Settle down everyone at least AMD is trying.

[tweakboy]

Ok I remember when there was only single core processors. AMD was first to intruduce 64bit and dual core cpu's. Then Intel fired back with the Core 2 series. Then AMD fires back with quads of their own.

Here is where I think AMD is trying to move forward while Intel is on a dead stop.

IMO for hardcore users not gamers. Cores are more important. Since 2007 Intel desktop has been quad core. That is not enough if you have 50 synths playing in realtime and 100 plugins in the project. This is with my Q6 processor. Sandy bridge I heard gives it a 50 percent boost in power. That is nice.

But the thing is I need cores. I am a believer a true core is faster then a threaded core. At least AMD since 2007 has moved on to 8 core processors while intel is 4 core. and if you want 6 core intel you pay 600 to 1k. While you can pay 300 and get the fastest amd 8 core.

I run DAW and I have a strange feeling a simple 8 core AMD would pown a sandy 2600k or ivy 3570k 4 core 8 threads, in Sonar X2 it will show 8 but their not actual cores. Actual cores might be better for me. Hmm I don't wan't to go AMD but seems like by the time Im ready for a new upgrade in 2013 ,, if I want 6 core I pay 1k, or I can pay 300 and get 8 core and overclock it under water to 5Ghz. 5Ghz , 8 cores.. sounds nice, and we know gaming wise it will perform same with Intels higher models and the rest is desktop work you do.

AMD did something right for the consumer video editor, Adob Premiere , I bet it encodes faster if you OC it too. And for DAW people...

BTW question. What is the best most powerful consumer CPU from amd. I know its 8 core but whats the model cuz theres like 5000 models literally.

Intel should have followed suit and put 8 core 16 threads to the table in 2012 and 2013, but no....... all you get is a hexacore Haswell for 1 thousand dollars. yikes.... :twisted:

:whiste:

 

[Rvenger]

Most people paint a bad picture of AMD. Its not as bad as others make it out to be.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Most people paint a bad picture of AMD. Its not as bad as others make it out to be.

I'm sure that will be of great comfort to them as they go into Chapter 11.

 

[fixbsod]

moar cores!

 

[MisterMac]

Tweakboy random rant.


http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm

You might wanna actually look into how DAWs work - considering your such a professional afficianado.


Access time and fast cache access matters along with threads/clockspeed as a second parametric.
Hence thus, Intel still spanks AMD on raw performance.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Cores are not more important, power, price and performance is more important. Cores are just one way to achieve higher performance. For example, in many cases, an Intel CPU with less CPU cores might be faster than an AMD CPU with more cores. Just because an AMD CPU might have more cores, it is not guaranteed to be faster, not even at something that uses a number of threads equal to the number of CPU cores.

Like imagine if AMD made a CPU that had 32 cores, but each core was an Athlon XP clocked at 1.0 GHz. In most situations, it would be terrible! Very few use cases would benefit from a CPU designed like that.

AMD moved to the Bulldozer model partly to benefit highly threaded workflows, but also for marketing purposes. Its easy to sell more cores as better, even if its not always as simple as that.

At least AMD is trying?

Back in the Intel lawsuit days, I stood by them. I stood by them when people on this forum and others said that they deserved what they got, that they were resorting to lawsuits because they could beat Intel no other way, that Intel was playing fair. I defended them, and I bought CPUs, because their CPUs were better. The Athlon 64 was simply a superior CPU in every way to anything Intel produced at the time.

But thats not the case now, and the sad fact is that AMD is directly to blame for the mess they are now in. Thats why I'm angry with them, its like they had this great product in the A64, they finally won those lawsuits with Intel, and they squandered all of that. Their managers "managed" until AMD was in the toilet. Their managers are what produced Bulldozer.

 

[cytg111]

I dont know .. at this point maybe they should really add moar coars .. 8+ moar. (and get tsx)

 

[Maximilian]

Obligatory...

 

[pelov]

Obligatory...

Spelled moar and coars wrong.

 

[Bman123]

AMD needs to stick to the APU because the desktop cpu's are not where it's at. It's pretty bad when a dual core i3 can beat a quad core amd cpu in gaming.More cores are not always better.

 

[moonbogg]

AMD is awesome and we better start praising them for their hard work because if they go down its our fault and stop buying intel. Without AMD an i3 would cost $400.00

 

[tweakboy]

Tweakboy random rant.


http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm

You might wanna actually look into how DAWs work - considering your such a professional afficianado.


Access time and fast cache access matters along with threads/clockspeed as a second parametric.
Hence thus, Intel still spanks AMD on raw performance.

I been using Sonar since 1997 I know how things work. I just didnt know the new info.. thanks for that

As for access time Im 55ns RAM , and I record @ 64bit/192khz @ 1ms latency so it feels just like my yamaha grand piano. Thanks to Uni Xonar modded drivers. ASIO I can go 32bit then I run bit rendering @ 64/192khz... I see major difference in performance thanks to SSD. you can freeze tracks or unfreeze and it does it really fast.

gl



so a 8 thread Intel will basically spank the 8 core AMD higher end processor.

Thanks, I know Sandy 2600k is right for me in the future. Is the price still stuck on 300 bucks.

 

[anongineer]

Aren't there keyboard synth mixer boards that are better suited to audio work?

 

[Phynaz]

Hey Tweakie, Intel came out with dual core x86 processors before AMD.

And trying isn't good enough. This isn't grade school where everyone wins just for trying.

 

[Maximilian]

Hey Tweakie, Intel came out with dual core x86 processors before AMD.

And trying isn't good enough. This isn't grade school where everyone wins just for trying.

They were crap though

I remember the anandtech article on the pentium D 805... "dual core on the cheap!" Freakin flamethrower.

 

[TerryMathews]

Don't any of you remember when the tables were turned and AMD was the better processor to own? Google Pentium 4 emergency edition.

These things go in cycles.

 

[notty22]

They were crap though

I remember the anandtech article on the pentium D 805... "dual core on the cheap!" Freakin flamethrower.

Never mind.

 

[Haserath]

Ok I remember when there was only single core processors. AMD was first to intruduce 64bit and dual core cpu's. Then Intel fired back with the Core 2 series. Then AMD fires back with quads of their own.

Here is where I think AMD is trying to move forward while Intel is on a dead stop.

IMO for hardcore users not gamers. Cores are more important. Since 2007 Intel desktop has been quad core. That is not enough if you have 50 synths playing in realtime and 100 plugins in the project. This is with my Q6 processor. Sandy bridge I heard gives it a 50 percent boost in power. That is nice.

But the thing is I need cores. I am a believer a true core is faster then a threaded core. At least AMD since 2007 has moved on to 8 core processors while intel is 4 core. and if you want 6 core intel you pay 600 to 1k. While you can pay 300 and get the fastest amd 8 core.

I run DAW and I have a strange feeling a simple 8 core AMD would pown a sandy 2600k or ivy 3570k 4 core 8 threads, in Sonar X2 it will show 8 but their not actual cores. Actual cores might be better for me. Hmm I don't wan't to go AMD but seems like by the time Im ready for a new upgrade in 2013 ,, if I want 6 core I pay 1k, or I can pay 300 and get 8 core and overclock it under water to 5Ghz. 5Ghz , 8 cores.. sounds nice, and we know gaming wise it will perform same with Intels higher models and the rest is desktop work you do.

AMD did something right for the consumer video editor, Adob Premiere , I bet it encodes faster if you OC it too. And for DAW people...

BTW question. What is the best most powerful consumer CPU from amd. I know its 8 core but whats the model cuz theres like 5000 models literally.

Intel should have followed suit and put 8 core 16 threads to the table in 2012 and 2013, but no....... all you get is a hexacore Haswell for 1 thousand dollars. yikes.... :twisted:

:whiste:

Q6600@2.4
3770k@3.5-3.9

IPC gain=50%
Clock gain=50%
Hypthreading gain=20-30%

The IPC and clock gain works for all workloads as well... It's costing more and more for process and IPC gains so Intel is making it up with cheaper dies and the same pricing.

Intel is faster in everything with the 3770k. IPC and hyperthreading beat Amd's best even in highly threaded workloads most of the time.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

AMD is awesome and we better start praising them for their hard work because if they go down its our fault and stop buying intel. Without AMD an i3 would cost $400.00

Haha, good one. That will really get PC sales moving again!

 

[T_Yamamoto]

tweakboy=amd fanboy

 

[Blitzvogel]

AMD needs to pull their heads out of their asses plain and simple. They wouldn't be in the precarious position they are now had they refrained from purchasing ATi. The early days of the ATi acquisition could've been much better handled too, mainstream Fusion should've been out by 2009 at the latest as well.

 

[v8envy]

AMD needs to pull their heads out of their asses plain and simple. They wouldn't be in the precarious position they are now had they refrained from purchasing ATi.

They shouldn't have overpaid for ATI. That was the crucial mistake. ATI is pretty much the only thing keeping AMD from losing all mindshare on the desktop. Granted, AMD's management has destroyed quite a bit of value along the way now that the combined AMD/ATI is worth about a quarter of what AMD paid for ATI in the first place -- and that is more of a problem than having bought ATI in the first place.

 

[AnandThenMan]

AMD needs to pull their heads out of their asses plain and simple. They wouldn't be in the precarious position they are now had they refrained from purchasing ATi.

So tell us what products AMD would be selling today if they had no graphics tech?

BTW I find it absolutely hilarious that people say AMD has failed to compete, and expect them to somehow keep up with Intel when they have a tiny fraction of cash to dump into R&D. Not going to happen, AMD does very well for the resources they have available.

 

[bononos]

Don't any of you remember when the tables were turned and AMD was the better processor to own? Google Pentium 4 emergency edition.

These things go in cycles.

The P4EE was just a momentary blip, the only time AMD had a leading position for some length of time was during the AXPs and A64s.

 

[TerryMathews]

The P4EE was just a momentary blip, the only time AMD had a leading position for some length of time was during the AXPs and A64s.

How about the original Athlon? Intel was especially lazy there too.