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

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

Just for instance I've been playing about a lot with Diversity lately

---

You started street dancing Pete? Nice one - my five year old is interested in dance classes, maybe you can show us some of your moves?

I don't care about the Intel/AMD thing either - i just want a "music making machine" - they come into my shop all the time asking "i want a machine that does music" and i say "certainly sir, what colour would you like?" - it's easy. All this talk about technology just gets in the way. In fact what a nonsense having a forum about "PC Music" surely that's counter-productive, PC's just make music sound rubbish - why would a magazine as highly regarded as SOS support such a thing? As soon as you record music you kill it - far better for music to live and die in the moment rather than have its soul stolen by committing it to any form of recording media. If you weren't there when i played it for real then you simply miss out. You should all come down to my shed right now as i'm about to pick up my hand bells again - otherwise this beauty will be lost. Ummmmm...... might have lost my thread somewhere back there....

So yeah, Pete, throw us a shape.

--------------------
PC-Music.com hints, tips & reviews
Rain Computers UK - Creative Audio PC's

Quote robinv:

---

So yeah, Pete, throw us a shape.

---

Sure mate, how about an obtuse Triangle?

Just as a self correction now that I've been mocked, I meant the rather excellent Diversion vsti and not Diversity the street dancing thingamajig.

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

haha, everything on this thread has become dramatic.

I simply know nothing about the "i" series compared to the "A" series of AMD. I still on a Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 and its tamed me to stop relying on the latest and greatest of chip sets to make "quality" music.

At this point my HP laptop has been loyal to me and I have had it for 2 years, it will be past to my wife now. I am on the hunt for a new laptop for portability and something at least 2 times stronger than my T6600 now. I want a straight answer, is all I am looking for.

For $100 cheaper on about any brand of computer, i can get a AMD A6 Quadcore with a much better graphics card if i choice to play games and more RAM. Mainly if i miss out on the graphics, i will not sadden me if the i3 leaves the A6 in the dust by a long margin. If the Intel is only about %10 gain and has really crappy graphics compared to a A6, then i do not care for that %10 gain. If the Intel has a %50 gain over A6 and crappy graphics, then it will justify me better to buy the Intel. I will not pay $100 more for a %10-%20 gain and crappy graphics. My purpose is solely for mixing but if I gain a more decent graphics card, why not? Bang for the buck is my deal.

As far as plugins, yes they are really getting more CPU hungry. I have to be honest though, my t6600 with 4GB in Reaper is producing quality results. I am at %70 CPU usage and %50 RAM when at the 20 tracks ( Basic EQ, compression, and reverb plugins )I asked if my RAM upgrade to 8GB would better serve me justice over a newer i3 laptop with only 4GB.

Would something like this be helpful to you?
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

--------------------
PC-Music.com hints, tips & reviews
Rain Computers UK - Creative Audio PC's

Before i get hammered for saying 20 tracks and not alot more:

20 tracks includes a full drum set, acoustic, electric, bass guitar, and vocals. Fairly simple really. As long as i get nice sound going in, i am happy. Decent preamps, converters, and recording technique goes further than a beast of a machine and really bad post recording.

From what i hear from Rain computers, they are getting about 40 tracks loaded with plugins and with out glitches on a.....AMD E-450! That is much more than my T6600 ha.

Quote robinv:

---

Would something like this be helpful to you?
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

---

Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes ect...put alot on paper bro and slap a big 100k+ tag on it but...at the end of the day they are still getting lapped around the track and left in the dust by a Corvette ZR1 at half the price and horsepower. Maybe the Intel is the Vette, AMD the Ferrari or vise versa.... I care less for what chart says and advertising. Not saying that the chart is a lie but i would rather see more "BOIS" reviews with a DAW using AMD vs Intel ha...before i make a purchase. America these days seems to believe anything a magazine or the net tells them, i am not one of those guys haha.

Quote assemblethelight:

---

I asked if my RAM upgrade to 8GB would better serve me justice over a newer i3 laptop with only 4GB.

---

I don't think so. CPU tends to be the key factor - few people use more than 4GB of RAM. Are you using a 64bit OS?

--------------------
PC-Music.com hints, tips & reviews
Rain Computers UK - Creative Audio PC's

Quote robinv:

---

Quote assemblethelight:

---

I asked if my RAM upgrade to 8GB would better serve me justice over a newer i3 laptop with only 4GB.

---

I don't think so. CPU tends to be the key factor - few people use more than 4GB of RAM. Are you using a 64bit OS?

---

I am using Windows 7 64bit. Few people use more than 4GB of RAM? Thanks for your help

Do I detect a note of sarcasm in your last sentence assemblethelight, or am I imagining it?

I tend to agree with Robin on this one - lots of musicians seem to install vast amounts of RAM thinking it will speed certain aspects of their work up, but unless you’re pre-loading loads of sample data to avoid hard drive streaming bottlenecks I still think 4GB is a reasonable amount, although 8GB is dirt cheap nowadays so you might just as well install that just in case


Martin

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

Well it sounds like the biggest concern should be compability with your interface and if it behaves well in your setup.

I'm using the Q6600 as a frame of reference as that's one of my benchmark setups and your current laptop cpu under performs the Q6600 desktop cpu to such an extent that it doesn't even register on the chart Robin provided before and the Q6600 is about 1/3rd of the way up it. Going off the same chart both of your current choices look to offer around the same amount of grunt as Q6600 and the AMD will have the better gfx so with all that taken into consideration as long as the laptop works well with any other kit you may have, it looks like it could well be the better solution for you.

Quote Martin Walker:

---

I tend to agree with Robin on this one - lots of musicians seem to install vast amounts of RAM thinking it will speed certain aspects of their work up, but unless you’re pre-loading loads of sample data to avoid hard drive streaming bottlenecks I still think 4GB is a reasonable amount, although 8GB is dirt cheap nowadays so you might just as well install that just in case

---

All depends how you work. From the OP's description of working with lot's of audio I'd have said stick in a decent harddrive before vast amounts of memory if your client works with disk streaming.

I rarely go over 3GB in real world usage as well, althrough I don't work with large sound libaries. I'd agree with Martin too and I'd rarely suggest over 8GB (hey, it's cheap) unless your working with VSL or some other ram hungry monster.

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

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

Well it sounds like the biggest concern should be compability with your interface and if it behaves well in your setup.

I'm using the Q6600 as a frame of reference as that's one of my benchmark setups and your current laptop cpu under performs the Q6600 desktop cpu to such an extent that it doesn't even register on the chart Robin provided before and the Q6600 is about 1/3rd of the way up it. Going off the same chart both of your current choices look to offer around the same amount of grunt as Q6600 and the AMD will have the better gfx so with all that taken into consideration as long as the laptop works well with any other kit you may have, it looks like it could well be the better solution for you.

I "used" a Focusrite Scarlett as my output for mixing but, it for some ambiguous reason, used up about %25 of my CPU using it just for playback so i went back to just my output on laptop headphone jack. Though, i do record 1-2 track at a time with the Scarlett and its very much better than my Presonus AudioBox and Tascam 144 in both stablity and preamps. The preamps are really natural and clean.

I am a little confused to how a 1.4ghz Quadcore A6 would be near the same realm at the Q6600 because the Q6600 is 3.0ghz at 12mb Cache right? Same for the i3. I am a little confused with the chart.

I "used" a Focusrite Scarlett as my output for mixing but, it for some ambiguous reason, used up about %25 of my CPU using it just for playback so i went back to just my output on laptop headphone jack. Though, i do record 1-2 track at a time with the Scarlett and its very much better than my Presonus AudioBox and Tascam 144 in both stablity and preamps. The preamps are really natural and clean.

I am a little confused to how a 1.4ghz Quadcore A6 would be near the same realm at the Q6600 because the Q6600 is 3.0ghz at 12mb Cache right? Same for the i3. I am a little confused with the chart.

Quote assemblethelight:

---

I am a little confused to how a 1.4ghz Quadcore A6 would be near the same realm at the Q6600 because the Q6600 is 3.0ghz at 12mb Cache right? Same for the i3. I am a little confused with the chart.

---

Who knows mate, it's just how it pans out - technology and that. You could spend some time sifting through the results posted on dawbench.com to see if that helps you in finding relative audio results. Or to follow your car analogy you could test drive a few yourself. If you won't believe what's in a magazine then a website will be even less trustworthy so perhaps you need to buy a few alternative systems and run them side by side for comparison - it's the only way to be sure. Failing that if you buy something new you can't go far wrong and once you've made your choice you'll never know how the other options would have panned out - you can't lose.

--------------------
PC-Music.com hints, tips & reviews
Rain Computers UK - Creative Audio PC's

Quote assemblethelight:

---

I "used" a Focusrite Scarlett as my output for mixing but, it for some ambiguous reason, used up about %25 of my CPU using it just for playback so i went back to just my output on laptop headphone jack.

---

That'll be the poor driver performance I brought up in the other thread.

Quote assemblethelight:

---

I am a little confused to how a 1.4ghz Quadcore A6 would be near the same realm at the Q6600 because the Q6600 is 3.0ghz at 12mb Cache right? Same for the i3. I am a little confused with the chart.

---

You can't compare clock speeds across different generations.

A Q6600 is 3 - 4 times more powerful than a P4 running at 3Ghz, and a modern i7 is 6 times more powerful than the Q6600 at 3Ghz. Clockspeeds mean very little unless they are compared like for like with other chips from the same range.

I've got a breakdown of the current flagship chips and DAWBench based chart here that goes back to the Q6600 period and whilst both the chips at the top and bottom have the same clock speeds the difference in performance is vast.

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

When it comes to cutting edge audio chips and motherboards instead of getting into heated web arguments, I simply see what scott at ADK is doing. Why reinvent the wheel? This guys life is matching the highest performance components for audio systems. I've been building PCs and drumming since I was 9, I feel like if I never had to do anything else I could have been like Scott. But the great thing for us, is we can live our lives and I for one put a lot of faith in his judgement. AMD may find a niche but for now its not in high end audio workstations.

-Pablo

p.s. and plus by going on with this threads you just make Scott have to troll and correct you, so please save time, ask Scott.

p.p.s. comments directed at the thread, the OP was very demure in his inquiry.

Fact is there hasn't been a significant technology jump for several years now, nor an increase in core speed - all they have been doing is adding cores. They are at an engineering dead-end and frankly, they know it.

Now I have seen lab results of 16 working qbits on a chip - they need to get that up to about 100 to get similar performance to what we currently have, and then everything from software to operating systems needs to be re-written, and then, maybe, we'll be getting somewhere.

--------------------
Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound