give it an inch, so he posted his own so called Real World benchmark where the Magny Cours were allegedly pummelling Dual Hexacore Xeons systems and he posted some comparable numbers from a 980X system to try and prove his point. When one of my clients with a single Quad W3520 Xeon system beat the 980X numbers by a factor of 4 X, and got within 50% of the Dual Magny-Cour results with 1 /8 the number of physical cores, the jig was up.

Do I hope AMD come back with a kicking chip to get some competition back, sure, but only to force Intel to drop the Hexacore prices , yeh I am biased, but I have good reason to be.. :-)

The Magny-Cour thread at Nuendo for those interested is Here

FWIW: The thread title has been changed and some heavy editing has taken place by the O.P after the initial claims fell flat. Most DAWbench commentary from that individual has been edited out or amended as well, in short , the Magny-Cours could not even get into double figures with the standard RXC bench at 064, not entirely sure why, but to be honest, not really interested in pursuing it.. :-)

Peace

Vin Curigliano
AAVIM Technology

--------------------
AAVIM Technology
DAWbench.com

Quote:

---

The AMD 6 cores are simply 2 extra cores bolted onto the existing sub system architecture

---

No... they are designed to work with the PCIe bus using DirectX 11 multicore handling, future developments in this area will prove very interesting

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Quote:

---

Take it from experience, no matter what evidence you present, when it involves AMD v Intel you will be opening yourself up to to this manner of melodrama, as people will always find their own truth.

---

Like Intel getting Nicked for a few Billion in Anti Trust by the EU - Settling out of court with AMD for 1.7 and facing another two big cases in the US - that sort of truth does lead to a bit of drama, not that you ever hear much from the shops that still sell Intel, Intel and Intel - In most other businesses this would cause a public backlash, but with the computer industry there is hardly a stir in the waters

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote:

---

Take it from experience, no matter what evidence you present, when it involves AMD v Intel you will be opening yourself up to to this manner of melodrama, as people will always find their own truth.

---

Like Intel getting Nicked for a few Billion in Anti Trust by the EU - Settling out of court with AMD for 1.7 and facing another two big cases in the US - that sort of truth does lead to a bit of drama, not that you ever hear much from the shops that still sell Intel, Intel and Intel - In most other businesses this would cause a public backlash, but with the computer industry there is hardly a stir in the waters

---

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm supposed to pay more for an slower, hotter chip now because Intel have been in court? AMD are a big company and no angels themselves, don't paint them as the moral guardians of the computer hardware world.

The fact is, when it comes to audio benchmarks in particular, AMD do not get close to the performance of Intel. They are also not cheap, have old technology and run hot. A few AMD press releases aren't going to change those facts. If only they spent some of there marketing budget on R&D perhaps we'd have a real choice, but we don't. Intel is by far the better choice.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote:

---

The AMD 6 cores are simply 2 extra cores bolted onto the existing sub system architecture

---

No... they are designed to work with the PCIe bus using DirectX 11 multicore handling, future developments in this area will prove very interesting

---

What ?

Explain how your proposed DX 11 Multicore handling.. ??, what ever that is supposed to mean, is going to benefit low latency audio performance and scalability , and specifically how it will favour AMD's architecture over Intels ?

Re your ongoing froth about industrial politics , if I had to consult a moral compass anytime I made decisions in regards to computer technology I would be using a Crusoe processor on Linux, but I understand that none of these guys are without blood on their hands, so this whole supporting the underdog rant is a bit of snore. When AMD had the performance lead they screwed their users to the wall , when Dell stepped up and moved away from being Intel exclusive and started offering AMD chips, AMD sucked the channel dry and promptly screwed their white box channel who had supported them previously , so save the melodrama. They are not the good guys by any stretch of the imagination.

V:

--------------------
AAVIM Technology
DAWbench.com

Quote DragonLogos:

---

You know Peter we are going to have to watch you like a Hawk, firstly you would find that the AMD Quad would give pretty much the same bench... and then there is the mobo you use, one would think that because you are stuck on Intel, you are likewise stuck on Gigabyte... and have the same meal every night

---

I use Gigabytes for the Intel builds because they use good components, have great support and have the required T.I. chipset. Before that I used mostly Abit for the same reasons.

I could use Asus or MSI as both perform fine on the current generation but they cost more if adding in another firewire card.

Are you suggesting I use a more expensive, less featured board simply becaue I'm seeming too Gigabytecentric?

DragonLogos Quote:

---

The GA-870A-UD3 has a 870 chipset

DragonLogos Quote:

---

AMD's Turbo CORE technology is now available in 'Thuban' Phenom-II AM3 desktop processors, beginning with the 2.8GHz X6-1055T and 3.2GHz X6-1090T CPUs. Turbo CORE senses when three of the six processor cores are not in use, and automatically boosts the clock speed up to 500MHz. Paired with the AMD 890FX chipset found on ASUS' Crosshair-IV Formula ROG motherboard, the AMD Phenom-II X6-1090T Black Edition CPU can reach 4.0GHz on all six cores with an additional 4.3GHz Turbo CORE

---

---

The benchs I ran were at stock clocks and turbo was turned off on both the AMD and Intel to ensure the playing field was level.

I've also run the tests with both of the chips running at 4GB and they scale as you'd expect. I don't see much validity in either as the amount of cooling you have to add to an audio system to get the 4GB makes them unfit for purpose.

The 870 chipset has a lower rated TDP which makes it more suitable than the 890 chipset for an audio build (AMD's own offical figures). It's missing Crossfire so the reduction in pci buss capability is irrelevent which is the biggest difference. From AMD's own specifications those are the biggest differences between the 890 and the 870. Nothing you've posted so far has convinced me that I've missed anything more relevent.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

DragonLogos Quote:

---

Pete Kaine - The current 6 core AMD's not only have that bandwidth issue but the's a thermal throttle at around 80 degrees which hampered my testing whilst using a stock cooler (hell it hampered my testing whilst using an aftermarket one as well) so in a real world situation where the doesn't happen to be an air con the size of a large freezer hanging above the desk is anyone's guess

---

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-crosshair-iv-formula-review/

DragonLogos Quote:

---

The Crosshair IV Formula is the Mc Daddy of AMD 890FX motherboards, the alpha dog motherboards loaded with features like the aforementioned, but also USB 3.0, automated overclock switches ..and get this four PCIe x16 slots and even core unlock functionality by pressing a button.

The Crosshair IV Formula oozes with features and performance, the six-core Phenom II X6 processor review which you probably just read was overclocked towards 4.1 GHz on a cheapo CPU air-cooler .. based on this motherboard.

All in all we got a thing or two to tell ya .. show ya .. and explain to ya. Head on over to the next page, where we'll head deeply into the AMD 890 FX chipset and the ASUS Crosshair IV Formula motherboard that has the 890FX chipset embedded.

But first have a look at one of the most attractive looking motherboards of all time ...

---

I am not going to pull that image in... but everyone do yourselves a kindness, click on the link and have a look

---

Not quite sure why posting up a gamers board is relevent. We do gaming rigs based around that board and chip combination and we do gaming rigs based around the Intel equlivent.

I do acturly use Asus board for gaming rigs as they overclock better and more stable than the Gigabytes if noise and heat isn't an issue.

For audio it is.

For instance to hold a stable 4GB on the Intel side an Asus board it takes around 1.375v to the CPU where the Gigabyte takes 1.325v. The difference is that Gigabyte tends to max out about there where the Intel will goto 4.2 on air or 4.6 on basic water.... so I use Asus where performance is required and Gigabyte where it is more important to keep heat down and the rig quiet.

The Crosshair formula board you listed we got samples for and did some machines based around it. Our Vision Black ships at 4GB and is a great gaming rig. Too hot and noisy for a audio box and the i7 930 rig for the same price beats it hands down in dawbench.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-crosshair-iv-formula-review/2

DragonLogos Quote:

---

New in the 890 FX chipset, is IOMMU support. Not something that the majority of you guys would be interested in but it allows for virtual addressing of memory by system devices. This enables devices to use their native drivers in a virtualized environment for enhanced performance. In a non-virtualized environment, IOMMU provides memory isolation and protection capabilities - device access to system memory is vetted by the IOMMU such that critical/unrelated memory information (e.g. kernel pages, protected content …) can be protected, leading overall to a more robust system. With an updated Hyperlink (revision 3) we now can connect to the SB850 chip with a well-appointed 2GB/sec bandwidth (full-duplex)

---

---

About time. The Intel chipsets have been able to do this since 2007 when it was introduced as part of the Bearlake chipset (X38).

Oh and the fact it's not got this on the 870 chipset makes not a jot of difference in testing as nothing on the southbridge will have an impact on the audio subsystem in DAWbench testing.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-crosshair-iv-formula-review/3

DragonLogos Quote:

---

The Crosshair IV Formula deploys the latest chipset architecture from AMD, opening up the current performance CPUs on the market. Enabling processors to come into their own is exactly what a good motherboard does, and the new Crosshair achieves this in several ways—not least of which is ROG Connect, a built-in overclocking engine that maximizes benchmark scores by tuning and monitoring from a remote PC via USB, like a notebook. This way users can overclock while benchmarking, so all resources remain available to better performance. ROG Connect also serves as an in-depth monitoring tool—gearheads can easily obtain readings to see the effects mods such as overvolting have on their system.

ASUS and Republic of Gamers also announce Core Unlocker, an exclusive technology praised by worldwide media, to inject great value and performance into gaming setups. It’s well known that many CPUs come with multiple cores deactivated during fabrication, and Core Unlocker brings those back to life. Users simply have to press one button on the board and the AMD CPU placed in the socket goes through a physical scan in search of dormant cores. Dual core CPUs can become triple or quad in minutes, with obvious computing horsepower benefits

---

---

ROG connect is simply what we do in Bios and the Bios on any board is the better way to tweak it, if you know what your doing.

Core unlocker is interesting but I wouldn't use it as standard. Chips get binned differenly for different reasons. We can't sell chips with unlocked cores as they wouldn't be warranted so it's a feature that doesn't apply to us on a commerical level. I'm not saying I wouldn't give it a try if it happened to be on a system I owned myself but its not a make or break feature of the chipset.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Yeah I understand them, you also have to do your tests on the right board, the weakest link concept apples

---

I can retest using the 890 based board if your convinced it's going to blow us all away, but nothing you've posted so far would make a squat of difference in the testing process.

DragonLogos Quote:

---

Do you perhaps understand that only the i7 980X unlocks, and that is why it does what it does, the other i7s do not and neither do the i5s

---

I'm not seeing the relevence. You can overclock any combination. The Gigabyte boards you seem to dislike acturly have a +1 to the multiplyer on all the Intel range to your i7 930 runs at 2.93 out of the box and if you want to get into overclocking then you can run at 3.6 without increasing the voltages. So that means you can run at 3.6 without any heat increase to the system.... so you can run them silently.

The Amd's start throttle at 80/85 degrees and you have to start raising the voltages a lot sooner.

DragonLogos Quote:

---

- But the AMD Dragons can - and not one of your i5s even come close to the unlocked Dragons... and yet you recommend the i5 - BTW as said before the i7s can use triple memory and have a good bandwidth rating because of that, it would mean putting in three two gig high end memory modules to get it... your i5 is only dual,

---

Point being? I benched Amd vs Intel. Amd lost. Nothing you've stated above will make any difference to the benchmarks for AMD. I can run the tests again with a 890 based board but I'm not seeing what the point would be.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

I haven't even got into the audio side of it yet, maybe waiting for someone to say, yes but that's OK for gamers

---

Think I did a few times up there.

Quote TAFKAT:

---

@ Peter,

Take it from experience, no matter what evidence you present, when it involves AMD v Intel you will be opening yourself up to to this manner of melodrama, as people will always find their own truth.

---

Yeah, not the first time I've experianced it, and I think I've acturly been on both sides of the tussle over the years. I enjoy a good debate sometimes through, even if it is pointless.

DragonLogos Quote:

---

I wasn't expecting anything from these desktop variants from AMD as the Dual Socket Hexacore Opterons were a non event, the Magny-Cours that were mentioned earlier are an even bigger non event despite a huge amount of hype that was attempted a while back on the Nuendo forum, but when push came to shove they collapsed into a heap.

---

Having just read that thread it may just save me some time...

What I will say about the Magnys are that they are awesome virtulisation boxes. That's what AMD designed them to be and that's what they do very well. You can take all your cores and run multiple virtualisation servers and pretty much run your whole business from a single rack unit.

Translating this to audio clients. What audio clients use virtualisation?

None.

What benfit does it give an audio user.

None.

So you've got 2 chips with 16 cores running at 1.8Ghz or for the same price 6 cores on a 980X running at 3.2Ghz (or 4Ghz if you so desire) and althrough you have less cores the raw clock speed makes it the better solution for the price.

DragonLogos Quote:

---

Do I hope AMD come back with a kicking chip to get some competition back, sure, but only to force Intel to drop the Hexacore prices

---

Same here. I stated that in my thread over at GS when I started in on the thread. I really belived the 1090t's were going to be awesome chips and great value for money for audio. They didn't prove to be.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

not that you ever hear much from the shops that still sell Intel, Intel and Intel - In most other businesses this would cause a public backlash, but with the computer industry there is hardly a stir in the waters

---

The Apple Store?



--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

Quote TAFKAT:

---

When AMD had the performance lead they screwed their users to the wall , when Dell stepped up and moved away from being Intel exclusive and started offering AMD chips, AMD sucked the channel dry and promptly screwed their white box channel who had supported them previously , so save the melodrama. They are not the good guys by any stretch of the imagination.

---

Hahahah fact. We did launch machines and development for them (AMD) for years and we still got screwed with stock shortages and inflated prices when they took the lead. For all the bitching that goes on about Intel, Amd when given an Inch will take a mile.

As such (and I'll state this again) we don't take sides. We'll do R&D with either firm and we do special projects for both all the time. End of the day through it's a business for everyone and given the option all firms will get away with what they can get away with.

This isn't due to dirty tatics this is down to capitalism. If you have an issue with it then the's going to be far bigger issues in your life than Intel and Amd catfighting about things.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

My conclusions so far:

1 - Both firms make good products, and both have dedicated supporters.

2 - Intel's processors are better suited to 'power user' audio production, but either would probably be fine for my needs.

3 - Pete knows his stuff. Don't bother trying to catch him out.

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

Having just read that thread it may just save me some time...

What I will say about the Magnys are that they are awesome virtulisation boxes. That's what AMD designed them to be and that's what they do very well. You can take all your cores and run multiple virtualisation servers and pretty much run your whole business from a single rack unit.

---

Hey Pete,

I understand where the Magny -Cours can be of benefit, whether they are any better than a Dual Hexacore Xeon with Hyperthreading for virtualisation would be the bigger question, but that isn't of any interest to me to be honest. For audio workstation use there seems to be some serious arbitration issues in the areas that we are focused. It doesn't help that AMD send out overzealous shills with flawed data to try and muddy the waters until someone comes along and drops the veil so to speak.

The problem with all of this posturing from the AMD camp is that they seem to forget that the core execution on the chips is still the same, and unless they dramatically improve that key area, throwing added cores isn't going to amount to much, past .., hmmm, posturing.. :-)

I have a feeling that no matter what they have up their sleeve, Intel have them more than covered.., now to get the prices sorted.

Oh BTW: seeing "unlocked" chips keeps popping up here as a point of contention, replace the i5 750 with the new i7 875K in that argument and the point is mute. A little more than an 860, cheaper than an 870- go figure , unlocked multiplier , and would easily account for anything a 1090T could throw up... :-)

Peace

V:

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

Quote DragonLogos:

---

You know Peter we are going to have to watch you like a Hawk, firstly you would find that the AMD Quad would give pretty much the same bench... and then there is the mobo you use, one would think that because you are stuck on Intel, you are likewise stuck on Gigabyte... and have the same meal every night

---

I use Gigabytes for the Intel builds because they use good components, have great support and have the required T.I. chipset. Before that I used mostly Abit for the same reasons.

I could use Asus or MSI as both perform fine on the current generation but they cost more if adding in another firewire card.

Are you suggesting I use a more expensive, less featured board simply becaue I'm seeming too Gigabytecentric?

DragonLogos Quote:

---

The GA-870A-UD3 has a 870 chipset

DragonLogos Quote:

---

AMD's Turbo CORE technology is now available in 'Thuban' Phenom-II AM3 desktop processors, beginning with the 2.8GHz X6-1055T and 3.2GHz X6-1090T CPUs. Turbo CORE senses when three of the six processor cores are not in use, and automatically boosts the clock speed up to 500MHz. Paired with the AMD 890FX chipset found on ASUS' Crosshair-IV Formula ROG motherboard, the AMD Phenom-II X6-1090T Black Edition CPU can reach 4.0GHz on all six cores with an additional 4.3GHz Turbo CORE

---

---

The benchs I ran were at stock clocks and turbo was turned off on both the AMD and Intel to ensure the playing field was level.

I've also run the tests with both of the chips running at 4GB and they scale as you'd expect. I don't see much validity in either as the amount of cooling you have to add to an audio system to get the 4GB makes them unfit for purpose.

The 870 chipset has a lower rated TDP which makes it more suitable than the 890 chipset for an audio build (AMD's own offical figures). It's missing Crossfire so the reduction in pci buss capability is irrelevent which is the biggest difference. From AMD's own specifications those are the biggest differences between the 890 and the 870. Nothing you've posted so far has convinced me that I've missed anything more relevent.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

DragonLogos Quote:

---

Pete Kaine - The current 6 core AMD's not only have that bandwidth issue but the's a thermal throttle at around 80 degrees which hampered my testing whilst using a stock cooler (hell it hampered my testing whilst using an aftermarket one as well) so in a real world situation where the doesn't happen to be an air con the size of a large freezer hanging above the desk is anyone's guess

---

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-crosshair-iv-formula-review/

DragonLogos Quote:

---

The Crosshair IV Formula is the Mc Daddy of AMD 890FX motherboards, the alpha dog motherboards loaded with features like the aforementioned, but also USB 3.0, automated overclock switches ..and get this four PCIe x16 slots and even core unlock functionality by pressing a button.

The Crosshair IV Formula oozes with features and performance, the six-core Phenom II X6 processor review which you probably just read was overclocked towards 4.1 GHz on a cheapo CPU air-cooler .. based on this motherboard.

All in all we got a thing or two to tell ya .. show ya .. and explain to ya. Head on over to the next page, where we'll head deeply into the AMD 890 FX chipset and the ASUS Crosshair IV Formula motherboard that has the 890FX chipset embedded.

But first have a look at one of the most attractive looking motherboards of all time ...

---

I am not going to pull that image in... but everyone do yourselves a kindness, click on the link and have a look

---

Not quite sure why posting up a gamers board is relevent. We do gaming rigs based around that board and chip combination and we do gaming rigs based around the Intel equlivent.

I do acturly use Asus board for gaming rigs as they overclock better and more stable than the Gigabytes if noise and heat isn't an issue.

For audio it is.

For instance to hold a stable 4GB on the Intel side an Asus board it takes around 1.375v to the CPU where the Gigabyte takes 1.325v. The difference is that Gigabyte tends to max out about there where the Intel will goto 4.2 on air or 4.6 on basic water.... so I use Asus where performance is required and Gigabyte where it is more important to keep heat down and the rig quiet.

The Crosshair formula board you listed we got samples for and did some machines based around it. Our Vision Black ships at 4GB and is a great gaming rig. Too hot and noisy for a audio box and the i7 930 rig for the same price beats it hands down in dawbench.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-crosshair-iv-formula-review/2

DragonLogos Quote:

---

New in the 890 FX chipset, is IOMMU support. Not something that the majority of you guys would be interested in but it allows for virtual addressing of memory by system devices. This enables devices to use their native drivers in a virtualized environment for enhanced performance. In a non-virtualized environment, IOMMU provides memory isolation and protection capabilities - device access to system memory is vetted by the IOMMU such that critical/unrelated memory information (e.g. kernel pages, protected content …) can be protected, leading overall to a more robust system. With an updated Hyperlink (revision 3) we now can connect to the SB850 chip with a well-appointed 2GB/sec bandwidth (full-duplex)

---

---

About time. The Intel chipsets have been able to do this since 2007 when it was introduced as part of the Bearlake chipset (X38).

Oh and the fact it's not got this on the 870 chipset makes not a jot of difference in testing as nothing on the southbridge will have an impact on the audio subsystem in DAWbench testing.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-crosshair-iv-formula-review/3

DragonLogos Quote:

---

The Crosshair IV Formula deploys the latest chipset architecture from AMD, opening up the current performance CPUs on the market. Enabling processors to come into their own is exactly what a good motherboard does, and the new Crosshair achieves this in several ways—not least of which is ROG Connect, a built-in overclocking engine that maximizes benchmark scores by tuning and monitoring from a remote PC via USB, like a notebook. This way users can overclock while benchmarking, so all resources remain available to better performance. ROG Connect also serves as an in-depth monitoring tool—gearheads can easily obtain readings to see the effects mods such as overvolting have on their system.

ASUS and Republic of Gamers also announce Core Unlocker, an exclusive technology praised by worldwide media, to inject great value and performance into gaming setups. It’s well known that many CPUs come with multiple cores deactivated during fabrication, and Core Unlocker brings those back to life. Users simply have to press one button on the board and the AMD CPU placed in the socket goes through a physical scan in search of dormant cores. Dual core CPUs can become triple or quad in minutes, with obvious computing horsepower benefits

---

---

ROG connect is simply what we do in Bios and the Bios on any board is the better way to tweak it, if you know what your doing.

Core unlocker is interesting but I wouldn't use it as standard. Chips get binned differenly for different reasons. We can't sell chips with unlocked cores as they wouldn't be warranted so it's a feature that doesn't apply to us on a commerical level. I'm not saying I wouldn't give it a try if it happened to be on a system I owned myself but its not a make or break feature of the chipset.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Yeah I understand them, you also have to do your tests on the right board, the weakest link concept apples

---

I can retest using the 890 based board if your convinced it's going to blow us all away, but nothing you've posted so far would make a squat of difference in the testing process.

DragonLogos Quote:

---

Do you perhaps understand that only the i7 980X unlocks, and that is why it does what it does, the other i7s do not and neither do the i5s

---

I'm not seeing the relevence. You can overclock any combination. The Gigabyte boards you seem to dislike acturly have a +1 to the multiplyer on all the Intel range to your i7 930 runs at 2.93 out of the box and if you want to get into overclocking then you can run at 3.6 without increasing the voltages. So that means you can run at 3.6 without any heat increase to the system.... so you can run them silently.

The Amd's start throttle at 80/85 degrees and you have to start raising the voltages a lot sooner.

DragonLogos Quote:

---

- But the AMD Dragons can - and not one of your i5s even come close to the unlocked Dragons... and yet you recommend the i5 - BTW as said before the i7s can use triple memory and have a good bandwidth rating because of that, it would mean putting in three two gig high end memory modules to get it... your i5 is only dual,

---

Point being? I benched Amd vs Intel. Amd lost. Nothing you've stated above will make any difference to the benchmarks for AMD. I can run the tests again with a 890 based board but I'm not seeing what the point would be.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

I haven't even got into the audio side of it yet, maybe waiting for someone to say, yes but that's OK for gamers

---

Think I did a few times up there.

Quote TAFKAT:

---

@ Peter,

Take it from experience, no matter what evidence you present, when it involves AMD v Intel you will be opening yourself up to to this manner of melodrama, as people will always find their own truth.

---

Yeah, not the first time I've experianced it, and I think I've acturly been on both sides of the tussle over the years. I enjoy a good debate sometimes through, even if it is pointless.

DragonLogos Quote:

---

I wasn't expecting anything from these desktop variants from AMD as the Dual Socket Hexacore Opterons were a non event, the Magny-Cours that were mentioned earlier are an even bigger non event despite a huge amount of hype that was attempted a while back on the Nuendo forum, but when push came to shove they collapsed into a heap.

---

Having just read that thread it may just save me some time...

What I will say about the Magnys are that they are awesome virtulisation boxes. That's what AMD designed them to be and that's what they do very well. You can take all your cores and run multiple virtualisation servers and pretty much run your whole business from a single rack unit.

Translating this to audio clients. What audio clients use virtualisation?

None.

What benfit does it give an audio user.

None.

So you've got 2 chips with 16 cores running at 1.8Ghz or for the same price 6 cores on a 980X running at 3.2Ghz (or 4Ghz if you so desire) and althrough you have less cores the raw clock speed makes it the better solution for the price.

DragonLogos Quote:

---

Do I hope AMD come back with a kicking chip to get some competition back, sure, but only to force Intel to drop the Hexacore prices

---

Same here. I stated that in my thread over at GS when I started in on the thread. I really belived the 1090t's were going to be awesome chips and great value for money for audio. They didn't prove to be.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

not that you ever hear much from the shops that still sell Intel, Intel and Intel - In most other businesses this would cause a public backlash, but with the computer industry there is hardly a stir in the waters

---

The Apple Store?

---

You know Pete it would be really nice if when you quote me as saying something, it is someting I said (and not the Calamari Kid) - bit like putting words in my mouth - as said, have to watch you like a Hawk - I have had a full day running around trying to get a concert ready, but will be glad to put things right, The MSI 890 might be a better option BTW

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Quote TAFKAT:

---

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote:

---

The AMD 6 cores are simply 2 extra cores bolted onto the existing sub system architecture

---

No... they are designed to work with the PCIe bus using DirectX 11 multicore handling, future developments in this area will prove very interesting

---

What ?

Explain how your proposed DX 11 Multicore handling.. ??, what ever that is supposed to mean, is going to benefit low latency audio performance and scalability , and specifically how it will favour AMD's architecture over Intels ?

V:

---

With a PCIe Sound Card

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

Quote TAFKAT:

---

When AMD had the performance lead they screwed their users to the wall , when Dell stepped up and moved away from being Intel exclusive and started offering AMD chips, AMD sucked the channel dry and promptly screwed their white box channel who had supported them previously , so save the melodrama. They are not the good guys by any stretch of the imagination.

---

Hahahah fact. We did launch machines and development for them (AMD) for years and we still got screwed with stock shortages and inflated prices when they took the lead. For all the bitching that goes on about Intel, Amd when given an Inch will take a mile.

As such (and I'll state this again) we don't take sides. We'll do R&D with either firm and we do special projects for both all the time. End of the day through it's a business for everyone and given the option all firms will get away with what they can get away with.

This isn't due to dirty tatics this is down to capitalism. If you have an issue with it then the's going to be far bigger issues in your life than Intel and Amd catfighting about things.

---

If you have the time:

Full Article

http://www.dragonlogos.co.uk/soapbox/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=31

Quote:

---

Part 2 - Heads you win, tails I lose

by Paul Wiggins on Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:42 pm

A vital component in this whole issue is how businesses operate. The issue of a win /lose strategy highlights the fundamental error in laissez-faire (let it be) capitalism, which is that a win /lose strategy is not sustainable.

The wisdom of the ages tells us of such folly, with concepts such as Karma, do unto others etc. It has even been proved mathematical by economic Nobel Laureate John Forbes Nash Jr. Ph.D (Princeton) – It has been proved time after time that a win /lose strategy does not work and yet people still persist with it, perhaps it has some deep rooted sentimental value of the childhood quick fix, but it is the time to put away these things - The French revolution. Enron and the collapse of the US Auto industry and Banking. Boom and bust is fine, it is in fact a bit like nature, but when it gets out of hand there are always going to be problems


A while back someone commented that when a company took advantage of a its monopoly it was only doing what any other business would do serves to highlight the perception of some businesses and to perhaps even at some point to sanction such behaviour, the idea of a free market without any controls is like a car without brakes, competition commissions and regulatory bodies are there to get people to act in a responsible manner, to put it bluntly.... grow up


Its is very much like trying to win at Tic-Tac–Toe (noughts and crosses) – and reminds me of the film War Games, except that it is we the people that need to know that there is no way of winning. The only way that you are going to win is when someone is new to the game, perhaps this is the great motivation for keeping people in the dark, like guessing which shell the pea is under… if the pea is in the palm of the hand you will never find it, once you know the nature of the trick the game is up, same goes when you work your way through all the rules… a bit like fighting a ink squirting Octopus


While some have become addicted to profits and easy money which are by their very nature self defeating and predatory, it might come as a surprise that the same capital could be achieved in a win /win strategy – It is important that business realise this and get on with the business of profits through innovation and hard work.


When resources run down there comes a point where greed becomes a burden society can no longer afford

Links and quotes:

John Forbes Nash Jr. Ph.D (Princeton) Nobel Laureate in Economics - game theory, differential geometry - equilibrium theory 28 page dissertation on non-cooperative games. The thesis, which was written under the supervision of Albert W. Tucker, contained the definition and properties of what would later be called the "Nash Equilibrium".


His most famous work in pure mathematics is the Nash embedding theorem, which shows that any abstract Riemannian manifold can be isometrically realized as a submanifold of Euclidean space. He made contributions to the theory of nonlinear parabolic partial differential equations, and to singularity theory


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.

---

Guess these days its Do one to others before they do one to you

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote:

---

Take it from experience, no matter what evidence you present, when it involves AMD v Intel you will be opening yourself up to to this manner of melodrama, as people will always find their own truth.

---

Like Intel getting Nicked for a few Billion in Anti Trust by the EU - Settling out of court with AMD for 1.7 and facing another two big cases in the US - that sort of truth does lead to a bit of drama, not that you ever hear much from the shops that still sell Intel, Intel and Intel - In most other businesses this would cause a public backlash, but with the computer industry there is hardly a stir in the waters

---

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm supposed to pay more for an slower, hotter chip now because Intel have been in court? AMD are a big company and no angels themselves, don't paint them as the moral guardians of the computer hardware world.

The fact is, when it comes to audio benchmarks in particular, AMD do not get close to the performance of Intel. They are also not cheap, have old technology and run hot. A few AMD press releases aren't going to change those facts. If only they spent some of there marketing budget on R&D perhaps we'd have a real choice, but we don't. Intel is by far the better choice.

---

Have you got any technical qualifications, or do you just play around with things... perhaps you are a iHaft Kabac - wrote a song about them, would you like to here it?

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote TAFKAT:

---

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote:

---

The AMD 6 cores are simply 2 extra cores bolted onto the existing sub system architecture

---

No... they are designed to work with the PCIe bus using DirectX 11 multicore handling, future developments in this area will prove very interesting

---

What ?

Explain how your proposed DX 11 Multicore handling.. ??, what ever that is supposed to mean, is going to benefit low latency audio performance and scalability , and specifically how it will favour AMD's architecture over Intels ?

V:

---

With a PCIe Sound Card

---

?

Did you read the question I posted, how is your response in any way in respect to what I asked ?

Quote johnny h:

---

Intel is by far the better choice.

---

always with the Intel - love and kisses to Intel 24/7. johnny h really loves these guys.

I have an AMD system. it works well! has done for four years now with zero problems - cept it runs hot ( fan noise) i have it located in a 'server room' (the kitchen).
The dog pissed on it again the other day - still works!

--------------------
.. is this thing on?

Quote TAFKAT:

---

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote TAFKAT:

---

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote:

---

The AMD 6 cores are simply 2 extra cores bolted onto the existing sub system architecture

---

No... they are designed to work with the PCIe bus using DirectX 11 multicore handling, future developments in this area will prove very interesting

---

What ?

Explain how your proposed DX 11 Multicore handling.. ??, what ever that is supposed to mean, is going to benefit low latency audio performance and scalability , and specifically how it will favour AMD's architecture over Intels ?

V:

---

With a PCIe Sound Card

---

?

Did you read the question I posted, how is your response in any way in respect to what I asked ?

---

AMD with there work with ATI Developed a system of letting two core of a muti core CPU work directly with the PCIe bus, now normally you would think... ahh yes this is for display cards and therefore a gamer issue, as you are aware mothers now have few PCI and up to Five PCIe - Intel's delay in Larrabee should show you the state of play, AMD on the other hand are good to go

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Even Nostradamus Dissed Intel

--------------------
www.dragonlogos.co.uk

Quote DragonLogos:

---

AMD with there work with ATI Developed a system of letting two core of a muti core CPU work directly with the PCIe bus..

---

Right, so lets see the detail and explain how its going to be a direct benefit for audio over the current DMI PCIe /QPI / HT interconnect that we currently have !

So we loose availability of multiple cores to the O.S MP task scheduling to buy what exactly ?

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote:

---

Take it from experience, no matter what evidence you present, when it involves AMD v Intel you will be opening yourself up to to this manner of melodrama, as people will always find their own truth.

---

Like Intel getting Nicked for a few Billion in Anti Trust by the EU - Settling out of court with AMD for 1.7 and facing another two big cases in the US - that sort of truth does lead to a bit of drama, not that you ever hear much from the shops that still sell Intel, Intel and Intel - In most other businesses this would cause a public backlash, but with the computer industry there is hardly a stir in the waters

---

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm supposed to pay more for an slower, hotter chip now because Intel have been in court? AMD are a big company and no angels themselves, don't paint them as the moral guardians of the computer hardware world.

The fact is, when it comes to audio benchmarks in particular, AMD do not get close to the performance of Intel. They are also not cheap, have old technology and run hot. A few AMD press releases aren't going to change those facts. If only they spent some of there marketing budget on R&D perhaps we'd have a real choice, but we don't. Intel is by far the better choice.

---

Have you got any technical qualifications, or do you just play around with things...

---

I don't fabricate computer chips but I can read benchmarks and price lists, and it is extremely easy to conclude that right now, in this moment in time, a reasonably priced intel i7 will easily outperform a similarly priced AMD system. No amount of smoke and mirrors about unused graphics functions and the endless regurgitating of AMD press releases will change that extremely important fact.

Quote:

---

perhaps you are a iHaft Kabac - wrote a song about them, would you like to here it?

---

Sure, send me a link.

Quote Stan:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Intel is by far the better choice.

---

always with the Intel - love and kisses to Intel 24/7. johnny h really loves these guys.

I have an AMD system. it works well! has done for four years now with zero problems - cept it runs hot ( fan noise) i have it located in a 'server room' (the kitchen).
The dog pissed on it again the other day - still works!

---

Dogs have an instinct about these things. No dog has never pissed on my Intel system, despite having ample opportunity to do so. I'm not going to draw any conclusions about this, but as people on here say all the time, its "food for thought".

Quote DragonLogos:

---

You know Pete it would be really nice if when you quote me as saying something, it is someting I said (and not the Calamari Kid) - bit like putting words in my mouth - as said, have to watch you like a Hawk - I have had a full day running around trying to get a concert ready, but will be glad to put things right,

---

*!&*

Sorry. Copy and paste of quotation marks failure.

DragonLogos Quote:

---

The MSI 890 might be a better option BTW

---

Ok, I'll add that to todo list.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote TAFKAT:

---

Quote DragonLogos:

---

No... they are designed to work with the PCIe bus using DirectX 11 multicore handling, future developments in this area will prove very interesting

---

What ?

Explain how your proposed DX 11 Multicore handling.. ??, what ever that is supposed to mean, is going to benefit low latency audio performance and scalability , and specifically how it will favour AMD's architecture over Intels ?

---

With a PCIe Sound Card

---

Kinda sounds good in theory assuming no one screws the pooch driver wise and more PCIe procards start doing the rounds. We'll have to wait and see on how this affects Dpc results and processor handling of other items at the same time.

Quote TAFKAT:

---

Quote DragonLogos:

---

AMD with there work with ATI Developed a system of letting two core of a muti core CPU work directly with the PCIe bus..

---

Right, so lets see the detail and explain how its going to be a direct benefit for audio over the current DMI PCIe /QPI / HT interconnect that we currently have !

So we loose availability of multiple cores to the O.S MP task scheduling to buy what exactly ?

---

Also that makes just as much sense. Only time will tell.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

*snip*
Guess these days its Do one to others before they do one to you

---

Hasn't it always been the case. Survial of the fittest.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

I'm writing this on an HP Pavilion 9420us laptop with AMD Turion 64x2 CPUs running Vista Home Premium on 4GB RAM and a couple of 120GB HD's that are partitioned C: Windows OS + HP Recovery and D: Data (incl. Cubase projects of course). It cost me $1100 in the US about two years ago. I've been using Cubase 4/5 and a Tascam US-122 to record and replay but have had remarkable results using the on-board Conexant soundcard using ASIO4ALL as the driver. This is an entertainment model with a v. bright 17" screen.
Apart from the overheating problems this model has and typically only 2-hr battery life when editing and playing back, this CPU and OS combo has been amazingly successful.

Quote fizzazz:

---

I'm writing this on an HP Pavilion 9420us laptop with AMD Turion 64x2 CPUs running Vista Home Premium on 4GB RAM and a couple of 120GB HD's that are partitioned C: Windows OS + HP Recovery and D: Data (incl. Cubase projects of course). It cost me $1100 in the US about two years ago. I've been using Cubase 4/5 and a Tascam US-122 to record and replay but have had remarkable results using the on-board Conexant soundcard using ASIO4ALL as the driver. This is an entertainment model with a v. bright 17" screen.
Apart from the overheating problems this model has and typically only 2-hr battery life when editing and playing back, this CPU and OS combo has been amazingly successful.

---

Hmm sounds great, apart from the overheating problems and 2hr battery life

Quote DragonLogos:

---

The MSI 890 might be a better option BTW

---

We're not holding stock of the MSI this week it seems so I benched the Asus Crosshair IV Formula that you provided the links to further up thread.

Dawbench results.

890 Platform - Crosshair formula / 1090T Black edition / Corsair 1333Mhz 9-9-9-24

Latency : Instances

32 : 96
64 : 102
128 : 132
256 : 140

870 Platform - Gigabyte GA-870A-UD3 / 1090T Black Edition / Corsair 1333Mhz 9-9-9-24


Latency : Instances

32 : 96
64 : 110
128 : 119
256 : 142

1156 Platform - Gigabyte P55A UD3 / i5 750 / Corsair 1333Mhz 9-9-9-24

Latency : Instances

32 : 104
64 : 114
128 : 120
256 : 124

So no sizable difference between 870 and 890 for audio use.
Both still give less performance at the price point vs Intel.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

Quote DragonLogos:

---

The MSI 890 might be a better option BTW

---

*snip*
So no sizable difference between 870 and 890 for audio use.
Both still give less performance at the price point vs Intel.

---

Out of interest Peter, what is the ideal price/performance mb+cpu combination you recommend for audio use? How much faster would it be than say, a Q6600?

I'm tempted to wait until 6 or 8 core intels became affordable - how long do you think this is likely to be?