AMD Processors Issue for Recording Computer?

[luknfur]

No luck with a search. Anyone know of any incompatibility issues of concern with using "whatever" recording software with AMD processors?

I've gotten glimpses from as much on the net. Don't know if it's old news, bad info or what but I'm guessing some folks on this forum may know.

[hunta]

I don't think there are any compatibility issues, just AMD is kind of underpowered compared to Intel right now. Although some would argue that.. You might find this interesting: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music...-amd-ptle.html

[MonetBass]

Keep in mind that any recording software (to my knowledge) would not be coded to take advantage of a dual-core processor, never mind a quad-core. As usual, the software industry is lagging behind.

As far as compatibility, the software won't care if it's an AMD or Intel.

[hunta]

Originally Posted by MonetBass

Keep in mind that any recording software (to my knowledge) would not be coded to take advantage of a dual-core processor, never mind a quad-core. As usual, the software industry is lagging behind.

As far as compatibility, the software won't care if it's an AMD or Intel.

Actually most sequencers now will utilize at least dual core. Cubase has multicore support, although I think quad core has some issues. Pro Tools supports 8 core cpu's now. Reason I think still only supports 1 cpu.

I'd check gearslutz.com and search around for issues relevant to the specific programs you're going to use and multicore support.

[spindizzy]

I am running Cubase on two different systems with one being Intel based and the other AMD. Other than the capatability problems associated with Vista on one machine I have experienced no difference between the Intel based unit and the AMD based unit.

The observation about multiple processors is accurate to a point although for a price you can buy versions of a few multitrack programs that can utilize multiple processors. Cubase offers such a level but I don't have any experience with it as I wasn't ready to pay the up charge yet. My main machine has a dual-core AMD in it and despite that lack of native support and some Vista slowness on a few functions, the system deffinately out performs my XP Intel machine hands down.

Of course a lot of it depends on your knowledge of machine setup, particularly learning to turn off many functions in the OS to reserve as much throughput as possible for recording and playback. I realize virtually no instances of latency with my setup.

Spin

[luknfur]

Appreciate the feedback. I've read some Sonar versions work with dual core and I've also read that in general a slower speed AMD function as fast as a faster speed intel. There's supposedly like an equivalence standard but I've never pulled it up. Seems like the slower chips like the Celeron, etc. have improved a lot over the last few years as well.

In searching the net a lot of the stuff pulled up isn't dated so it's basically by the content you can tell how old the link is - if you know computers but that's what I'm trying to get a grip on. Most of the stuff I've retrieved that I've found useful (how to build a recording computer) and dated is around '03.

Indications were to avoid AMD processors cause a lot of the software hasn't been tested for it and steer clear of Vista simply cause it's too knew to have the kinks worked out.

May be time to go to a computer recording fourm setup. I think I know enough to understand what's being said now and that stuff will be current. Anybody got a recommendation for such forum?

[nonfatmatt]

There's absolutely no difference between Intel and AMD processors running software, and there never was, you're getting caught up in marketing jargon. The only conceivable difference has been with chipsets and other hardware, but both sides have been prone to occasional problems. I've been building computers for 20 years, and have used both extensively. If anything my recent Intel systems have been harder to configure and more prone to hiccups hardware wise than my AMD ones (see JMicron IDE, ICH9 chipset problems). Athlon 64 used to be clock for clock quite a bit faster than the Pentium 4s but with the Core architecture Intel has caught up and surpassed AMD in clock for clock peformance. Phenom and Barcelona on AMD's side are the new architecture but they just aren't as fast as Core, especially with the new 45nm Penryn chips coming out.

Where AMD does make up the difference right now is cost/performance. Right now the Phenom is a really good value in a quad core for recording compared to Intel's quad offerings. Pro Tools and what I use (Ardour, awesome DAW) support multiproc systems and you gain a lot by adding more cores more just more clock speed. As it is I'm able to track 8 channels of drums, 4 of horns, 3 of vocals and guitar and bass at 96khz with compression and eq plugins and I'm only hitting around 50% on both cores on my 2.6ghz AMD processor, so even the cheap dual core chips will give you what you need.

Vista is causing a lot of problems for a lot of hardware manufacturers, so I would definitely stay clear of it and stick to Windows XP, Linux, or a Mac for recording.

[D.A.R.K.]

Originally Posted by MonetBass

Keep in mind that any recording software (to my knowledge) would not be coded to take advantage of a dual-core processor, never mind a quad-core. As usual, the software industry is lagging behind.

actually, at this point most decent recording software is definitely coded for dual core and more.
logic, ableton live, pro tools, sonar, cubase, nuendo... just to name a few.

[agreatheight]

Exactly what nonfat said.

For real, unless you are going to record tons of tracks at super hi sampling rates / bit depths you will likely be fine with most nice machines. My recording PC is AMD and about 4 years old and I am recording 10 tracks at 48 / 24 no problems with Sonar. The difference between the clock speeds of AMD and Intel isn't going to make or break your projects. So relax a bit - you aren't landing the space shuttle!

Peace!

[hunta]

Originally Posted by nonfatmatt

There's absolutely no difference between Intel and AMD processors running software, and there never was, you're getting caught up in marketing jargon.

Hmm you're right, I guess the fact that I've been prevented from even installing certain software because it doesn't support my AMD processor was just in my head. All the benchmarks that sites like anandtech, tomshardware, hardocp, and arstechnica run that show different strengths and weaknesses with AMD vs. Intel cpu's are completely fabricated too. And, I've never used my friend's Intel computer with near identical components to mine except the processor and felt like I was an idiot for buying AMD.

Oh marketing jargon! You silly cad.

[nonfatmatt]

Originally Posted by hunta

Hmm you're right, I guess the fact that I've been prevented from even installing certain software because it doesn't support my AMD processor was just in my head. All the benchmarks that sites like anandtech, tomshardware, hardocp, and arstechnica run that show different strengths and weaknesses with AMD vs. Intel cpu's are completely fabricated too. And, I've never used my friend's Intel computer with near identical components to mine except the processor and felt like I was an idiot for buying AMD.

Oh marketing jargon! You silly cad.

Yeah, 20 years of building computers, 2 years as a formal systems tech not to mention hacking my own device drivers on occasion means I'm an idiot. Thanks for pointing that out. Find me one real documented instance of where an AMD processor doesn't execute standard x86 code properly and I'll believe you, otherwise you're blowing smoke. If they put out a processor that wasn't tested enough that it caused even consumer software to have problems AMD would be buried, end of story. They stake billions of dollars of revenue on this stuff. Also, my previous post had nothing to do with processor speeds or features, only the question of compatibility.

A good thing to mention too is that sitting here with my Intel Core 2 Duo chip, my brand spanking new Intel P35 motherboard, and my Delta 1010 and new Pro Tools blue screens any time I try to load it because M-Audio doesn't care enough to fix an IRQ problem on an Intel chipset that's been out for 6 months, just to provide you a contrary example to what you're saying about reliability.

[DocBop]

There are pro's and con's to both. In general for basic integer code they are the same. AMD has in the past had some speed improvement over Intel on Floating point code. Intel has some specialized integer instructions AMD doesn't. It's a toss up.

As for multi-core a dual will always buy you some speed improvement. Having a second core means the scheduler can give the OS some CPU cycles without interrupting your app. More than two cores you aren't going to see improvement unless the app was written multi-threaded. But multi-threading has its own cost to in context switching. For a basic system I would say dual-cores and lots of RAM will keep you whizzing along. RAM is important because virtual memory not only is slow compared to physical RAM then switching of virtual RAM to physical is costly. RAM GOOD!

FYI
Also if you have multiple drives in your system create swap/virtual files on each. No OS will guarantee it will go to the non-busy hard drive, but your odds are good.

[Basschair]

Originally Posted by luknfur

No luck with a search. Anyone know of any incompatibility issues of concern with using "whatever" recording software with AMD processors?

I've gotten glimpses from as much on the net. Don't know if it's old news, bad info or what but I'm guessing some folks on this forum may know.

Okay, admittedly this was about 2 or 3 years ago, but I had/have a PC with an AMD processor @ 1.8 and it worked very well with Pro Tools LE and the 002 rack. I never hit a wall with track count and plug-ins, though I never tried to max it out. I'd be more concerned with getting a powerful processor and maxing out the RAM.

[hunta]

Originally Posted by nonfatmatt

Yeah, 20 years of building computers, 2 years as a formal systems tech not to mention hacking my own device drivers on occasion means I'm an idiot. Thanks for pointing that out. Find me one real documented instance of where an AMD processor doesn't execute standard x86 code properly and I'll believe you, otherwise you're blowing smoke. If they put out a processor that wasn't tested enough that it caused even consumer software to have problems AMD would be buried, end of story. They stake billions of dollars of revenue on this stuff. Also, my previous post had nothing to do with processor speeds or features, only the question of compatibility.

A good thing to mention too is that sitting here with my Intel Core 2 Duo chip, my brand spanking new Intel P35 motherboard, and my Delta 1010 and new Pro Tools blue screens any time I try to load it because M-Audio doesn't care enough to fix an IRQ problem on an Intel chipset that's been out for 6 months, just to provide you a contrary example to what you're saying about reliability.

I only have about 15 years experience building PCs and work in IT at a multibillion dollar corporation. I'm not interested in getting in a pissing match about who knows more about computers. Since you're using M-Audio gear and Pro Tools on a PC, you clearly know more than I do.

[Basschair]

Originally Posted by nonfatmatt

Yeah, 20 years of building computers, 2 years as a formal systems tech not to mention hacking my own device drivers on occasion means I'm an idiot. Thanks for pointing that out. Find me one real documented instance of where an AMD processor doesn't execute standard x86 code properly and I'll believe you, otherwise you're blowing smoke. If they put out a processor that wasn't tested enough that it caused even consumer software to have problems AMD would be buried, end of story. They stake billions of dollars of revenue on this stuff. Also, my previous post had nothing to do with processor speeds or features, only the question of compatibility.

A good thing to mention too is that sitting here with my Intel Core 2 Duo chip, my brand spanking new Intel P35 motherboard, and my Delta 1010 and new Pro Tools blue screens any time I try to load it because M-Audio doesn't care enough to fix an IRQ problem on an Intel chipset that's been out for 6 months, just to provide you a contrary example to what you're saying about reliability.

Originally Posted by hunta

I only have about 15 years experience building PCs and work in IT at a multibillion dollar corporation. I'm not interested in getting in a pissing match about who knows more about computers. Since you're using M-Audio gear and Pro Tools on a PC, you clearly know more than I do.

If you guys don't mind, I'd appreciate it if the thread got back on track at this point without the hostility. A friendly exchange of contrasting views is one thing, but this...well, hopefully you get the point.