Quad Core: Intel vs AMD

[NineSpine]

I have no personal preference but I was curious (because I am upgrading my PC) if anyone knew of any differences for recording and editing. I'm using Cubase if that makes any difference.

[debassr]

I work in this industry - I'm an engineer for a company that sells custom servers. Generally speaking, AMD tends to be better for floating point and graphics work - Intel tends to be better for Integer based operations although Intel will be catching up to AMD with the Nehalem line and some newer on board graphics options. Barcelona looks good too. Most likely, whichever you choose will serve the needs of a single individual just fine so it really just comes down to your personal preference.

[Infernal Affair]

I agree. The performance differences will be negligible and both processors are so fast that you shouldn't have trouble with either for recording. I've built and used both AMD and Intel based systems and they are both solid processors.

[2minkey]

but... intel tends to benchmark notably better in most respects and tends to draw less wattage. if i was building a system, i wouldn't even consider AMD at this point. an intel quad core is going to do a lot better if you're running a whole bunch of plugins.

[chicago_mike]

i7. Although the PhenomII is improved on the origional phenoms..especially the tlb issued ones. Also make sure your app is multi-proc aware. Most are these days, but just double check, otherwise you might get crazy spikes that make no sense.

[debassr]

Originally Posted by 2minkey

but... intel tends to benchmark notably better in most respects and tends to draw less wattage.

Yes, some of the Intel CPU's draw less wattage (especially the L series) *BUT* overall, an AMD system typically draws less wattage especially in high memory configs because of the RAM and memory controller differences.

You typically have to use fully buffered RAM for Intel and each stick is about 15W. On AMD, you use non FB RAM and each stick draws about 4W.

Also, most AMD compatible motherboards draw about 20W and most Intel compatible motherboards draw about 35W.

Last, AMD systems draw less wattage in idle mode - there's better power management of the CPU.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other, I just want to dispel the myth that Intel performs better AND draws less power. This stuff is near and dear to my heart since my company has built its reputation on selling highly energy efficient custom servers and I deal with these differences on a daily basis.

[Infernal Affair]

Maybe the myth is based on the fact that the AMD chips used to run a lot hotter than the Intel chips. I didn't bother to build my recent system, so I'm not sure if it's still like that.

"Perform better" may be the case for certain applications or games or graphics, but for recording either CPU will perform terrific. Like I said, the differences will be negligible for that environment.

[NineSpine]

All this info is very helpful. If anyone could take the time to pick out a processor, motherboard, and 4-gig ram combo on Newegg.com that they think would be OK for recording home stuff in Cubase (with a Firestudio Project if that matters) it would help me GREATLY. I don't want to spend more than $500 total on those three things though. I have all the other parts, including a 700 watt power supply, a large enough case to fit most anything I will need, and a pretty high end video card.

Thanks if anyone can do this for me.

[debassr]

Well, I would go with more memory - 8 GB. RAM is cheap these days.

This CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115055
This MOBO: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813121100
This RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231151

Total cost: under $400 and you're getting genuine Intel parts (except the memory).

[BigOldHarry]

Originally Posted by 2minkey

but... intel tends to benchmark notably better in most respects and tends to draw less wattage. if i was building a system, i wouldn't even consider AMD at this point. an intel quad core is going to do a lot better if you're running a whole bunch of plugins.

+1

Given how cheap some of these slightly older CPUs are (the Q6600 for example) and how darn fast they are - why go with AMD. Besides, it has been my experience that AMD systems aren't always as windows friendly as they say they are - particularly for intense CPU/RAM apps like audio. But that's just my experience.

[kevinmoore73]

I built a machine a while back using two Athlon MP processors and a motherboard based on the AMD 760MPX chipset. That machine had enough quirks that it turned me off to AMD for a long time. I never had problems like I had with that machine with Intel-based systems. I'm not saying those quirks exist in AMD systems today, but they were annoying enough that I'm afraid to consider them again.

[musicelectronix]

Originally Posted by Infernal Affair

Maybe the myth is based on the fact that the AMD chips used to run a lot hotter than the Intel chips.

Unfortunately, this is not a fact (or at least not used to be as far as I know). That was the case with the K5 and some early K6 CPUs (late 90s), but with the AthlonXP CPUs, AMD's nominal operating temperature was quite lower. I did lots of scientific research about the subject back then, but I am not particularly familiar with the latest offerings (last 2-3 years).

If it wasn't for AMD, you will still be judging the processors with the clock speed, leaving out any other more important aspects of the microprocessor design. To me, AMD is the name of the revolution lol

[NineSpine]

Originally Posted by debassr

Well, I would go with more memory - 8 GB. RAM is cheap these days.

This CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115055
This MOBO: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813121100
This RAM: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231151

Total cost: under $400 and you're getting genuine Intel parts (except the memory).

Thanks for the suggestions. The only reason I'm not going with more RAM is that I refuse to use Windows XP 64 or Vista.

[DocBop]

Originally Posted by debassr

Yes, some of the Intel CPU's draw less wattage (especially the L series) *BUT* overall, an AMD system typically draws less wattage especially in high memory configs because of the RAM and memory controller differences.

You typically have to use fully buffered RAM for Intel and each stick is about 15W. On AMD, you use non FB RAM and each stick draws about 4W.

Also, most AMD compatible motherboards draw about 20W and most Intel compatible motherboards draw about 35W.

Last, AMD systems draw less wattage in idle mode - there's better power management of the CPU.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other, I just want to dispel the myth that Intel performs better AND draws less power. This stuff is near and dear to my heart since my company has built its reputation on selling highly energy efficient custom servers and I deal with these differences on a daily basis.

All this depends on if you're a home users and want to be power conscious or a production environment. For production a little power/heat is no problem just have to make sure I have sufficient power and cooling. As for Intel vs AMD, Intel has alway been a little behind the curve for floating point instructions compared to just about every chip out there. but for integer they as fast or faster as anything out there. IMO AMD was doing cool stuff early on but poor sales they can't afford to go too far out there, to much risk. Most companies QA budgets are tight so only test on Intel so I stopped using AMD not enough difference anymore to make it worth it swimming upstream.

[nonfatmatt]

Doesn't matter, they're basically at price parity (ie, Intel chips may be faster overall but at the same price they're usually around the same performance). What I would worry about is the upgrade path. Using socket 775 now is a dead end, you'll need to go to nehalem and DDR3 if you want a better cpu further down the road. AM2+ boards represent a cheaper and more open upgrade path.

Also, I never needed quad core personally. I had session with 36 tracks and two or three plugins a track and only used about 60% of one core of a core duo at 2.6ghz. You have to be doing some serious stuff with lots of virtual instruments to really use that quad core. Granted this is in Ardour so it's probably a bit faster/more optimized than Cubase but still.

[debassr]

Originally Posted by NineSpine

Thanks for the suggestions. The only reason I'm not going with more RAM is that I refuse to use Windows XP 64 or Vista.

I can understand your hesitation for Vista, but why not XP 64?

[nonfatmatt]

Originally Posted by debassr

I can understand your hesitation for Vista, but why not XP 64?

I'd fathom that some plugins only work in a 32bit environment.

[NineSpine]

I have some friends using 64 and all of them are still experiencing driver issues. I just don't have much patience for that kind of stuff anymore. In fact, if it weren't for the overwhelming price difference, I would have honestly gone Mac long ago due to how much I can't stand dealing with drivers, compatibility, etc..

[debassr]

Make a Hackintosh!

[Infernal Affair]

Originally Posted by musicelectronix

Unfortunately, this is not a fact (or at least not used to be as far as I know). That was the case with the K5 and some early K6 CPUs (late 90s), but with the AthlonXP CPUs, AMD's nominal operating temperature was quite lower. I did lots of scientific research about the subject back then, but I am not particularly familiar with the latest offerings (last 2-3 years).

I think you mean "fortunately" because I'm glad that isn't the case and I'm wrong. There was a time period when they were hotter, but I wasn't sure if that's still the case today. Looks like I was victim to the hype surrounding that.

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.a...tno=346&pgno=4

The last system I built was a Thunderbird based one that eventually became an XP. Talking about K5 and K6 chips reminds me of the day when everyone overclocked a Celeron 300 to 450mhz. That makes me feel old.