quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley dont put too much stock in the actual test. they were just exporting a WAV from a project. the real thing is a stress test when you got 30 tracks with multiple FX going.

An export to WAV in Cubendo is processing all the VSTs in the project as well.

There are other CPU intensive tests on the same site (3d rendering etc) where the Intels are ahead too. It's just what they're better at (generally).

My old Athlon 64 X2 6000 was rubbish as a music CPU but is still a kickass gaming CPU.

___________________
Soundcloud

AMD ($165) beats Intel Q9650 ($329) (imaging render software used - thus heavily reliant on the CPU since the graphics cards used were half ass. they were also nvidia, which are partial to Intel, yet it still lost.



AMD (165) beats Intel Core i5 750 ($Only able to locate price for 680 model, which is $309. The 750 will be even more) Yet another intensive CPU cycle operation, as explained in the testing procedure.

AMD ($165) beats Intel again. This time both the QX9770 ($) and Core i5-750 ($) Test used was a basic compiling operation. (Kinda like zipping files up) Not the best test in the world, but this test along with the others shows AMD can stand toe to toe with much more pricier Intel products.


Do I really need to continue?

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley dont put too much stock in the actual test. they were just exporting a WAV from a project. the real thing is a stress test when you got 30 tracks with multiple FX going.

Both processes use the same operations AFAIK

quote:

Originally posted by Nightshift The Core i7 980x (fastest one listed) is a 6 core processor.

Oh really? My mistake... Point still sort of stands though, if you look at where the AMDs are in the list, they're competing with the previous generations of intels, not the newer i5/i7 series.

I really think the figures speak for themselves more or less, so I'll stop being an intel fanboy. The data's also borne out from the individual cases I've read regarding how fast the i7s are in ableton benchmarks.

___________________
New Mix: March 2010 Promo
Soundcloud|Facebook

I have 2 Intel and 2 AMD machines.

I'm a slag.

___________________
Soundcloud

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley AMD ($165) beats Intel Q9650 ($329) (imaging render software used - thus heavily reliant on the CPU since the graphics cards used were half ass. they were also nvidia, which are partial to Intel, yet it still lost. AMD (165) beats Intel Core i5 750 ($Only able to locate price for 680 model, which is $309. The 750 will be even more) Yet another intensive CPU cycle operation, as explained in the testing procedure. AMD ($165) beats Intel again. This time both the QX9770 ($) and Core i5-750 ($) Test used was a basic compiling operation. (Kinda like zipping files up) Not the best test in the world, but this test along with the others shows AMD can stand toe to toe with much more pricier Intel products. Do I really need to continue?

None of these things apply for AUDIO. You might get decent results out of the new 6 core Phenoms compared to intels but thats not tested here. What this benchmark shows is that for AUDIO, 4 core intels are far better and cheaper than 4 core AMDs.

For price comparison, looks at the fact that you can get an i5 750 for $200 which does renders in 187 secs, as opposed to the Phenom 955 which costs 250 and takes 227 secs.

Intel has the edge, stop looking at irrelevant benchmarks which have NOTHING to do with audio plz. kthxbye

___________________
New Mix: March 2010 Promo
Soundcloud|Facebook

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips None of these things apply for AUDIO. You might get decent results out of the new 6 core Phenoms compared to intels but thats not tested here. What this benchmark shows is that for AUDIO, 4 core intels are far better and cheaper than 4 core AMDs. For price comparison, looks at the fact that you can get an i5 750 for $200 which does renders in 187 secs, as opposed to the Phenom 955 which costs 250 and takes 227 secs. Intel has the edge, stop looking at irrelevant benchmarks which have NOTHING to do with audio plz. kthxbye

phenom 955 is $164.99 my friend, cheaper and better.

I don't see any "audio" tests that put a stress test on the CPU. In almost all the tests I see on that page you posted, it is about rendering and AMD outclasses Intel in nearly every one of them when you take price into account. Dollar for Dollar, AMD is better. They just don't have $500 chips.

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley phenom 955 is $144.99 my friend, cheaper and better. phenom 965 (3.4ghz) is $164.99 I don't see any "audio" tests that put a stress test on the CPU. In almost all the tests I see on that page you posted, it is about rendering and AMD outclasses Intel in nearly every one of them when you take price into account. Dollar for Dollar, AMD is better. They just don't have $500 chips.

quote:

Originally posted by DjStephenWiley phenom 955 is $164.99 my friend, cheaper and better. I don't see any "audio" tests that put a stress test on the CPU. In almost all the tests I see on that page you posted, it is about rendering and AMD outclasses Intel in nearly every one of them when you take price into account. Dollar for Dollar, AMD is better. They just don't have $500 chips.

Hey? rendering IS an audio test that puts stress on the CPU... How do you think hosts render files

Fair enough if the chip is that cheap. I kind of wish they'd put the price next to the name in this comparison to make it easier to compare. The figures I saw said 250 for that chip, but if its really 150 it puts it on slightly more even footing. Keep in mind though that with the i5 750, your renders will be 21 percent (40s) faster than the AMD equivalent, and it only costs about $35 more. Which is exactly 21% more expensive... So really, you're getting exactly the same value if you think about it, in terms of price to performance, for those two chips. I still think that overall, intels are better value though, especially in the higher end where AMD doesn't even have a presence at all.

I think you're mistake is that your comparing the previous generation of intels with the current generation of AMDs. The core2quad series, which you keep referring to, isn't even sold any more. They've been replaced by the i3/5/7 series, which present FAR better performance even at the same clock speed.

___________________
New Mix: March 2010 Promo
Soundcloud|Facebook

Sorry Wiley, the AMD's are not comparable to the Intel chips.. and it's true.. just check out the cpu benchmarks over at Tom's hardware for example.. the top end Phenom is not even in the same league as the enthusiast Core's.. but price is a factor

___________________
Recently released:
Aesthetic - Twilight Sky [Primal-Recordings]

http://www.wtfnews.org

quote:

Originally posted by tehlord My old Athlon 64 X2 6000 was rubbish as a music CPU but is still a kickass gaming CPU.

I use an Athlon 64 X2 5200+ (2.61 GHz) and I've never had a problem with producing to be honest

barely peak over 50% cpu with latency set @ 512 samples in my bigger projects.

i must admit though that i dont use super cpu heavy resources

___________________

@Soundcloud

:::OUT NOW!:::
Garrido & Skehan ft. Erin - Waiting For You (Nightshift Remix)
Elvin Ong - Motion (Nightshift Remix)
Tidal Forces - Machine Blue (Nightshift Remix)

quote:

Originally posted by meriter Your primary focus should be making good music. That's all. No one gives a shit how you do it. And the people that do are fags.