anyone in here who actually uses AMD processors? Also for the people who actually use AMD, what do you think of the overall performance when it comes to audio work.
phenom II 6 core 1055 here and it works great.
I suppose for about twice the money, mobo and cpu combined, at the time I COULD have bought an Intel mobo and cpu, but why bother unless I wanted to be right at the bleeding edge.
Still happily making ,music with negligible latency and 100% reliability a year or so on.
I built a rack mount PC for location recordings, specifically using AMD Phenom hexacore. The combination of the micro ATX motherboard (Gigabyte GA-880) with onboard GPU, a couple of SSDs, and onboard TI FW chip were perfect combination for the purpose of the build. DPC latency is 45-60us and super flat for longer than 24 hours. It works with firewire interfaces extremely well.
For other CPU-intensive work, I choose intel CPUs.
I ask because I am thinking of building an AMD machine for fun. I will use iit for audio work. AMD is cheaper and my sessions rarely pass the 33% CPU usage mark on Intel so I don't see how spending the extra money on Intel is a big deal, for me that is. thanks for the responses, keep them coming if you use AMD. Do not turn this into a Intel vs AMD thread.
Well I've had my ups and downs with it. Mostly because I started with an AM2 dual core. I had a am2+ mobo...so I upgraded to a 9600BE, and it was the shizznit...then problems arose after a bad CPU fan. Upgraded to a 940BE, and it is faster than the 9600 by a fair bit. However, the AM2+ boards like mine max out the DDR2 at DDR1066, it was a hastle setting it up properly.
I have random blue screens after pushing the system for 4-6 hours. I believe it's a power issue; supposedly the AM2+ boards can't supply the CPU enough juice and can cause this, but these issues were addressed with AM3 boards.
So, in short if you do AMD get at least an AM3 with DDR3 and you're golden.
The main trick with AMD CPU's is setting up the bios correctly, so bear that in mind having a balanced system will be better.
I've had little problems with performance and it's still running quite well. Obviously with newer software versions it's getting outdated and I need a new machine soon.
At the time I bought it you got more for your money if you bought AMD. Looking at performance per dollar on a system level it was better. AMD also had a habit of offering better longevity by not switching sockets as often. I
Now however I don't see how anyone can justify buying AMD for pro-audio other than wanting to support the underdog. Intel CPU's seems to be sufficiently faster for the same price.
I was using a Q6600 for a while and decided to use a quad Phenom II 840 3.2ghz as the PT 8 LE machine for various reasons ...... the computer it's in is silent, being one of them. It hasn't crashed once, ever, and can handle every project I throw at it. If I had to go out and buy a completely new system today, I'd probably go with an intel. But if a person's funds were limited and they could build a complete system in the $300 to $400 to replace a computer that is 3 to 4 years old, AND is multitudes faster, then it just depends on how the current market is, as to whether you choose intel or AMD.
great responses again. I believe Intel thunderbolt will end up giving Intel the edge in the professional world but seriously I build once every 2 years for fun so if it came down to it I could just go Intel on the next build. I love building Hackintosh's but would like to switch to Windows or even Linux if I can find plug ins that match things like Waves and UAD. With Intel its just to tempting and I always give an OS X installation a shot. I'd like to trap myself by building an AMD PC and not being able to install OS X, as weird of a reason that may be.
anyways keep them coming. and also to the whole getting at least a AM3 board, I will be getting a AM3+ board, the 990FX-UD3 to be exact from Gigabyte. I am going to start with the quad core FX processor that's like 4GHz. The Vishera chips I believe they are called are coming in Winter and bring the 8 core to 4 GHz stock which I will end up using to replace the quad core chip. Also the Vishera chips have a 12MB L3 cache I believe, it might be more I believe I read 12.
if it doesn't work out I still have a decent quad core sandy bridge Hackintosh to work on.
Now however I don't see how anyone can justify buying AMD for pro-audio other than wanting to support the underdog. Intel CPU's seems to be sufficiently faster for the same price.
+1
there is absolutely no reason to by an AMD unless you already had an existing amd system and could just drop a much better processor in.
AMD is NOT less money, for every price range of AMD there is a more powerful (dratically) Intel processor at the same price.
unless you simply despise intel and are willing to cut your nose off to spite your face there is no logical reason to buy amd.
the motherboards and everything else for the systems are the same so it really comes down to processor price.
I have a PhenomII quad 3.2ghz, overclocked to 3.8ghz.
No real problems honestly... however with large projects I always get the feeling that "I should be able to push this session harder". I do feel the CPU holds some of my music back, in terms of capability before the CPU gets maxed out. In a busy session, I can only run about 3 Amplitube instances before the CPU usage starts to run thin (including an Omnisphere, Kontakt, plugins all over the place, etc lol).
It gets the job done no doubt... but it could be better absolutely. I'll be buying an Intel system by year's end. Even an Intel i5 is said to dust my top of the line AMD.
Which makes it all the more bizarre that they'd choose to get rid of the 1090 and 1100T's, since they were doing so "well" (all things considered).
I guess they had to clear inventory and manufacturing capacity plus switch to 32nm and those older (and better, lol) CPU's were in the way...
Really bums me out. I have an old system where I could drop in an 1100T... if it still existed...
You should be able to find one on eBay. I was researching this. I decided to not pull the trigger since benchmarks still show most i5 / i7 brands will spank this CPU.
and the 8 core AMD was no better $200.
6200 is $160
Intel 2500k is $220
3470 is $200
both intels smoke the AMDs
Scott
ADK
100% true.
I don't remember this being the case 2-3 years ago when the Phenom's first came out. When I bought mine... AMD was a smart choice b/c of the price/performance ratio. I got a lot of bang for my buck out of my AMD Phenom II. But at this particular point in time... there is no reason to buy an AMD chip lol. None.
oh why oh why did this become a Intel is better than AMD thread. The point is if you use an AMD system I was curious of your opinions. I have two Intel machines so this is more experimental than anything. I also only use 14% CPU usage on average with about 8 track sessions and 32 mixing plugins in use so no VI's. AMD motherboards are pretty cheap as far as feature set goes. a $350 Intel board is still only $200 with AMD. The CPUs come in many flavors, the 4 Core FX isn't that far off from the 8 core and is dirt cheap. My average Intel system comes to $1000 where my average AMD build is $700.
excuse me? is that your most knowledgable answer? wow classy and highly technical answer.
really shows your knowledge err lack of grow up child..
My apologies.
I felt your initial comment was rather blunt to put it mildly.
Hence my equally blunt response.
The less succinct response should have been:
By the time you factor in MOBO cost, etc., Intel is suddenly only a viable option if you are prepared to spend more to get the improved performance.
Mind you I sort of agree in the light of the Bulldozer debacle, but still happily running my 1055T system with negligible latency - cost me less than half what a "superior" Intel cpu/mobo would have been at the time I bought.
Horses for courses, I suppose.
There was some limits, creative limits. I couldn't load more than 9 instances of Amplitube with "acceptable" latency, I was mixing and sometimes had to freeze some tracks, etc. A workflow killer.
I paid 1200$ for an i7 2600k system, overclocked, SSD, complently silent case, etc. I couldn't be happier.
Buy cheap, buy twice.
If you do not need the processing power, AMD is fine, but today, for the same price, intel just KILLS AMD.
Please listen to what Jschild says. He is the most knowledgeable person on GS about computers and audio. I did not buy from him, but I would, or I will.
AMD is inferior to Intel.
It will get the job done, of course, and I would still trust AMD, but I am much more satisfied by my Intel system.
Even the old Intel systems (core 2 duo) seem to be much more useful than my old AMD's (phenom, phenom ii, thunderbird, etc)
I have used both Intel and AMD systems for years. Personally i think the performance increase you would see from an i5 or i7 is marginal if that compared to an equivalent AMD processor.
Take a look at these bench marks of teh chip that I currently use.
The 17 2600 is £229 (almost twice the price but almost twice the benchmark score)
My AMD PhenomII x6 1020T cost £116
Is an extra £50 worth 600 benchmark points?
This system flies. Use Cubase 6 and can track guitars using live instances of Guitar rig 5 with a total RTL of 5ms (This is with Kontakt 5 providing the drum from studio drummer and Abby Roads using full kits).
Most of my session use loads of VST's Kontakt kits, FM8. Reactor instruments, Massive etc and my AMD does the job perfectly.
It depends on how much you want to spend, could you use that money to get a better audio interface or towards a better monitoring solution or preamp?
Still rocking an old AMD system here
Phenom II X4 at 3.6 GHz, 4GB DDR2 RAM, Asus M3A32-MVP Deluxe motherboard.
System was built in 2007 and upgraded in 2009.
Still works great even for more demanding plug-ins. I find that one key point is to disable Cool n Quiet, otherwise idle CPU cores will operate at 800 MHz, which can causes crackles and latency.
a couple of weeks ago i built a secondary system based on the fx 8120 8core cpu . it was a cheap build and I already have a 2500k DAW so wanted to try something different.
the price of these has come down considerably and is now pretty good .
I paid 170$ aud for the chip and as an equivalent i5-2500k's are currently $220
On whim, I did a quick tot up and, based on today's googled prices, I could still build my system using a cpu/mobo combination of the Asus M89gtd pro usb3 and a 1090t for a couple of hundred UK pounds. Intel i7 2500k based system with the cheapest mobo I could find still works out twice the price in the UK.
Obviously the i7 would be way faster (or so I would hope) but that is a HUGE price differential for a hobby computist.
Last edited by ivansc; 15th August 2012 at 05:28 PM..
Reason: Second thoughts
thanks again. yea im doing it to try something different. I am a computer enthusiast who just wants to try something new and compare it to my intel build. For fun. I'm definitely going with the 8 core. I might start using my laptop to track and desktop to mix, the laptop is so much more quiet. lol.
On whim, I did a quick tot up and, based on today's googled prices, I could still build my system using a cpu/mobo combination of the Asus M89gtd pro usb3 and a 1090t for a couple of hundred UK pounds. Intel i7 2500k based system with the cheapest mobo I could find still works out twice the price in the UK.
Obviously the i7 would be way faster (or so I would hope) but that is a HUGE price differential for a hobby computist.
if $50 for less performance makes it or breaks it might be time for a new hobby. FYI i can find boards for both at the same price. at least boards i would use for audio.. and i have no issues using MATX (the right ones)
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
