Hello,

AMD has released it's new CPU line. The architecture is very different to everything before and is called Bulldozer. All the reviews I have seen so far say that the top of the line chip is with most applications merely on par with a fast Intel i5, but usually the i7 2600k beats it hands down.
Some exceptions exist though and those usually are of the creative app kind.

Unfortunately though I haven't found any review yet that puts it though its paces using professional music production software.

Does anyone know about such a benchmark?

munichlondon

Some results Here

Its not pretty.

V:

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

Thank you very much, but unfortunately this is not about the FX-8150 but a lower spec'd chip. On the other hand it led me to this review:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/1

...where part of the conclusion goes like this:
"For the guys that use their PC for content creation and video transcoding, well this processor kicks in very nicely, and for a reasonable price you get impressive multi-threaded performance."

What I am wondering now is how much current DAWs benefit from "impressive multi-threaded performance". Do 8 AMD integer cores outperform 4 Intel ones? At a lower price? Or does one have to bite the bullet and wait for Sandy Bridge - E and have 6 cores plus the benefit of more and faster RAM?

Quote munichlondon:

---

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/1

...where part of the conclusion goes like this:
"For the guys that use their PC for content creation and video transcoding, well this processor kicks in very nicely, and for a reasonable price you get impressive multi-threaded performance."

What I am wondering now is how much current DAWs benefit from "impressive multi-threaded performance". Do 8 AMD integer cores outperform 4 Intel ones? At a lower price? Or does one have to bite the bullet and wait for Sandy Bridge - E and have 6 cores plus the benefit of more and faster RAM?

---

We saw the same thing with Phanoms where in they did great at transcoding, and video media in all of the published benchmarks, but in audio testing they came up very, very short. Seeing as AMD & ATI are the same firm I can't help but feel they do some interesting weighting for video in the driver sets than make these look better than they are (both ATI and Nvidia have a history of this...).

I'm going to bench one at some point soon and do a spec around one, but I'm not holding my breath for even a second. Far more intrested in finally pulling the SB Ex from under the bench finally and kicking the hell out of that for a few days at this point.

In answer to the 8 cores to 4 cores question, the AMD's are being crippled by the shared cache betweens cores (from the feedback I've had) which seems quite daft in all honestly.... but once you start to look at it in that light, it's no different from hyperthreading even if the cores themselves are physical rather than virtual.

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

> In answer to the 8 cores to 4 cores question, the AMD's are being crippled by the shared cache betweens cores (from the feedback I've had).

That's minor in the grand scheme of things and the least of AMD's worries!

How about horribly high cache latency, massively long CPU pipeline, horrible AVX performance, shared FPUs and ineffective Windows scheduling. The worst thing is how far AMD really are behind.

And the future was looking so bright...

Well if we're lucky, it'll turn into AMD's "Prescott" and it'll force them into finally investing in a new chipset and way of doing things on the die.

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

I see, thank you very much for contributing to this Pete.

Luckily my system update is not due until Spring/Summer 2012. I hope that at that time I can chose between SB-E (more cores, more RAM), Ivy Bridge (22nm -> higher clocks, native USB 3) and Piledriver (better efficiency, more single threat power, maybe more optimized software).

I am really looking forward to that!

munichlondon

> Well if we're lucky, it'll turn into AMD's "Prescott" and it'll force them into finally investing in a new chipset and way of doing things on the die.

Well, the problem isn't just that they're slower, but that they're SO much slower than Intel. They've predicting a 10-15% performance increase per year, not good when you're already so far behind.

I think the P4 got the award for the longest pipelines in a CPU - and everyone danced around them - The BD pipelines are not 'massively long' were on earth did you see that, would like to see that link

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

Quote:

---

Well, the problem isn't just that they're slower, but that they're SO much slower than Intel.

---

Not really... look at the Guru 3D link in reply 3 - Some people have been taking chances with their testing, for example doing tests that exclude GPU results, which is done under the guise of getting to see what the CPU is really doing... ahh yes but the Intel they are test is not really a CPU is it, its a APU - it has a graphics engine on-board and you can see that this is the case because it (Intel) scores in DX 10.1 but falls flat on DX 11, that is because the HD Graphics 2000 and 3000 does not have DX 11 support

I'll agree with the lack of AVX handling

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote:

---

Well, the problem isn't just that they're slower, but that they're SO much slower than Intel.

---

Not really... look at the Guru 3D link in reply 3 - Some people have been taking chances with their testing, for example doing tests that exclude GPU results, which is done under the guise of getting to see what the CPU is really doing... ahh yes but the Intel they are test is not really a CPU is it, its a APU - it has a graphics engine on-board and you can see that this is the case because it (Intel) scores in DX 10.1 but falls flat on DX 11, that is because the HD Graphics 2000 and 3000 does not have DX 11 support

I'll agree with the lack of AVX handling

---

Ok well you can talk about APUs, DX 10.1, DX 11, AVX handling etc etc, but we're on the soundonsound forum, and currently AMD are offering extremely poor audio performance relative to Intel. Very disappointing. Bulldozer is a total flop.

AVX is needed for Audio BTW - seems some people are upset that Bulldozer is the fastest CPU in the World and has eight real cores rather than four cores and four imaginary friends

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

Due to the shared overhead AMD says one modul with two integer cores performs like 1.8 tradional integer cores compared to Intels Hyper Threading technology's 1.2 cores.

I once read somewhere that music applications are far more dependent on floating point performance than on integer. In that regards AMD also only features four cores (like i7 Intels), arguing that GPUs are far better at floating point calculation than CPUs anyway.

It seems to me that Bulldozer comes a little to early a little to slow. It expects developers to code their software not only as multi-threaded as possible on CPUs but also to make heavy use of GPGPU. Given that they produce a big chunk of todays GPUs this move is not surprising, but I still think a lot of applications aren't there yet.

The way I see it is that Multi core is the only thing to play for, CPU speeds are not going anywhere and even Intel have 24 Core Chips on the cards - it makes sense, MS and everyone else get to sell you a whole lot of new software... Maybe they can even do a Vista & ME with Windows 8 and do it all over with Win 9 - The last thing that they want is for people to hang onto XP, so something has to give

The New BD seems to be more bent in the Video /Photoshop /Server end of life, which suits me fine as Videos are more of what I do these days... as some people have noted the need to tweak your PC to get the last drop out of it is not that important because of the extra power that is there now, so if they are sitting with all this top end that never gets used why are they beating a stick on poor old AMD - then you get the word Future proof hissed at you, which often causes the younger ones to giggle cause they know that there ain't no such thing - a lot of the time its about sales, you never get chance to sit down and be comfortable, Records are out CDs are in, CDs out sell you MP3s - VCRs are out sell you DVDs, DVDs are out buy Bluray and so it goes

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

The way I see it is that Multi core is the only thing to play for, CPU speeds are not going anywhere and even Intel have 24 Core Chips on the cards - it makes sense, MS and everyone else get to sell you a whole lot of new software... Maybe they can even do a Vista & ME with Windows 8 and do it all over with Win 9 - The last thing that they want is for people to hang onto XP, so something has to give

The New BD seems to be more bent in the Video /Photoshop /Server end of life, which suits me fine as Videos are more of what I do these days... as some people have noted the need to tweak your PC to get the last drop out of it is not that important because of the extra power that is there now, so if they are sitting with all this top end that never gets used why are they beating a stick on poor old AMD - then you get the word Future proof hissed at you, which often causes the younger ones to giggle cause they know that there ain't no such thing - a lot of the time its about sales, you never get chance to sit down and be comfortable, Records are out CDs are in, CDs out sell you MP3s - VCRs are out sell you DVDs, DVDs are out buy Bluray and so it goes

---

You are going to quite extraordinary leaps of logic and reason to justify AMDs total failure. Their much hyped new cpu performs worse than Intel's old ones. And use more power, runs hotter and needs more noisy fans to control.

Quote:

---

You are going to quite extraordinary leaps of logic and reason to justify AMDs total failure. Their much hyped new cpu performs worse than Intel's old ones. And use more power, runs hotter and needs more noisy fans to control.

---

LOL - Nice try. Maybe try putting hard facts to your claims. Intel got jumped by AMD putting out the first desktop eight core, they also have the fastest CPU (Bulldozer) on the planet, so it looks very much like some people are putting the boot in - as explained above some of the benchmarks that Intel have scored so well on are because of its Graphics unit, this has been discussed and people that do tests know about it... or do they, either way by not even mentioning the fact it makes them look bad

Quote:

---

A lot of the time (in Guru 3D) the AMD is only beaten by the Extreme (and Very Expensive) 980x while in some tests the AMD beats it - The AMD performs well when over clocked and maybe they should take a page out of Intels book and start listing Benchmarks of the CPU clocked a 8 Gig

---

AMD Fusion vs i7 Demo

Quote:

---

The latest dust-up in the AMD-versus-Intel never-ending conflict concerns BAPCo, a consortium of tech companies that releases a set of benchmarks, including, most importantly, SYSmark. This week, AMD quit the BAPCo board

---

SYSmark be gone

AMD runs hot... where have I heard that before, you clearly did not read the Guru 3D review because then you would know you were wrong, as I know when someone is trying to provoke a response. You want to see hot try the P4 3.2 or its evil twin in socket 775 that needs a casing funnel and a system fan - If you want to debate issues its better to do so in a professional and factual manner

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

I used to be a bit of an AMD supporter, fanboy almost. Not as big as Dragonlogos clearly is.

AMD have fallen behind badly and are just chasing graphics. For a good time they had a clear lead in floating point performance which is what matters to us and they have lost that lead.

Having said that, the tables were the other way round back in the old Athlon Thunderbird vs Pentium 4 days - the P4 was getting hotter and less efficient and the Thunderbird was outperforming it in every test. But most people were still defending the lame duck Pentium with FUD like "software won't run on AMD chips!" and "they run too hot!" (they ran hotter idle but cooler under load where it counts) and "the motherboards are all sh*t and will cause lots of issues!" (true to an extent, but everyone knew what the good boards were, just some people kept deciding they wanted to go cheap and chance it).

--------------------
http://www.jeremycorbett.co.uk

I think I have said it a good few times, but perhaps its worth bringing it up again... as a person that fixes things and works on PCs for a living I am more interested on technical issues as apposed to those of manufacturers. However the advantage of having two (or more) players in any field is well known and there is little need to go there, however it seems to me that the tables have been stacked - Its not fair, where as a good few souls in the music industry will get up and shout out about the injustices in the world and call for boycotts and such, here you have a situation were a lot of people are just doing nothing

It does seem a bit suspect that this thread (AMD vs Intel) gets started as a first post - and would be unfair for me to carry on about the State of the CPU / APU nation - but it is something that needs to be addressed

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote:

---

You are going to quite extraordinary leaps of logic and reason to justify AMDs total failure. Their much hyped new cpu performs worse than Intel's old ones. And use more power, runs hotter and needs more noisy fans to control.

---

LOL - Nice try. Maybe try putting hard facts to your claims. Intel got jumped by AMD putting out the first desktop eight core, they also have the fastest CPU (Bulldozer) on the planet, so it looks very much like some people are putting the boot in - as explained above some of the benchmarks that Intel have scored so well on are because of its Graphics unit, this has been discussed and people that do tests know about it... or do they, either way by not even mentioning the fact it makes them look bad

---

Haha, so what if its got 8 cores? 8 dog slow cores? No thanks, I'll stick with Intel because its well over twice as fast and uses less power and heat. Hard facts you say? Perhaps try reading up the thread ... DAW benchmarks

Fanboy your way out of those numbers ...

> Intel got jumped by AMD putting out the first desktop eight core

With 4 floating point units (that perform worse than Intel)... Which applications need 8-core integer performance and only 4-core float performance?


> they also have the fastest CPU (Bulldozer) on the planet

So why didn't they release that Bulldozer instead of the one they did launch?


> some of the benchmarks that Intel have scored so well on are because of its Graphics unit

What about the the other ones?


> A lot of the time (in Guru 3D) the AMD is only beaten by the Extreme (and Very Expensive) 980x while in some tests the AMD beats it.

Of the 20 benchmarks on Guru3d, and the AMD was ahead of the 2600k TWICE, once by less than 1% in Handbrake, and the other in cryptography.

The rest of the time, Intel are ahead, and it's sometimes embarrassing (look at the double precision FPU test where a 2600k is over 50% faster).



> The AMD performs well when over clocked

Just not compared to an over clocked 2600k.


> and maybe they should take a page out of Intels book and start listing Benchmarks of the CPU clocked a 8 Gig

The can't list benchmarks at 8ghz because it couldn't run benchmarks at 8ghz.


> AMD runs hot... where have I heard that before, you clearly did not read the Guru 3D review because then you would know you were wrong, as I know when someone is trying to provoke a response. You want to see hot try the P4 3.2

The hottest 3.2ghz P4 had a TDP of 84 watts, the FX-8150 has a TDP of 125 watts. What this means is that under load an 8150 will generate about 50% more heat than the P4.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/power-consumption-fx-8150-v-i 5-2500k-v-i7-2600k/
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/10

Read one of these, then come back and claim AMD are competitive in terms of energy draw. The FX-8150 is much hotter than that 3.2ghz P4 you referred to.

Quote:

---

The hottest 3.2ghz P4 had a TDP of 84 watts, the FX-8150 has a TDP of 125 watts. What this means is that under load an 8150 will generate about 50% more heat than the P4.

---

You cannot seriously compare a old P4 TDP with that a FX 8150 - that would be like me trying to do the same with a 386 DX 40 - to even try and draw a comparison you would need to at least take the cores into account, so lets be generous and only x4 that gives your P4 a equivalent TDP of at least 340 - They also had a fan unit with 175 gram Copper core and 180 grams Aluminum... and they still ran HOT - BTW the first P4 referred to was Soc 478 - the same goes for the P4 640 (Soc 775) in fact that is the one that needed a case fan and funnel or else... but what did people hear, AMD chips run hot

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

Quote:

---

Perhaps try reading up the thread ... DAW benchmarks

---

That thread has already been posted, and replied to (it does not refer to the 8150)

If there is to be debate and maybe a bit of learning, then it would be a good idea to read what others have posted, including links they have made before commenting on them

If the 8150 is so bad on floating point were did this come from - In fact if you over clocked to 5 or 6 it might well beat the 980x

AMD 8150 vs Intel FPU

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

Quote:

---

So why didn't they release that Bulldozer instead of the one they did launch?

---

It is the Bulldozer that is the fastest CPU in the World... google Guinness Book of records fastest CPU - makes you think, maybe someone is up to their old tricks

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

> You cannot seriously compare a old P4 TDP with that a FX 8150

Errr, that's exactly what you just did. You specifically compared them and said that the P4 was the definition of hot. I put you straight and told you that the AMD is much hotter. You didn't compare cores, architecture,process or anything like that, just that if you wanted a definition of hot, it was the 3.2ghz P4, which actually consumes vastly less power than the AMD.


> - that would be like me trying to do the same with a 386 DX 40 - to even try and draw a comparison you would need to at least take the cores into account

Yeah, stupid comparison, but you were the one making them.


> They also had a fan unit with 175 gram Copper core and 180 grams Aluminum... and they still ran HOT

How much metal you have is no indicator of the ability to dissipate heat to the air, especially a core which isn't even intended to dissipate heat to the air. The P4 stock cooler didn't use heat pipes or any of the other modern techniques. It has no relevance to this discussion.

The FACT (despite your claims) is that the FX-8150 consumes VASTLY more heat under load than a 2600k despite offering abysmal performance. Actually look at that link Johnny (possibly the only time we'll ever see eye-to-eye) posted; the new AMD 6 core is performing WORSE than their previous generation in DAW code.

Edited by Dishpan (28/10/11 01:47 PM)

> It is the Bulldozer that is the fastest CPU in the World... google Guinness Book of records fastest CPU - makes you think, maybe someone is up to their old tricks

I try not to just google things as you often find inaccurate information, as you have just proven.

The Bulldozer does not have the Guinness record for world's fastest CPU, it has the record for "Highest Frequency of a Computer Processor".

And this was a CPU with only 2 cores enabled. In other words, less multi-threaded performance than the now shipping FX-8150.

My words were

Quote:

---

You want to see hot try the P4 3.2 or its evil twin in socket 775 that needs a casing funnel and a system fan

---

Where am I comparing this with an 8150 - Any chip without its heatsink will run hot, but these two beauty's were into heavy metal and still crawled to their max cut-off temperature - this was at a time when people would come up with the argument that AMD runs hot - in fact people still find the need to bring this up - The AMD has more cores and longer pipeline (not massively long BTW)

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps try reading up the thread ... DAW benchmarks

---

That thread has already been posted, and replied to (it does not refer to the 8150)

If there is to be debate and maybe a bit of learning, then it would be a good idea to read what others have posted, including links they have made before commenting on them

If the 8150 is so bad on floating point were did this come from - In fact if you over clocked to 5 or 6 it might well beat the 980x

AMD 8150 vs Intel FPU

---

Hmm, strange - doesn't look like a DAW test to me. Perhaps you got the wrong forum? Bulldozer is a no go for a DAW on current evidence. Seriously, less than HALF the performance of the 2600k? Embarrassing...

Wow,

I always wondered what happened to Apples Reality Distortion Field once they went Intel, you know those forces are way too powerful to just dissipate, well I know now, it shifted to the AMDian lobby... LOL

No matter what evidence is presented , people will find their own truth , one obvious example on this thread is the mantra of AMD having the Worlds fastest CPU. How does simply managing to overclock an architecture under extreme cooling conditions, to a point where they couldn't even execute any basic code , constitute anything is beyond me. We won't mention the architecture takes a leaf out of Netburst and the Megahurtz Myth by using longer instruction pipelines and therefore is needing higher clocks to execute instructions in the first place.

Fastest clock doesn't mean "fastest" in anything past hand down the pants bragging rights.

I also love the whole "AMD were first to market with a real 8 core " rant, pricelesss , pity those real 8 cores, well actually 4 x Dualcore modules strung together with some shared resources that are crippling them for the most part , can barely compete with Intels 3 year old Quadcore sans HT in audio application , and that is all that really matters for the immediate community.

I digress,

Carry On... :-)

V.C

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

Seems to be getting a little heated in here chaps. It's the weekend... take a chill

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote:

---

Hmm, strange - doesn't look like a DAW test to me. Perhaps you got the wrong forum? Bulldozer is a no go for a DAW on current evidence. Seriously, less than HALF the performance of the 2600k? Embarrassing...

---

1. The post I made was clearly in relation to the 8150 and FPU
2. DAW stands for Digital Audio Workstation - are you seriously suggesting that AMD cannot do so in any manner or form?
3. For the last time the review that you are refering to does not cover the 8150

Point two raises an important issue, most of which needs to be done in another topic, but for now the question needs to be asked can AMD based systems be used as DAWs and what can people expect from them. From the black and White response you get here (this thread) one would be excused for thinking that a AMD system would battle to get out of bed, much less than to record music. And one must also wonder why there are Two Sticky threads in this forum refering to results obtained by Intel systems, but in a hotly debated issue, nothing about AMD systems

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

Has anyone actually done a real-world test? Run the thing in a well optimised setup and found exactly what it's limits are?

I've lost count of the times that X was supposed to be the hottest thing since the discovery of fire and Y was supposed to be an iceberg, only to find that (for me) X flew like a cow and Y dawdled like a phantom 5.

I would add that optimisation is the key. I recently considered upgrading my hardware when a softsynth I used on a particular project maxed out both cores to over 95% then died. However, that was with the stock binary. I was given a link to the source code to compile it for my actual hardware. It now burbles along happily with the cores at less than 30% on the same project.

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

Quote:

---

For the last time the review that you are refering to does not cover the 8150

---

So are you implying the 8150 is some magic bullet that because of the added Dualcore module all of a sudden the architecture is going to miraculously scale a lot better than the 3 x module version listed in the DAWbench results ?

Well roll your sleeves up, show just how committed and supportive you are to the AMD cause and buy/build /test and report the results.

No one is suggesting you can't run DAW applications on AMD , stop being so hysterical , but in the same mind, I still have clients running PIV's, Pentium D's,Core2 Duo's, etc, successfully as DAW's .

But that wasn't the question asked by the O.P , was it ?

Quote:

---

And one must also wonder why there are Two Sticky threads in this forum refering to results obtained by Intel systems, but in a hotly debated issue, nothing about AMD systems

---

It a conspiracy I tell ya....

Surely it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the Intel v AMD DAW shootouts ended with the release of Core 2 , AMD have not had a competitive chip since then , so the vast majority of audio end users when weighing up how to spend their hard earned in regards to price/performance would be navigating to an Intel system.

Bulldozer ( or is that Bullsnoozer ) was the great white hope that AMD would finally get back onto the same playing field and take the fight back to Intel which would have been great for the industry overall. Instead they roll out this white elephant with an inane crippled architecture that has the whole industry scratching its head why it even made it to release and wasn't scuttled very early on when it clearly wasn't delivering . Intel were smart enough to kill off the Megahurtz approach and return to the high IPC, short pipelines and super efficient execution instead of chasing the imaginary clock fairy of Netburst ( mind you that the new architectures clock sky high is a bonus with the short pipeline/higher IPC ). AMD should have seen the writing on the wall.

Whats really telling for me is that some of my closest friends in the industry were one eyed blind , dyed in the wool AMDian lobbyists , but as soon as Core 2 hit they couldn't jump fast enough, difference being, they didn't get too emotionally attached to a corporation who couldn't care less about the end users.

Sweep you own steps, buy and use what ever you feel is most appropriate.



V.C

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

Quote:

---

So are you implying the 8150 is some magic bullet that because of the added Dualcore module all of a sudden the architecture is going to miraculously scale a lot better than the 3 x module version listed in the DAWbench results ?

---

Not quoting the results of top line vs top line, toe to toe results is a cheap trick, a sucker punch.. not once but twice this was pointed out... now if you are going to play fair, play fair or not at all

Quote:

---

No one is suggesting you can't run DAW applications on AMD

---

Could have fooled me

Quote:

---

Bulldozer is a no go for a DAW on current evidence.

---

Quote:

---

AMD are offering extremely poor audio performance relative to Intel. Very disappointing. Bulldozer is a total flop

---

Quote:

---

It a conspiracy I tell ya....

---

No its something that needs to be looked at, the way that people are going on it is almost that a AMD system it a total write off with regard to anything music, its not me being hysterical, its the way things are... for example I made a lighthearted comment about Eight cores and the fastest CPU - next thing its dragged up and questioned, who is being hysterical? Then the blame for that gets dumped on me... now that that is hysterical

But no worries, all in good time will things be looked into and posted

Quote:

---

Intel were smart enough to kill off the Megahutz approach

---

Yeah remember that, the road map was to make 10 gig CPUs then go dual / multi core, only to drop the ball when even lower nm tech would not yield faster speeds and AMD were ready to roll out Dual Core, which is why the first Intel Dual cores (and boards) seemed hobbled together - and also to wait and wait and wait before going full 64 bit - only to have to end up using AMD64 (virtual 48 bit machine) - so were would we be without AMD today... Single core 3 gig of memory, with little or no in roads into 64 bit - In two years time it will all be about multi core and what software works best with it, you might well see Linux take a surprise foot hold in this market

but that does no begin to tell the half of it

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Not quoting the results of top line vs top line, toe to toe results is a cheap trick, a sucker punch.. not once but twice this was pointed out... now if you are going to play fair, play fair or not at all

---

Who's playing anything ?

Instead of frothing on and making all of these accusations , roll up your sleeves and contribute some performance figures to back your claims !!

All I saw were some results showing the current Hexacore Bulldozer falling flat on its arse against even the baseline Intel Quad, ( not to mention iAMD's own previous HexaCore ) not sure what you saw ?

Quote:

---

... for example I made a lighthearted comment about Eight cores and the fastest CPU - next thing its dragged up and questioned, who is being hysterical? Then the blame for that gets dumped on me... now that that is hysterical..

---

Light hearted eh, you seem to think you are immune to being corrected when you post false and/or misleading information, sorry Bro, that doesn't fly , and yes , you are being hysterical.

Quote:

---

But no worries, all in good time will things be looked into and posted

---

Meaning what exactly ?

You suggesting once the dust settles that the BD performance results will miraculously improve ?

Quote:

---

Yeah remember that, the road map was to make 10 gig CPUs then go dual / multi core, only to drop the ball when even lower nm tech would not yield faster speeds and AMD were ready to roll out Dual Core..... snip... snore..

---

I'd love to relive the glory days , but I couldn't care less about living in the past.. :-)

Quote:

---

In two years time it will all be about multi core and what software works best with it, you might well see Linux take a surprise foot hold in this market

---

I'll take that bet !

I'm sure Microsoft and Apple are shaking in their boots , and re all being about multicores , hmmmm, pssst, Intel have a decent multicore future roadmap , one thats way way better performing as well.., but hey , don't let the facts get in the way... :-)

P.S: I am typing this on my Ubuntu powered netbook...

V.C

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

Quote:

---

I'll take that bet !

---

I'll hold you to it... Multi Core core would appear the logical choice (excuse the pun) Windows 8 will be a big fan (already mentioned in this post and maybe another pun) as will any other player in the computer market, as expenses rise to meet income so will software chase technology - unless of course the world ends in 2012 and then all bets are off

You know, you talk about Microsoft... I think they got a fright when they saw how quick their ie got wacked by Firefox and others, its a fickle world out there, people jump ship at the drop of a hat these days - Ubuntu 11 is cool, takes all of about a minute or so to setup a 3g modem, sure takes the heck out of RedHat

Quote:

---

Who's playing anything ?

---

Maybe I should write a song... I'm good at that, have done a few protest songs in my time

You know they say talk is cheap
and what you sow, so shall you reap
The best things in life are free
but there's nothing worse than a monopoly

You know that when we were girls and boys
we were taught to share our toys
absolute power corrupts absolutely
so lets share this pie, its our duty

Quote:

---

you seem to think you are immune to being corrected when you post false and/or misleading information

---

Like what... Like what... ohh hang on that should have been La- QUA

Quote:

---

You suggesting once the dust settles that the BD performance results will miraculously improve ?

---

Like coconuts migrate in the hour glass of time

Quote:

---

I'd love to relive the glory days , but I couldn't care less about living in the past.. :-)

---

Not a Tull fan perhaps.... I believe that for every drop of rain that falls...


You have to love the end of game play here, two big USA companies going head to head, one trying to do the other... and if the one goes down someone will come along and buy them out... China has very deep pockets, years from now people will be saying, where did that come from? Ahh Sow

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

Quote:

---

I couldn't care less about living in the past.

---

Déjà vu

Ohio

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

I'll hold you to it...

---

You seem to be having some comprehension issues , the bet was in regards to AMD's architecture becoming more relevant , not in regards to multicore processors

Anyhow,

As to the rest, its been fun but I believe its time for you to take your meds , or perhaps , maybe take less , oh, and don't forget the tin foil hat... LOL

V.C

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote:

---

Hmm, strange - doesn't look like a DAW test to me. Perhaps you got the wrong forum? Bulldozer is a no go for a DAW on current evidence. Seriously, less than HALF the performance of the 2600k? Embarrassing...

---

1. The post I made was clearly in relation to the 8150 and FPU

---

I clearly stated 'bulldozer is a flop' and 'should not be considered for a daw'. The evidence presented backs up my claims. You are the only person to mention the 8150 specifically. The performance difference between the 8150 and 6100 is minimal in comparison to its serious architectural deficiencies. Until you find evidence to the contrary, it appears you are wrong

Quote:

---

2. DAW stands for Digital Audio Workstation - are you seriously suggesting that AMD cannot do so in any manner or form?

---

It can do it, yes. A Pentium 2 is quite capable of being a DAW too. That's not the issue. The issue is what is best value for money for the performance and energy consumption? And the answer is clearly Intel, by a HUGE margin! And this point is not conjecture, it has been proven.

Quote:

---

3. For the last time the review that you are refering to does not cover the 8150

---

For the last time, I posted on the Bulldozer architecture, not to any specific model number. In any case, one extra core added to the 6100 will in no way compensate for the absolutely dismal DAW performance.

Quote:

---

Point two raises an important issue, most of which needs to be done in another topic, but for now the question needs to be asked can AMD based systems be used as DAWs and what can people expect from them. From the black and White response you get here (this thread) one would be excused for thinking that a AMD system would battle to get out of bed, much less than to record music. And one must also wonder why there are Two Sticky threads in this forum refering to results obtained by Intel systems, but in a hotly debated issue, nothing about AMD systems

---

Because the simple facts are, at this moment in time Intel are way ahead and there is really no point wasting your time in buying an AMD system. Hard working tinkerers like TAFKAT provide the evidence.

Having supporters as blinkered as you is probably why they got into so much trouble in the first place!

Getting away from personal opinions...
As I asked before, has any tried to use the bulldozer in a real DAW situation? If so what were the results?

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

Quote Folderol:

---

Getting away from personal opinions...
As I asked before, has any tried to use the bulldozer in a real DAW situation? If so what were the results?

---

Check out the test results linked to above ... they ain't good!

The best remedy for bad news is often humour and I found this video on Hitler's response to the Bulldozer benchmarks really funny - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SArxcnpXStE.

Well as I'm still sat on my arse waiting for my SB EX boards to show up I thought I'd do something mildly constructive and sort out a Bulldozer spec.

My inital aim was to run a AMD cpu at 4.5GHZ as that's going to be my target for the Sandy Extremes next week. I'm using the FX8120 for benching for a number of reasons, the main one being that it seems to be the same chip as the FX8150 with a lower clock at stock. So I thought bang per buck wise if I'm going to run these things at 4.5GHZ we'll save £50 on the price and ramp up the cheaper chip would offer more value.

So started with a Gigabyte board which set up fine but hung everytime I put Cubase underload.
Moved onto an Asus that I'm still cursing about. Absolutely maddness trying to overclock it, with the normal tweaks causing it to do nothing but hang on every other reboot.

So MSI 970A C45. Plugged it in whacked in the settings and got into windows.... froze in testing, so rebooted ramped up the NB/SB voltages and voila a working bench. I could probably refine it for heat gains but as a rough and ready bench it'll do.

So open up Cubase with a DAWBench template and crack on :

64 - 98
128 -104
256 -144
512 -144

I retested each latency 3 times total with a reboot between each. The last two scores look well wrong unless the's some crazy bottleneck somewhere.

So I thought I'd de-clock it back to stock in case it was... you know... me being a numpty.

64 -54
128 -86
256 -96
512 -97

Apparently not then.

If anyone can explain those 256/512 scores I'm all ears.

However that aside I'm shocked. I honestly thought these would be the in the ballpark as the i7 950's and they are not remotely even close.



(I've not re-edited the graph yet, I'll do that when the SBEX scores come in, it's just there for reference along with the scores above)

In fact it's even beaten at stock by the older Hexcore Phanom 1090T chip from the last generation refresh, which whilst I'd seen it mentioned it would happen in some benchmarks in some other published test sessions, I'm still quite shocked to see it here.

So all in all? Poor value for money for audio. At stock it's no better than a Q6600 system for considerably more cash and overclocked it's still outperformed by a OC'd 2600k by about 250% for only a few hundred quid more.

TL;DR : It sucks more than even I suspected.
TL;DR for TL;DR : Meh.

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

Sounds like the chip might be at fault - take it back and exchange it for a 8150 - Often felt that the lower clocked / budget versions were done that way because they did not meet with top spec, tend to notice that when the production run starts out - then once things are going smoothly you can bargain hunt with opening cores etc - but for now take it back and get a 8150 - with water cooler would be nice - thought the opti OC for these beasties was 4.6

They have now overclocked this chip to 8.5 and are hoping to hit warp factor 9 with a change to the B3

Must away, have a AC30 that I've just fixed and it needs a damn good thrashing... or should that be trashing, either way I dare say it will be loud and enjoyable The joys of testing equipment

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Sounds like the chip might be at fault - take it back and exchange it for a 8150 - Often felt that the lower clocked / budget versions were done that way because they did not meet with top spec, tend to notice that when the production run starts out - then once things are going smoothly you can bargain hunt with opening cores etc - but for now take it back and get a 8150 - with water cooler would be nice - thought the opti OC for these beasties was 4.6

---

Could you repeat that in English please?

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Sounds like the chip might be at fault - take it back and exchange it for a 8150 - Often felt that the lower clocked / budget versions were done that way because they did not meet with top spec, tend to notice that when the production run starts out - then once things are going smoothly you can bargain hunt with opening cores etc - but for now take it back and get a 8150 - with water cooler would be nice - thought the opti OC for these beasties was 4.6

---

Yeah, as it's a Hexcore through I was going put it up against my Hexcore Intel and that one has an optimum of 4.5Ghz on the SBEX platform. I don't expect the 8150 to get a better score as it appears to be the same chip binned differently but I'm willing to give it a go whenever AMD decides to acturly import some into England. I did suspect a faulty chip/board but I've tried multiples of each before recording the results and they all pulled the same figures.

The cooler I was using for benching was a Thermalright Archon so it's not a cooling problem as those things bench better than the Corsair H50 in group tests.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

They have now overclocked this chip to 8.5 and are hoping to hit warp factor 9 with a change to the B3

---

Yeah, I'm aware of that but Ghz mean nothing if the rest of the achitechture doesn't take advantage of it. You can stick a Porche engine in a 1973 Skoda body but it doesn't mean it's going to hit 200Mph and still be driveable!

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Must away, have a AC30 that I've just fixed and it needs a damn good thrashing... or should that be trashing, either way I dare say it will be loud and enjoyable The joys of testing equipment

---

That acturly sounds far more fun than another afternoon of benchmarking!

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

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

If anyone can explain those 256/512 scores I'm all ears.

---

Hey Pete,

Using the reference audio interface over the years, on this particular bench I found there was little scaling above 256 with the later chips, but the AMD numbers are suggesting that the architecture -whether the execution is Cache/Core bound in this particular test - is totally levelling out in this style of test.

It may be interesting to test with DAWbench VI and see if that shows the same behaviour.

In the end it doesn't really matter, BD is not going to miraculously change its spots !

V.C

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

> Sounds like the chip might be at fault

Yep, it's DEFINITELY the chip that's at fault...

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread. Bulldozer is a server architecture. Using it on the desktop is really a desperation move on the part of AMD, because they don't have the R&D resources to do anything else.

Server workloads tend to be mainly I/O bound and integer based. Most of the CPU's cycles are wasted waiting for a disk to seek, or worse, for packets over the network. Because of this, you simply want the maximum number of threads. Bulldozer is a relatively intelligent way of doing this. Although each 'core' is really only an integer unit with some L1 cache, you get most of the integer performance of a full core for a fraction of the silicon. Shared cache, long pipelines and poor scheduling increase the amount of lost cycles due to cache misses, but they're negligible compared to cycles lost waiting for I/O.

In spite of a much cruder basic microarchitecture, Bulldozer-based Opterons provide more threads for less money than comparable Xeons. AMD are still well behind when it comes to heat and power, but there are plenty of applications where an Opteron makes sense. Several new high performance clusters have been commissioned based on Bulldozer chips.

If you're paying attention, you'll have realised that the Bulldozer is optimised for a workload that is more or less the exact opposite of a modern DAW. We want to maximise floating point performance, and minimise wasted cycles to keep latency down. Unsurprisingly, the Bulldozer architecture does an absolutely miserable job at digital audio work - it only has four of the cores we really need and implements them inefficiently. Same goes for games, same goes for all sorts of desktop workloads - if you're not bound by integer performance, those extra cores are completely useless. You can see this clearly in the bipolar benchmarks - very quick for some tasks, miserably slow for others.

Quote TAFKAT:

---

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

If anyone can explain those 256/512 scores I'm all ears.

---

Hey Pete,

Using the reference audio interface over the years, on this particular bench I found there was little scaling above 256 with the later chips, but the AMD numbers are suggesting that the architecture -whether the execution is Cache/Core bound in this particular test - is totally levelling out in this style of test.

It may be interesting to test with DAWbench VI and see if that shows the same behaviour.

---

Hi Vin,

Tom pulled me on that yesterday and said the same thing. I seem to recall the same result in the Phenom testing now, but still it suprises me. DB VI test does seem like it might be fitting to see how it translates, and when I someone will pony me up a 8150 I may have to slap that on to see how those higher latencys translate.

Quote Dishpan:

---

> Sounds like the chip might be at fault

Yep, it's DEFINITELY the chip that's at fault...

---

ಠ_ಠ

Can't tell if serious, or if my sarcasam detector is in need of new batterys...

Anyhow on a related note Scott ADK posted up his BD benchmarks yesterday over at KVR in response to a thread I posted this lot in and they were pretty much identical, so I'm going to rule out muppetry, broken chips & cosmic flux at this point.

Quote uphillbothways:

---

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread. Bulldozer is a server architecture. Using it on the desktop is really a desperation move on the part of AMD, because they don't have the R&D resources to do anything else.

---

In the same respect the Intel cpu range now is pretty much interchangeable with Xeon's being able to run on desktop boards with only the data exchange pipelines being being disabled. We're fast approaching the point where people cease to differentiate between server and desktop... as such AMD's move to make the most out of their very limited R&D budget would make sense.

Quote uphillbothways:

---

Server workloads tend to be mainly I/O bound and integer based. Most of the CPU's cycles are wasted waiting for a disk to seek, or worse, for packets over the network. Because of this, you simply want the maximum number of threads. Bulldozer is a relatively intelligent way of doing this. Although each 'core' is really only an integer unit with some L1 cache, you get most of the integer performance of a full core for a fraction of the silicon. Shared cache, long pipelines and poor scheduling increase the amount of lost cycles due to cache misses, but they're negligible compared to cycles lost waiting for I/O.

---

This is the performance problem on the desktop and it doesn't really add up. The bottleneck seems to be that physical cache being split between multiple cores and it's pretty much what is crippling these chips. For years AMD's been stood behind this point of "Physical cores = Faster Parallel Processing" which means you want to buy 8 slower AMD cores over 4 Faster Intel cores with hyper threading because you don't want to be using any of that virtual processing junk....

Except due to the cache throttling the bandwidth that virtual threading is looking like the far superior solution at this point in time.

Quote uphillbothways:

---

In spite of a much cruder basic microarchitecture, Bulldozer-based Opterons provide more threads for less money than comparable Xeons. AMD are still well behind when it comes to heat and power, but there are plenty of applications where an Opteron makes sense. Several new high performance clusters have been commissioned based on Bulldozer chips.

---

Low powered clusters for mail searvers, ftp's, database clients all make perfect sense for these chips in much the same way I'd spec an AMD if someone came to me with £400 for a SOHO machine. Intel is still the prefered option when going for raw power through (data processing rather than data servage) I tend to find.

Quote:

---

If you're paying attention, you'll have realised that the Bulldozer is optimised for a workload that is more or less the exact opposite of a modern DAW.

---

Although you'd have thought that the would be a way to optimize load balancing further than we already have to ensure as much of the available clock cycles were used by the competing plug in's. You'd have thought that DAW work with a few dozen different bits of code being executed constantly would have benefited heavily from this type of parallel processing more than most other software types.

Quote:

---

We want to maximise floating point performance, and minimise wasted cycles to keep latency down. Unsurprisingly, the Bulldozer architecture does an absolutely miserable job at digital audio work - it only has four of the cores we really need and implements them inefficiently. Same goes for games, same goes for all sorts of desktop workloads - if you're not bound by integer performance, those extra cores are completely useless. You can see this clearly in the bipolar benchmarks - very quick for some tasks, miserably slow for others.

---

Yeah, agreed. Just want to make it clear that I didn't set out to question any of the above on here originally. My only concern was "Should I be getting behind this kit as a good value solution for my end users" and the answer was no.

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

I am more interested in application specific benefits. Specifically the use of AVX FP SIMD instruction support in Sonar X1.

An AMD Bulldozer sees a huge advantage over non AVX CPUs with 24 bit audio in some scenarios (quite the opposite with 32 float though). See the AVX blurb here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,30 43-5.html

I will be getting my FX-8150 tonight, but wont be able to test it until next week (recording all weekend, paying customers no less).

I currently run a Phenom X6 1090T on a GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD7 with 16GB of Corsair 1866 DDR3 RAM,A 256GB Crucial M4 SSD and a 4x500GB Raid 0 on dedicated high end raid controller with an MSI GTX 570 handling video (Great for The Mercury playback engine in Premiere).

I wont have much time for a very thorough benchmark session. I will do a 2 runs at 256ms latency with Sonar X1 32bit and 64bit on the 1090, then 2 more with the 8150. I hope that AVX makes my upgrade worth it as I use 24/48 and Sonar's 64bit double precision engine. In any case, the 1090 will make a good upgrade for the tracking PC, I've hit the headroom of the X4 965 which currently resides there.

> Can't tell if serious, or if my sarcasam detector is in need of new batterys...

Definitely change those batteries :-)

Quote trailmixxx:

---

I am more interested in application specific benefits. Specifically the use of AVX FP SIMD instruction support in Sonar X1.

An AMD Bulldozer sees a huge advantage over non AVX CPUs with 24 bit audio in some scenarios (quite the opposite with 32 float though). See the AVX blurb here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,30 43-5.html

I will be getting my FX-8150 tonight, but wont be able to test it until next week (recording all weekend, paying customers no less).

I currently run a Phenom X6 1090T on a GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD7 with 16GB of Corsair 1866 DDR3 RAM,A 256GB Crucial M4 SSD and a 4x500GB Raid 0 on dedicated high end raid controller with an MSI GTX 570 handling video (Great for The Mercury playback engine in Premiere).

I wont have much time for a very thorough benchmark session. I will do a 2 runs at 256ms latency with Sonar X1 32bit and 64bit on the 1090, then 2 more with the 8150. I hope that AVX makes my upgrade worth it as I use 24/48 and Sonar's 64bit double precision engine. In any case, the 1090 will make a good upgrade for the tracking PC, I've hit the headroom of the X4 965 which currently resides there.

---

Those links dont work ... and the bulldozer kinda sucks ... but good luck.

broken link... lets have a look, ahhh there is a space in the address - easy enough to spot and fix

Just pop it into a box to stop the overflow

The 8150 Link

this is were it went wrong

bulldozer-990fx,3043-5.html

bulldozer-990fx,30 43-5.html


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

Quote:

---

don't expect the 8150 to get a better score as it appears to be the same chip binned differently but I'm willing to give it a go whenever AMD decides to acturly import some into England

---

Was supposed to get a 8150 three weeks ago but there is no stock to be had, thought maybe the overclockers are buying them out or something

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

There has been a fair amount of talk about how much better it might work out with a OS that handles multi-core such as Windows 8 - Multi-core seems to be the way that things are going, and for music applications it makes good sense... does not look great on benchmarks, put the following into a search engine

i7 2600k vs 980x

There are lots of questions raised about the how the six core 980X seems to miss out

Will things get better with the right OS - well you don't have to wait for Windows 8 to pop along to answer that question, Linux can give a fair idea now

AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer On Ubuntu Linux

Quote:

---

With this just being the first article of a series looking at the AMD FX-8150 "Bulldozer" under Linux, more conclusions will be drawn later. However, as these results show, under Linux the AMD FX-8150 is a competitive product to the Intel Core i5 2500K when dealing with multi-threaded workloads. For single-threaded work and other select tasks, the Bulldozer performance is disappointing.

Fortunately, for Linux users, most open-source software is well multi-threaded. If you are running Gentoo, Arch, or just doing a lot of compiling in general, the AMD Bulldozer CPUs should be able to prove their value very well. Beyond that, with open-source software that you may be building, GCC and Open64 already have Bulldozer (version 1) optimizations in place

---

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

does not look great on benchmarks, put the following into a search engine

i7 2600k vs 980x

There are lots of questions raised about the how the six core 980X seems to miss out

---

The 980x through is from the previous generation of chips, and advances in architecture both on and off the chip explain the 2600k performance. The extremes launched this week are the same generation as the 2600 range so that explains it to some extent. Agreed that 980x isn't fully used by a lot of software, in the same way that both Bulldozer and the SBEX's are likely not to be and once more we're waiting for programmers to play catch up... always the case through!

Quote DragonLogos:

---

With this just being the first article of a series looking at the AMD FX-8150 "Bulldozer" under Linux, more conclusions will be drawn later. However, as these results show, under Linux the AMD FX-8150 is a competitive product to the Intel Core i5 2500K when dealing with multi-threaded workloads. For single-threaded work and other select tasks, the Bulldozer performance is disappointing.

---

The most disappointing thing there is the comment that it's a competitive product to the 2500k. It's the same under windows as well... and really shouldn't be. It should really be up there with the 2600k if it's going to hit the market in the postion it needs too. The 2500k chip is viewed as the gamers choice which due to it's multicore nature the Bulldozer clearly isn't.

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

There has been a fair amount of talk about how much better it might work out with a OS that handles multi-core such as Windows 8 - Multi-core seems to be the way that things are going, and for music applications it makes good sense... does not look great on benchmarks, put the following into a search engine

i7 2600k vs 980x

There are lots of questions raised about the how the six core 980X seems to miss out

Will things get better with the right OS - well you don't have to wait for Windows 8 to pop along to answer that question, Linux can give a fair idea now

AMD FX-8150 Bulldozer On Ubuntu Linux

Quote:

---

With this just being the first article of a series looking at the AMD FX-8150 "Bulldozer" under Linux, more conclusions will be drawn later. However, as these results show, under Linux the AMD FX-8150 is a competitive product to the Intel Core i5 2500K when dealing with multi-threaded workloads. For single-threaded work and other select tasks, the Bulldozer performance is disappointing.

Fortunately, for Linux users, most open-source software is well multi-threaded. If you are running Gentoo, Arch, or just doing a lot of compiling in general, the AMD Bulldozer CPUs should be able to prove their value very well. Beyond that, with open-source software that you may be building, GCC and Open64 already have Bulldozer (version 1) optimizations in place

---

---

Hey that's great Dragon, so its absolute crap in single threaded apps, and in the best case scenario on some obscure operating system it runs almost as fast as the budget low end intel i5 ...

1400 thousand AMD workers will agree its been a total disaster

http://www.forbes.com/2011/11/04/amd-announces-1400-job-cuts-marketnewsvid eo.html

PCs are over anyway, its going to end up as a fight between Intel and ARM a few years down the road...

Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do - Benjamin Franklin

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

We don't like their sound; also Mr Epstein guitar music is on the way out – Decca's rejection The Beatles

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

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see

Arthur Schopenhauer

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

Never give in, never, never, never, never. In anything great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy - Sir Winston Churchill

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

Quote:

---

The 980x through is from the previous generation of chips, and advances in architecture both on and off the chip explain the 2600k performance

---

I wonder if anyone could give a reason as to why the 980X still has such a high retail price then? - perhaps there is no competition in Intel vs Intel

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Never give in, never, never, never, never. In anything great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy - Sir Winston Churchill

---

Dragon you really have gone batshit crazy this time. Its time for AMD fanboys to be quiet. Look at the results of the DAW performance tests. Its over.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

I wonder if anyone could give a reason as to why the 980X still has such a high retail price then? - perhaps there is no competition in Intel vs Intel

---

Intel stubboness more like. High end chips never go below certain price points they just drop off the retail list.

High end entry - £200 - £300
Lower Mid £400 - £500
Upper Mid £550 - £700
top £800 - £1000

During the lift cycle they don't drop below the lower points, they just replace them to make them appear to be better value (i.e. 980X - 990X) by cite'in bin improvements or minor revision changes.

Always been this way even when AMD was in front.

Before the 9 series I always told people to ignore the extremes due to inherent poor value. Even now I fail to be convinced with anything above the £500 point normally, and then only in a few exceptional situations depending upon the end user requirements.

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

So as I sit here on my 1055T based system, with a relatively modern AM3 but not AM3+ mobo, what should I be aiming for on my next build, guys?

Presumably an Intel but which one is oging to gie me the best bang for the buck including a mobo that does pci, pci-e and has decent enough onboard graphics for DAW use and of course sata 3 & USB 3 (just in case)

I'm not kidding, I really would like suggestions for my next self-build.

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

2600 chip on a 1155 board of some description.... whichever one ticks all of your requirements.

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

Thanks, Pete.
To be honest I am more than happy with the performance I am getting from my current AMD system but it IS nice to have an idea of where to go next.

I am getting silly low latency and very smooth performance using reaper and an RME card at present, so I suspect it will be a while before I need anything faster.

Might have to spring for something better than the onboard GFX on my M4A89GTD-Pro-USB3 board though...

And in the meantime I can be entertained by all you bleeding-edge nutters stretching the envelope for me ahead of time!




Blimey! Now I remember why I bought what I did.
Best price I could find on an i7 2600 3.4 was about the same as I paid for my AND cpu AND the latest (at the time) mobo for it.

--------------------
Me? But I`m such a loveable old bugger!

Edited by IvanSC (24/11/11 01:29 PM)

Quote:

---

So started with a Gigabyte board which set up fine but hung everytime I put Cubase underload.

---

Peter I wonder if you could perhaps do a service for me.... and try a Benchmark with Fruity Loops Studio, this might put the ICC (Intel Compiler) issue to rest, FL Studio uses Delphi

Knee deep in Video footage this side

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

Been discussing this with Vin and having done some more research on it the certainly could be some skew although seeing as the vast majority uses the Intel compiler anyhow and AMD hasn't updated theirs in years it's a bit of a moot point.

However in an attempt to get to the bottom of it all we've had a chat with Justin over at Cockos about it and he's recompiled reacomp for us using a whole host of different compiler revisions as the plug in build should show up the differences. He sent me over a half dozen a few weeks back, but the initial batch wouldn't run on my configuration, so another set of recompiles later I have a working folder to get through. I'm on it today so should have some findings in the next 24hrs.

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

Thanks Peter - will be interesting to see, we only managed to get two four core BDs and doubt if I will have time to even get near one as there is not a Mobo for it (have yet to say what I want and they have yet to say what there is) The Op that has the 4x is raving about it (in a good way)but what for I know not as this is coming in via a third party

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Peter I wonder if you could perhaps do a service for me.... and try a Benchmark with Fruity Loops Studio, this might put the ICC (Intel Compiler) issue to rest, FL Studio uses Delphi

---

Allow me to step in here,

Why in Gods name would you suggest FL for Multiprocessor scaling test when the developer , Didier Dambrin, still maintains the same stance he has held for years , that multicore processors are not beneficial for DAW usage.

Name one other DAW host that uses Delphi , or even one major plugin or virtual instrument developer for that matter !

We have a whole range of compiled versions , some of the non ICC's are causing huge issues in Cubase , so even if one of the alternate compilers were to deliver a performance boost, its a bloody minefield how they will react in the various DAW environments. Good luck getting the developers to head into those waters.

I already know what the results are , but I'll let Pete take it from here as he is in the front line doing the testing on the BD , but needless to say the conspiracy theorists are not going to be happy... :-)

V.C

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

Excuse the delay, but I did have to carry out some additional testing over my inital set.

So I did comparisons with 10 different builds done with various compiler options as supplied by Justin over at Cockos. The more recent compiler builds done this year underperformed in each test so he passed me the 2008 builds using the older versions of the various compilers.

The one Justin himself suspected might come out well was the one that won the group test group performance wise and gave around a 15% - 20% performance improvement over the original DAWBench standard revision on the AMD rig.

DAWBench Build

64 - 76
128 - 85
256 - 93

Vc2005 SSE2

64 - 96
128 - 103
256 - 112

So the is some legs in it. However the Vc2005 SSE2 build would not run in Cubase (all testing had to be redone in reaper) and lost all performance advantages on a Intel based setup.

So a couple of things to take away from this.

Yes another compiler may/does favour AMD builds. But... (and it's a huge one) unless plugin builders are going to use the compiler in question it's a moot point. If they chose to go with it they would have to do Intel and AMD specific builds or they alienate both Intel users and Cubase users.

All of the other builds (the Intel bias'd one's included) showed at least a 20% performance drop against the standard plug revision so the current packaged one would seem to still be both the most compatible solution as well as the best performing.

What we have proved is that perhaps it would be interesting if developers did offer AMD optimized builds of plugs as well but that would take a harrasment from the public so start the e-mail campaigns guys.

The other point of note is that a 2500 based Intel machine which can be purchased for a few hundred quid less still beats the optimized AMD score by another 40% across the board leaving the BD based machines still poor value for money performance wise for pure audio usage.

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

Quote:

---

standard plug revision

---

intel compiler
hosts:
Cubase/Nuendo - icc 12(AVX for Intel, SSE2 for AMD),Reaper - icc 10.1( SSE 4.2 for Intel, x87 for АMD).
plugins:
Softube (SSE 4.2 for Intel, SSE2 for АMD)
SSL (SSE2 for AMD)
Voxengo (SSE2 for AMD)
XLN Audio (SSE2)
Camel Audio (SSE2)
BBE
Cockos reaplugins (x87 for АMD)
Non intel:
big list :
Studio One,Sonar - VS2010 compiler (AVX optimizanion for Intel and AMD)...,
>80% PC VST plugins - Microsoft compiler (oldVS6,VS2005 VS2008,VS2010) and <20% - icc,delphi,mingw etc.
Microsoft compiler bad,but very popular

Pete summarised pretty well but let me add some final points.

This was a huge undertaking by Justin Frankel who went above and beyond to allow us to get an angle on what variables were in play here , 10 new compiled versions above the original, across 2 specific builds of the plugin.

As Pete noted , the 2011 builds of the plugins all failed to get anywhere near the original build results, so simply changing the compiler to one not using the ICC does not in anyway guarantee better performance on the AMD chips. So to be clear, using the specific alternate compiler that showed the better result on the 2008 build of the plugin, did not translate on the 2011 build , both which totally collapsed in Cubase but not in Reaper, which opens a huge can of worms for developers.

Now even with all of the cards stacked in favour of the AMD , the new architecture was still demolished comparatively by a 3 year old i7 930, not to mention the current Intel chips , so no amount of polishing will change the fact that the AMD Bulldozers have fallen into a large hole in regards to DAW performance.

We went thru this exercise because we were called out at another forum by a member of the AMDian lobby who basically accused me of purposely loading the deck in favour of Intel , which is ridiculous as by the time the DAWbench Universal Suite was developed the Intel v AMD platform wars were well and truly done and dusted after core 2 came out. Unlike others who choose to sit back and fire shots from a comfortable distance and froth on about Intels anti competitive conspiracy's, we knuckled down and applied valuable time and energy to get a clearer answer.

In closing, I am still working with Justin on a final build for the 2012 Suite as we are still navigating another unrelated issue with the plugin in some DAW hosts , which does not effect performance but can cause crashing with the GUI being called up. Will I be using an alternate compiler, well No , its a total and utter waste of time to compromise the stability of the test and the validity of the past results to cater for a small but overly vocal minority.

Placing that all into perspective , what developer would compromise their code base to try and ring a small % performance improvement while at the same time open themselves up to other variables , for a chip that is failing miserably performance wise ?

Quick edit.

Just missed that my accuser has navigated to this thread as well... :-)

@ q_h

Simply using ICC does not guarantee better performance on the AMD unless you have an alternate ICC build to prove other wise , this is something we discovered in our testing, also with the major Hosts using the ICC compiler , thats another huge hurdle to navigate.

Its interesting that you note SONAR and StudioOne using an alternate compiler, SONAR is the worst DAW host I have tested over the years at multiprocessor scaling, across a whole range of plugins. StudioOne, I already knew that one as I am in contact witht he developers, well that performs better but of course that may now vary depending on which plugin is used.. :-(

So 80% of VST plugins use a better compiler you say, well name the majors and I'll weigh up some candidates which are worth looking at for an added session to the suite.


V.C

Edited by TAFKAT (16/12/11 08:51 PM)

Just noticed a typo.. :-(

@ q_h,

That should read..

"Simply *not* using ICC does not guarantee better performance on the AMD unless you have an alternate ICC build to prove other wise , this is something we discovered in our testing, also with the major Hosts using the ICC compiler , thats another huge hurdle to navigate."

Man I hate that time bomb on editing posts here...



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

TAFKAT,

Quote:

---

So 80% of VST plugins use a better compiler you say, well name the majors and I'll weigh up some candidates which are worth looking at for an added session to the suite.

---

Nebula,AcquaVox
freeverb3 bundle -freeverb3_vst-slow-AVX-doubleprecision

-
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2592546/en-us



more info:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/12/16/microsoft-releases-amd-bul ldozer-patch-by-mistake2c-incomplete-download.aspx

I have already given Aquavox a runup , it is not suitable as it will not work as an incremental loading plugin in the same manner as the other reference plugins.

Nubula is great but it is not what I consider a conventional plugin platform and requires a different style of benching methodology which I am already in discussion with the developers of Nebula to try and jointly develop for 2012.

I'll checkout Freeverb.

Got any others ?

BTW: What does Cinebench have to do with audio application ?

Lets stay on topic eh !

Are you trying to imply that all audio applications are somehow skewed against Bulldozer because they do not recognise the 4 x Dualcore modules as 8 physical cores, if so, lets see the evidence.

Re the Windows patch for the task scheduler, lets see what it actually achieves , it will need to make an improvement in the vicinity of several hundred % to get anywhere near the same ballpark as the current Intel architecture in Audio application. If it improves the current situation even enough so that the BD architecture matches the last AMD , well then that is at least something, but nothing that will change the overall comparative performance significantly enough when placed in context.

I have some further insight why the current architecture is falling over itself in audio application even worse then the previous AMD architecture , directly from a DSP developer , so why don't you enlighten us on why you believe that is so and we can compare notes... ;-)

V.

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

Quote q_h:

---

TAFKAT,

Quote:

---

So 80% of VST plugins use a better compiler you say, well name the majors and I'll weigh up some candidates which are worth looking at for an added session to the suite.

---

Nebula,AcquaVox
freeverb3 bundle -freeverb3_vst-slow-AVX-doubleprecision

-
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2592546/en-us



more info:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/12/16/microsoft-releases-amd-bul ldozer-patch-by-mistake2c-incomplete-download.aspx

---

That's great, now we have established AMD Bulldozers are an extremely poor choice for Windows 7 and DAW usage. As AMD are drastically cutting back their workforce and Bulldozer was the great white hope, it seems that all meaningful competition to desktop Intel chips is currently dead at this time.

Quote:

---

"Simply *not* using ICC does not guarantee better performance on the AMD unless you have an alternate ICC build to prove other wise

---

Surely you mean a alternative compiler

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

Thanks Peter, have a few results and findings this side just need to sit down for a while join the dots and pool the paper work, with a bit of luck should have a few days off to do that

Quote:

---

What we have proved is that perhaps it would be interesting if developers did offer AMD optimized builds of plugs as well but that would take a harrasment from the public so start the e-mail campaigns guys

---

As part of the Intel / AMD Anti Trust ruling Intel has to fund any developers that want to redo their code, so no one is asking them to do it for free... It would also be nice if all the other people that have put in hard work on this issue could get something out of it

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Surely you mean a alternative compiler

---

Of course.. :-)

That wasn't worded very well I admit, those final comments were quickly tacked on after I realised that q_h had posted while I was still typing the initial response

I had a clearer explanation earlier in that post..

"the 2011 builds of the plugins all failed to get anywhere near the original build results, so simply changing the compiler to one not using the ICC does not in anyway guarantee better performance on the AMD chips.

Also from what little I can gather from q_h, he considers even the MS C compiler not a good overall choice - quote "Microsoft compiler bad,but very popular"

Doesn't really leave much for the developers to go with , not to mention any incentive to find and use an alternate.

Good luck getting any major developer refocusing time and energy there to directly benefit BD , at the possible expense of compromising their code base.

A couple of other points as I see that AVX extension support is coming up a bit as some clear advantage for BD, well according to the information posted in a previous link from one of the Cakewalk developers , the AVX extensions will also clearly advantage the new Intel chips , even more so than B.D - i.e Both routines listed benefited Intel by 69% and 14% respectively , while BD managed 61% gain and 77% loss for the same routines , so I wouldn't be holding up the AVX card too high as any great white hope for B.D to gain some ground over Intel in audio use.

One final point on the Windows 8 task scheduling improvements benefiting BD , which they well may , but whats to say they will not equally benefit Intel. I would find it very hard to believe that what ever benefits have been made to the task scheduling would only benefit AMD.

Looking forward to seeing what you have personally come up with, please make sure the tests are in the public domain and can be easily replicated by anyone with access to the platform, and of course, that they are relevant to DAW's.

Before I forget , if anyone has any other plugin suggestions worth looking at for a DAWbench session please forward them.

I should note that I require a plugin that is stable , cross platform and also VST, RTAS and AU compatible , with AAX also being an added benefit.

V.

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

Quote:

---

Looking forward to seeing what you have personally come up with, please make sure the tests are in the public domain and can be easily replicated by anyone with access to the platform, and of course, that they are relevant to DAW's.

Before I forget , if anyone has any other plugin suggestions worth looking at for a DAWbench session please forward them.

---

Of course, however DawBench is some what long in the tooth and lacks some hard core technical logging... and yes we know that this is your baby, but then it is possible for an old dogs to teach new tricks

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Of course, however DawBench is some what long in the tooth and lacks some hard core technical logging... and yes we know that this is your baby, but then it is possible for an old dogs to teach new tricks

---

Right , as I stated earlier looking forward to seeing what you have to offer , especially now that it will address " some hard core technical logging " my methodology is lacking.



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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote:

---

Looking forward to seeing what you have personally come up with, please make sure the tests are in the public domain and can be easily replicated by anyone with access to the platform, and of course, that they are relevant to DAW's.

Before I forget , if anyone has any other plugin suggestions worth looking at for a DAWbench session please forward them.

---

Of course, however DawBench is some what long in the tooth and lacks some hard core technical logging... and yes we know that this is your baby, but then it is possible for an old dogs to teach new tricks

---

DAWbench long in the tooth? Its a reasonable approximation of real life usage of a DAW system. Your solution involves obscure compilers and ridiculous intel conspiracy theories which have absolutely no relevance to any of us here. This is soundonsound.com and we talk about making music on available hardware and available software. Take your craziness to amdfanboyzone.com and leave it there.

Quote q_h:

---

---

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

Quote TAFKAT:

---

[
A couple of other points as I see that AVX extension support is coming up a bit as some clear advantage for BD, well according to the information posted in a previous link from one of the Cakewalk developers , the AVX extensions will also clearly advantage the new Intel chips , even more so than B.D - i.e Both routines listed benefited Intel by 69% and 14% respectively , while BD managed 61% gain and 77% loss for the same routines , so I wouldn't be holding up the AVX card too high as any great white hope for B.D to gain some ground over Intel in audio use.

---

Indeed, Don't all the Sandybridge CPU's support AVX currently as well?

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

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

Indeed, Don't all the Sandybridge CPU's support AVX currently as well?

---

Yep, wouldn't surprise me that some of the performance improvements with Cubendo and SB are directly associated .. :-)

V.

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

Maybe you would like to check on things and do a bit of study before I reply to this...

addendum(s) accepted

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Maybe you would like to check on things and do a bit of study before I reply to this...

addendum(s) accepted

---

I have checked on things. AMD bullshitdozer is a bad choice for DAW use. Care to prove otherwise?

Tafkat

> "the 2011 builds of the plugins all failed to get anywhere near the original build results, so simply changing the compiler to one not using the ICC does not in anyway guarantee better performance on the AMD chips.

The Intel compiler has been best (period) for years. It's part of the problem that applications perform(ed) so poorly on OsX (many used GCC).


> A couple of other points as I see that AVX extension support is coming up a bit as some clear advantage for BD, well according to the information posted in a previous link from one of the Cakewalk developers , the AVX extensions will also clearly advantage the new Intel chips , even more so than B.D - i.e Both routines listed benefited Intel by 69% and 14% respectively , while BD managed 61% gain and 77% loss for the same routines , so I wouldn't be holding up the AVX card too high as any great white hope for B.D to gain some ground over Intel in audio use.

As I posted right at the start of the thread, BDs AVX performance is horrible compared with Intel.

There really is no secret conspiracy, magic bullet or snake oil out there; BD is a poor CPU. It's the first time in years I've seen a latest generation CPU perform WORSE than one years old from the same company but BD manages it in a number of tests. Added to that astronomical power consumption and you've got one lousy piece of silicon.

I used to love AMDs products and I actually thought that Apple (at the time) had made a mistake going with Intel years ago. My excitement returned (briefly) with BD but AMDs glory days really are long gone...

:-(

Quote:

---

There really is no secret conspiracy, magic bullet or snake oil out there; BD is a poor CPU. It's the first time in years I've seen a latest generation CPU perform WORSE than one years old from the same company

---

This is of course not true - Intel were found guilty of Conspiracy against AMD

Federal Trade Commission against Intel Corp

Quote:

---

The Federal Trade Commission approved a settlement with Intel Corp. that resolves charges the company illegally stifled competition in the market for computer chips. Intel has agreed to provisions that will open the door to renewed competition and prevent Intel from suppressing competition in the future

---

Quote:

---

Under the settlement, Intel will be prohibited from:


conditioning benefits to computer makers in exchange for their promise to buy chips from Intel exclusively or to refuse to buy chips from others

retaliating against computer makers if they do business with non-Intel suppliers by withholding benefits from them

disclose to software developers that Intel computer compilers discriminate between Intel chips and non-Intel chips, and that they may not register all the features of non-Intel chips. Intel also will have to reimburse all software vendors who want to recompile their software using a non-Intel compiler

Also Intel are now prohibited from selling their Processors below cost

---

When it comes to companies doing big dirty tricks in most cases it causes a stir, however in the shallow waters of the Computer market you would hardly see a ripple from the community that inhabits it - you would expect something from the artists and people that normally have a word or two to say about such things, and sure they are there, maybe its just too much trouble to say something and just go with the flow... well that's something that is easy, but for some reason I never seemed to do

Either way, do not tell me or others this is something that did not happen

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

How big firms bash their rivals, in public and private

Quote:

---

"Sock puppetry" is what ensues when company stooges post multiple entries under assumed names, posing as members of the public, in order to boost the apparent popularity of a product.

L'Oreal, Wal-Mart and Sony have all in the past produced bogus blogs that purported to be written by ordinary people, but were really the creation of advertising agencies or other company spin-doctors

---

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

How big firms bash their rivals, in public and private

Quote:

---

"Sock puppetry" is what ensues when company stooges post multiple entries under assumed names, posing as members of the public, in order to boost the apparent popularity of a product.

L'Oreal, Wal-Mart and Sony have all in the past produced bogus blogs that purported to be written by ordinary people, but were really the creation of advertising agencies or other company spin-doctors

---

---

Thanks for explaining what you do for a living, but I wish AMD spent more of their resources on research and development to be honest. We have another poster around here who defends Roland to such an insane degree it looks like he's in the same business. I think subtlety is the key with these things, and you are both getting it very wrong!

> This is of course not true - Intel were found guilty of Conspiracy against AMD

What on earth are you blabbering on about? How about you actually READ (there's a clue) what I wrote:

"There really is no secret conspiracy, magic bullet or snake oil out there; BD is a poor CPU. It's the first time in years I've seen a latest generation CPU perform WORSE than one years old from the same company "

If you REALLY can't get my point (that BD is a low performing CPU) and that this isn't misinformation then there's no point in continuing. In all the years I've been on this forum, this is perhaps THE most stupid reply to a post I've ever had.


> Either way, do not tell me or others this is something that did not happen

Lol. Again, actually READ what I wrote. I didn't say it didn't happen, I wasn't even commenting on anything of the sort!! If you're trying to be clever with words you're failing miserably too as I was clearly talking present tense, not past, anyway.

Soooo, Mr Logos,

Do you have any quantifiable and qualified information in regards to how all of this correlates to DAW performance, or are you again going to shift the focus and head into Tin Foil Hat territory.

Still waiting for your extended "hardcore technical logging " data that DAWbench is lacking... :-)

V:

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

Yeah.... could see you ducking behind was talking about Bulldozer bit, but lets face it the baiting for it (Conspiracy here and there) was all over the thread and you were just dipping your rod into troubled waters with a little bit of selective reading... no? Like you see the bit about AVX - the last bit about AVX but when Peter from Scan gives his revised results for benchmarks on the Bulldozer, which does deal with the matter in hand, what happens to that?

Conspiracy

Definition: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act, a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act or a crime in concert

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

Numbers or GTFO. Every real-world benchmark, every major synthetic benchmark has shown Bulldozer absolutely mullered by last generation's Intel parts. It's just about possible to coax out a lead in some very specific workloads, but they are totally unlike DAW workloads.

DragonLogos: unless you have real, quantitative data, this thread is over. Bulldozer is slower per watt, slower per pound, slower per core, slower per thread than the Intel alternative. You can bandy around conspiracy theories and non-sequiturs all you like, all the available data shows that Bulldozer is just a lousy architecture implemented badly.

And this is based on your tests or what you have read?

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

A blast from the past

03-25-2011, 10:08 PM

Quote:

---

AMD has an issue on its hands once it releases BD. Lets just say for arguments sake that BD is a real performance jump like Core 2 was. When it comes out, the demand for all of AMD's previous gen chips is going to fall. Sure, Intel chips are going to take a hit too, but AMD will have to make enough money on the new BD chips to make up for the loss in revenue from their last gen reduction in sales.

It is absolutely NOT in AMD's best interest to allow any benchmark to show stellar performance on BD ES's at this time

---

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

A blast from the past

03-25-2011, 10:08 PM

Quote:

---

AMD has an issue on its hands once it releases BD. Lets just say for arguments sake that BD is a real performance jump like Core 2 was. When it comes out, the demand for all of AMD's previous gen chips is going to fall. Sure, Intel chips are going to take a hit too, but AMD will have to make enough money on the new BD chips to make up for the loss in revenue from their last gen reduction in sales.

It is absolutely NOT in AMD's best interest to allow any benchmark to show stellar performance on BD ES's at this time

---

---

Nice one johnny
I'm actually very surprised this thread is still going!

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Yeah.... could see you ducking behind was talking about Bulldozer bit, but lets face it the baiting for it (Conspiracy here and there) was all over the thread and you were just dipping your rod into troubled waters with a little bit of selective reading... no? Like you see the bit about AVX - the last bit about AVX but when Peter from Scan gives his revised results for benchmarks on the Bulldozer, which does deal with the matter in hand, what happens to that?

---

What are you babbling about ??

I was the person who initiated the further investigation, so I have all of the so called revised results and know intimately what was involved in getting them , and they do not add up to a hill of beans in the greater scheme of things. No developer in their right mind is going to compromise their code base to cater for a polished turd that is Bull Dozer, get a grip.

Now lets see some of your so called more accurate and detail test results for DAW usage, I am not interested in your rear ended tin foil hat adventures.

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

Wow guys, what an argument haha.

I guess we all need to hit the root. We are trying to mix, master and produce music hear right? I mean guys!...music is getting more "fake" and porcessed sounding as technology rises. There is no real bone in the muscle of music any more. If you can produce a good piece of music on a Core2Duo, you are a good producer in my opinion.

I like the old school musicians that had nothing but crappy microphones and old disk recorders and still attracts the ears because it was unique and genuine. Nothing was over "autotuned", nothing sounded like it was in space ha. Its was all just pure talent in the musician and not the producer. With processors now, you can make a bad stage band sound amazing in the studio. I think that if a producer becomes to focused on the latest and fastest processor, he is losing the genuine quality of natural music. Every thing is becoming to digital. Bands these days on the radio trip me out because they sound good on the radio but...crap on the stage.

I mean, my guy who does all my mixing and mastering is on a Intel Q6600 and its not breaking a sweat because he is also using "QUAD" UAD Cards.

My opinion: Rather it be AMD or Intel, focus more on the "music" than the "gear" and innovate to something never done before. Who cares about the Intel or AMD when you can get a UAD that is built to focus on quality plugins?

I will would still like to know which would be a better buy for me in a laptop. A AMD A6-3420M or Intel i3 2.2? I am on a Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 2.2 with 4GB RAM. One slot in open for another 4GB at max for 8GB. Would raising the RAM be more worth it than buying say....a AMD A6 or i3? How does the T6600 2.2 Duo stack up against the A6 Quad 2.3? No, B.S please.

I am using Reaper and i am not on the "hype" ramp with ProTools.

Reaper seems to care less with virtual hyperthreading and more on the "actual" core so A6 is looking better. Looking nothing over $500. I figured something in that range would be better than the T6600.

Edited by assemblethelight (25/01/12 04:40 AM)

Quote assemblethelight:

---

I guess we all need to hit the root. We are trying to mix, master and produce music hear right? I mean guys!...music is getting more "fake" and porcessed sounding as technology rises. There is no real bone in the muscle of music any more. If you can produce a good piece of music on a Core2Duo, you are a good producer in my opinion.

---

Quote assemblethelight:

---

My opinion: Rather it be AMD or Intel, focus more on the "music" than the "gear" and innovate to something never done before. Who cares about the Intel or AMD when you can get a UAD that is built to focus on quality plugins?

---

Why spend £600 on a UAD card when a current gen intel offers more power for less money natively for the same price and your not restricted in your plugin choice?

Your right, you can mix and master easily on a Q6600 will do the job well for mixing down your audio tracks as they are just audio tracks; what it doesn't offer anymore without the UAD card is the ability to load up and work with highly intensive signal chains on the fly. Sure you can load up each channel and freeze/bounce as you go but if your not in a traditional band recording situation this would slow down your workflow from a sound design angle.

Just for instance I've been playing about a lot with Diversity lately and as soon as I go over a 3 OSC stack it takes a obscene chunk of my processor power... by gawd does it sound stunning but my PC screams and my spec has got roughly 6 X the performance of your Q6600 so if I lose 20% of my processor running it, your machine wouldn't have a chance. However if run on one of the newer machines discussed above it wouldn't even get remotely near double figures on the ASIO meter.

Plug in's evolve all the time and the new ones continue to eat up more and more processor each new one that appears. The x58 box I built two years ago where I couldn't use up even half the overhead now get's trampled with latest and greatest, and whilst this won't concern a lot of real muso's who are playing into the box and mixing down with few tweaks to the sound, but for those of us doing lots of intensive sound design this sort of information is critical in deciding just what to invest in next.

Your right in what you say as far as your situation is concerned, but not everyone shares your needs and requirements.

As far as AMD laptops go... I've not tested any of this generation. Desktop wise Reaper doesn't seem to mind HT at all (otherwise the i5's wouldn't beat the AMD hexcores) but I've no idea where the AMD laptops are performing in the scale in comparison to the current i3's.

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