Quote The Pablo Augustus:

---

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.

---

He saves time by trolling me by e-mail normally (Hi Scott )

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

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

He saves time by trolling me by e-mail normally (Hi Scott )

---

Any advance on that anyone?

(where's Vin when you need him )


Martin

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

Quote Martin Walker:

---

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

He saves time by trolling me by e-mail normally (Hi Scott )

---

Any advance on that anyone?

(where's Vin when you need him )

---

Is this thread still going ??

Well you know Martin, we all hang in wait with baited breath for Scotts next move because he is after all the authority , I would never argue with that.

I actually passed out holding my breath waiting for Dragon Logos' evidence that we had all missed the mark on the B.D's , so I am hoping Scott comes along shortly and straightens us all out.



V.C

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

Quote robinv:

---

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

---

somewhat useless with concern for audio/video.

god forbid you acually link to Vins test.
the rest of us do...

Scott
ADK

Quote The Pablo Augustus:

---

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.

---

oh lord i have a big enough head already.. but thank you for the compliment

FYI Vin, Pete and I (along with one of my employees Eric (one of the few people i know who can make MY eyes glaze over with tech talk) colaborate frequently.
in real life i am no where near as smart as i make myself out to be, just ask Vin he will tell you

Vin i got my eye on you..


Scott
ADK

Vin,

you are always on my butt about answering guys like this fool (dragon) i cant believe you engaged him this far... thats usually me
beside wasnt this put to bed on GearSlutz?

love these guys who go out and by AMD and then defend the purchase to the hilt and cant admit they made a mistake...

Scott

Hook, Line and Sinker....

Re Mr Logos, yehhh, momentary lapse of reason on my part I admit.

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

I would like to see some DAW Benchmarks. I am on budget with a laptop so $500 is all i will spend. I see Intel i3-2300M's and AMD A6 3400M/3420M all around the same price. Seems i get 4 actual cores and a better graphics card with the AMD. The i3 is a dual-core and the graphics card sucks with todays standards. It was a simple question as to if the A6 had more grunt than the i3. The benchmarks show that the A6 is faster but i do not know if this was a result with a DAW and VST loads.

Its all in what Reaper may see more beneficial, the hyperthreanding (imaginary friends) or four actual cores. I told by a computer geek that the i3 sorta splits the load of the each core. (when needing to use hyperthrending). So its more like a dual-core i3 2.2GHZ would be the equal to a quadcore 1.1ghz. He also said that 1.0ghz of a Intel is equal to around a 2.0 Athlon. He said that the A-Series of AMD is too "NEW" to start comparing with a i3 or i5. He could not give me a answer other than going with the Quadcore A6 for assurance of knowing its got the balls for a DAW. Its up there with the Q series of Intel and its still being used in alot of studio's with out having to upgrade to a i5 or i7..... yet.

After my purchase, i will upgrade the harddrive to a SSD if its not a 7500rpm or above and buy a external 3.0 USB hardrive. Does the 2.0 usb harddrive deliver enough to mix tracks?

Quote jcschild:

---

Quote robinv:

---

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

---

somewhat useless with concern for audio/video.

god forbid you acually link to Vins test.
the rest of us do...

Scott
ADK

---

Thanks - happy days

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

I got the computer with the A6-3420G Quadcore.

The A6 was at %15 when the Intel T6600 was at %80 with the same VST load. (CPU USAGE). The A6 was still only at 1.5ghz per core. This means she was purring along. Considering the A6 is underclocked way down, i imagine it will handle anything i throw at it in my realm of needs. She purrs at 1.5ghz but once she knowledges she needs more food, she grunts at 2.3ghz and grows at 3.1ghz if i wanted to boost her with K10SATA. Even at 2.3ghz her voltage is not even close to breaking point temp. She cuts off at 90c but at 2.3ghz she was only at 50c. At 3.1ghz...she is at 91c so she will never she that number ha.

Vin Tel Inside

Miss me?

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

Quote:

---

The old believe everything, the middle-aged suspect everything and the young know everything

---

Oscar Wilde

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote:

---

The old believe everything, the middle-aged suspect everything and the young know everything

---

Oscar Wilde

---

You, Dragon, you don't know anything. You don't know how to interpret a rudimentary table of results! AMD is shite, and we all know it, even you know it deep down.

Hmm... I'm using an AMD six core processor now, after reading this thread, I'm amazed I'm actually able to get any work done at all. Judging by the venom in some of these posts, I should be impressed that it even boots up.

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Vin Tel Inside

Miss me?

---

Are you off your meds again ?

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

Every computer I've ever built has alwys been a price/performance machine focussing on it's use. My current studio PC is a 6 core AMD. At the time of purchase, the CPU was 40% the price of an i7, so it was a no-brainer for me.

And guess what? I have loads of audio tracks, compressors, limiters, amp sims, reverbs etc. and the CPU sits at about 15% load.

I'm glad I didn't spend another £150 on the i7.

No one ever claimed you couldn't work on an AMD. All the benchmarks are there to do is work out the best price/performance ratio at any given price point.

Doesn't mean that if your requirements are modest that an AMD chip won't do, because of course it does. Any system builder will always be concerned about getting the most performance out of a rig that they can at a given price point.

Just for instance an Amd FX8120 rig is about £50 or so cheaper than a 2500 based system it's true. The performance of the 2500 based machine is pretty much double that of the FX8120.

If you don't need the power of the 2500, for example you just want a recording box then buy the AMD. If you think you'll need the extra performance for any reason over the next couple of years then the 2500 is far better value.

Supposedly Trinity offers twice the performance when it launches and Intels Ivybridge is little more than a die shrink rather than a major step up, so who knows AMD might finally put themselves back in the game this year, althrough the cynic in me seems to recall myself saying that this time last year.

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

Quote TAFKAT:

---

Some results Here

Its not pretty.

V:

---

Is it just on my system that this link leads somewhere unexpected? :-)

Quote Ant Gamble:

---

Every computer I've ever built has alwys been a price/performance machine focussing on it's use. My current studio PC is a 6 core AMD. At the time of purchase, the CPU was 40% the price of an i7, so it was a no-brainer for me.

And guess what? I have loads of audio tracks, compressors, limiters, amp sims, reverbs etc. and the CPU sits at about 15% load.

I'm glad I didn't spend another £150 on the i7.

---

The i5 runs better than the AMD too though.

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Quote TAFKAT:

---

Some results Here

Its not pretty.

V:

---

Is it just on my system that this link leads somewhere unexpected? :-)

---

You got coked up strippers as well then?

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

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

You got coked up strippers as well then?

---

I suppose it was inevitable that with a name like that it would eventually get high jacked... :-)

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

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

Supposedly Trinity offers twice the performance when it launches and Intels Ivybridge is little more than a die shrink rather than a major step up, so who knows AMD might finally put themselves back in the game this year, althrough the cynic in me seems to recall myself saying that this time last year.

---

If you listen very carefully, you'll hear the sound of breath not being held over here...

What exactly is Trinity? I thought it was a replacement for Llanos rather than a replacement for Bulldozer - i.e. more of a mid-range than high-end part.

If it is intended to compete with Sandy-/Ivy-Bridge, then I hope AMD learned some lessons from their last launch...

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?

---

It seems that a power user who has looked into the subject wouldn't choose this CPU, so you're not going to get much anecdotal evidence.

If you're stuck with a Bulldozer system, it will doubtless run a DAW very nicely, you just won't be able to push it as far as you would a more suitable CPU. Many of us run our DAW systems well within their limits, never coming anyehere near the maximum number of tracks or effects. If the Bulldoser is cheaper, maybe no matter it isn't as powerful. A certain amount of CPU power headroom makes for a reliable system. Too much is a waste of money.

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

No one ever claimed you couldn't work on an AMD. All the benchmarks are there to do is work out the best price/performance ratio at any given price point.

Doesn't mean that if your requirements are modest that an AMD chip won't do,

---

Modest? Peter I respect you from a professional stance, but what PRACTICAL testing have you done that warrants this term MODEST... was it core duo being light years ahead (which it was not) or maybe Sandy... any the Vapourware of Ivy - Practical Magick?

Also factor into your price /performance - John Forbes Nash Jnr

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote Pete Kaine:

---

No one ever claimed you couldn't work on an AMD. All the benchmarks are there to do is work out the best price/performance ratio at any given price point.

Doesn't mean that if your requirements are modest that an AMD chip won't do,

---

Modest? Peter I respect you from a professional stance, but what PRACTICAL testing have you done that warrants this term MODEST... was it core duo being light years ahead (which it was not) or maybe Sandy... any the Vapourware of Ivy - Practical Magick?

Also factor into your price /performance - John Forbes Nash Jnr

---

Modest is a polite term in this instance.

They (hexcores) perform worse than my i7 930 which itself is starting to feel underpowered in day to day use when loaded up with the latest and greatest plug in's.

Now I'm pretty much electronica only when tinkering at home and I admit I'm the sort of person who is happy to build up stacks of layers which you'd expect to punish the average system, so in that context more modest requirements would be exactly that. If you just need a small rack box to do some field recording and editing then the AMD boxes will offer all that and cost less than the Intel's so it's a no brainer.

As soon as you move into the studio through AMD's price/performance ratios just don't equate as well. For those that just need to multitrack record and do a quick mixdown then sure the AMD's will do the job as your working mostly with audio but as soon as you start wanting to work in the box and start to build up large effects chains your going to be hitting that headroom where as you wouldn't be touching the sides if you spent another £200 at the outset and bought the Intel.

What I'm trying to say is if you have limited requirements or limited funds then the AMD's will do the job to a certain level and if your requirements are below that level it'll be fine for you but they simply don't offer a better price to performance ratio and forget about "vaporware" (which isn't going to be a leap forward anyway as it's a "tick" cycle this time round) the they haven't been able to compete on performance for a good 3 years now and it's not getting any better right at this point.

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

Peter I think you are still missing the point, what is been asked for is practical information... in other words, you did a project with X amount of audio tracks, ran various audio effects and had a virtual instruments playing away in the background. In other words certified testing, which is a good way of seeing how accurate different benchmarks are - Then you have the results for the two computers running the same project. Which is a bit a time consuming exercise, but bearing in mind that SOS is one of the leading Audio publications today, it needs to be done

I'll get into the horses for courses thing later

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

Quote:

---

Modest is a polite term in this instance.

---

A lot of people here are butting a lot of hard work into getting an informative debate going, all you seem to be doing is trying to wind people up... either put in some effort or go play somewhere else

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Peter I think you are still missing the point, what is been asked for is practical information... in other words, you did a project with X amount of audio tracks, ran various audio effects and had a virtual instruments playing away in the background.

---

So more like the "DAWbench VI Universal 2012" test with audio and (Kontakt) instrument instances running as well?

Quote:

---

17 x Stereo Tracks of Audio

16 x Midi Tracks - Musical Content.

80 x Midi Tracks - Polyphony.

6 x Kontakt 4 - All instances with 16 multitimbral parts. 5 x instances with polyphonic parts inactive, to be enabled during playback.

Each part adding 20 notes of sustained polyphony until session is overloaded.

---

Other than that sort of test I'm not sure how you want to quantify pratical infomation. No single person on here uses the same combination of sequencer and plugin's as any other so all tests are either subjective or done within strict benchmarking guide lines to target the parts of the system that matter for audio users which is where the older Dawbench comes in.

I can throw together a project that does all that but it's no use if the second machine it's tested on doesn't have the same combination of plug in's. The kontakt test trys it best to cover this by using an industry standard plug in as it's core test as most people tend to have it, otherwise you have to have all sorts of agreements in place to distribute a set of plug in's just for testing.

Also I'm not sure what figure you want to work off in quantifying it your way. The ASIO load meter is hardly an acurate reflection of the load the system is under, and to write enough tracks into a song that would tax the ultra high end dual cpu systems would involve someone writing a rather epic concerto and we'd be using VSL as the test platform.

Tell me how you want the results measured and I'll look into doing a direct shoot off between the an AMD and Intel system (when I'm back in the office in two weeks as I have Gadget Show to get out of the way next week) but the current benchmarks are the way they are (with stacking instances) because any other way of measuring is too inaccurate.

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

Quote DragonLogos:

---

Quote:

---

Modest is a polite term in this instance.

---

A lot of people here are butting a lot of hard work into getting an informative debate going, all you seem to be doing is trying to wind people up... either put in some effort or go play somewhere else

---

There is no debate. You are arguing black is white, and everybody else is arguing that white is actually white.

These results are abysmal for AMD:

Dawbench DSP RXC test

256 buffer
new AMD FX 6100 95 RXC
older AMD 1090T 144 RXC
Intel 2600 212 RXC

32 Buffer

new AMD FX 6100 72 RXC
older AMD 1090T 80 RXC
Intel 2600 183 RXC

AMD are an absolute disgrace for releasing such a poor performing processor. It is even slower than their own previous model and less than half the speed of the intel 2600 chip.

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?

---

They will have been absolutely perfect, until you tried to over-run the system's available power. Most people when buying a computer today choose between ten times too powerful for what they need, or only five times :-) Either way, if a desktop it starts looking antique after 5 years, if a laptop it breaks after 3. Which is why no-one offers a laptop warranty over 3 years.

and these are test that you have done?

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