AMD vs Intel

Not trying to get a religious scuffle started.  Really.  I'm 12 mos or less from a system upgrade, leaning toward a full build.
 
I've *always* been strictly WinTel.  I remember quite a bit of trouble on the AMD side A Long Time Ago.  Is it still advisable to stick with Intel for the best overall performance and compatibility?
 
I haven't even looked around yet to see if there is any real price benefit for equal performance.  If not, it's prolly a moot point anyway.

One differentiator you may want to consider is that some of the new Intel chips support Thunderbolt 3 on-chip (Alienware is shipping a laptop with the port brought out, for example; waiting on drivers/apps for T-bolt under Windows).
 
http://www.techworm.net/2...derbolt-3-in-2016.html

I've done both over the years. Once upon a time, there was a certain risk going with AMD, but I haven't heard of a compatibility issue in years.
 
My current machine is a 6-core AMD and in ten months I have yet to max it out, even with a dozen Kontakt instances plus Superior Drummer, Omnisphere, and mastering plugins going. I do, however, always run at high latency (2048 samples, as high as my interface goes).

The margins of performance on AMD systems are a little less than Intel systems. That probably isn't significant to you unless you are really maxing out soft synths and heavy track counts. And as Dave said he is yet to push his system to its limits.
 
I would read reviews from many sources for the setup you want to build. There are occasional problems with both intel and AMD hardware. There are low end AMD chips and faster better AMD cpu's....difficult to make any kind of a blanket statement about "AMD" or "Intel". 
 
Look at the specific hardware you want and research it.
 
AMD will  be less expensive . Another thing to consider is getting slightly older generation hardware saves some money, but it doesn't significantly reduce performance in DAW work. This is especially true in the case of Intel. The latest technology will always be more expensive., but even so , if you shop around it won't be significantly more expensive.

Rimshot
I had AMD machines for years. The one I bought last year has a nice Intel in it. I would not trade it for anything with the same power. 
 
You should call Jim Roseberry at Purrrfect Audio. He would tell you straight.
http://www.studiocat.com/open_cart/

I would love it if AMD were able to kick Intel's butt... Tried to support them for many years.  In my last couple builds I spent time on this issue and all the real DAW experts said there is NO competition... Intel chips, due to their architectural advances, are vastly superior for heavy duty DAW use.  
 
It is not what I wish were the case, as I always have supported the little guy... but unless AMD has just came up with a game changer that I've somehow missed, I will continue using Intel in my next build.
 
If you search for it, there is raw, independent DAW performance data comparing the two... Haven't gone there in a couple years since my current build but it is there...
 
A lot depends on your approach to music.  I can crush my 6 core intel chip with Omnisphere 2 creations by Airwave.  Some synth emulations, like DIVA are huge cpu hits with certain patches...AMD wouldn't be able to play those sounds I'm sure... Then again, if you're doing mostly audio and Kontakt, AMD might be fine...
 
I would love to be wrong.  Don't like supporting monopolies.  If AMD comes up with a game changer, please let me know.  I'm saving for a new master vaster system right now...

For what it's worth...
 
I worked for Motorola for 15 years. In that time, I had a chance to meet and interact with a guy by the name of Hector Ruiz. From his Wikipedia entry (in italics; my comments, including why I stuck with Intel all these years, follows):
 
Hector de Jesus Ruiz (born December 25, 1945) is the chairman and CEO of Advanced Nanotechnology Solutions, Inc. and former CEO & executive chairman of semiconductor company Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD).
 
Ruiz is the author of Slingshot: AMD’s Fight To Free An Industry From The Ruthless Grip Of Intel, "a book that memorializes his bet-the-company decision in 2005 to file an antitrust case against its much larger rival." The book also "elaborates on his humble upbringing as well as advice and lessons learned from relatives and teachers."
 
...
 
Ruiz worked at Texas Instruments for six years and Motorola for 22 years, rising to become president of Motorola's Semiconductor Products Sector before being recruited in 2000 by AMD founder Jerry Sanders to serve as AMD's president and chief operating officer, and to become heir apparent to lead the company upon Sanders' retirement. Ruiz succeeded Sanders in the CEO's seat in 2002, and was named chairman of the board in 2004.
 
Ruiz endorsed the decision to buy ATI, which led to a period of financial reverses. Ruiz survived rumors of his ouster in late 2007. However, he resigned as CEO on July 18, 2008, after AMD reported its seventh consecutive quarterly loss.
 
Ruiz took AMD "off death watch," according to a leading industry analyst. As CEO, Ruiz led AMD to "important technical accomplishments and strides in its competition against Intel," but " he was never able to stanch the company's persistent financial losses." Analyst Rob Enderle gives Ruiz credit for the strategy to spin off the manufacturing operations, "relieving AMD of the cost of running chip plants and allowing more focus on chip design." Ruiz was behind the deal in which an Abu Dhabi government arm funded the new venture.
 
According to the New York Times, "From about 2003 to 2006, A.M.D. offered a line of chips that analysts and many computer makers hailed as superior to Intel’s products. Executives from A.M.D. contended that Intel blunted the adoption of these chips through its financial arrangements."
 
In 2010, the Federal Trade Commission settled a number of anti-competition complaints against Intel. Intel "accepted all the terms of the settlement without admitting that it had committed any anticompetitive acts." In 2009, AMD "settled its own antitrust complaint against Intel in November with Intel agreeing to pay $1.25 billion."
 
In February 2012, the Albany Times Union looked back at the June 2006 announcement by Ruiz and then-current New York Governor George Pataki that AMD and then its spin-off GlobalFoundries "would be building the world's most advanced 'chip fab' on the planet." The news "vault[ed] the Capital Region into the global technology spotlight virtually overnight." Pataki said GlobalFoundries is likely to end up spending $7 billion and hiring 2,000 employees at the plant, with 9,000 additional jobs created as a result.
 
Ruiz was named Chairman of AMD spin-off GlobalFoundries in March 2009. He resigned concurrent with reports that identified Ruiz as the previously unnamed AMD executive who allegedly discussed AMD's plans for the spin-off with an investment manager before it had been publicly disclosed. Ruiz has not been charged with any criminal activity. "There were never any allegations made against me, no one from the government side or the Justice side have ever contacted me," Ruiz told MarketWatch. Ruiz added that he even volunteered to speak with investigators. “They never took me up on it." Ruiz also said, "I strongly believe that I never have done anything wrong or inappropriate.”
 
My comments:
 
When Hector left Motorola and joined AMD as CEO, I gave AMD no chance of succeeding big-time. And for the most part, I was right. Their opportunity to be a company of Intel size and Intel influence came and went a long time ago. Why did I give Hector (and AMD) no chance?
 
Because Hector couldn't/wouldn't make the tough decisions necessary to save Motorola Semi. He was too weak, too nice of a guy.
 
I won't go into the details of how Moto Semi got into the situation of having $9.5bn of production capacity, and annual sales of $4.5bn. Or of the Austin, TX facility where he was headquartered running at only 13% capacity.
 
What I will say is that he couldn't navigate the politics of restructuring. Too many senior executives with too many links to building those production facilities, with each protecting "his" plant. When Motorola started divesting itself, he managed to get annual production capacity down to $5.5bn. But NEVER managed to get rid of that final $1bn. And that was a MAJOR contributing factor to the demise of Moto Semi.
 
I was pulling for Hector. A lot of us liked him. Just not strong enough.
 
And, yeah, it's kind of personal. I had a great job. Six figure income, running the Asian and European Six Sigma consulting practices. All gone. I went from $10/minute to $10/hour.
 
Hard to forgive. Impossible to forget.
 
Intel for me.
 
Plus, I fought the compatibility wars back in the early clone PC days. "DOS ain't done, 'til Lotus don't run." About says it all.
 
I wasted a LOT of time rewriting assembler-level drivers every time a new anything came out (OS update, CPU chip, BIOS update, blah de blah de blah).
 
I don't want to have to think about compatibility ever again.

TheMaartian
For what it's worth...
 
I worked for Motorola for 15 years. In that time, I had a chance to meet and interact with a guy by the name of Hector Ruiz. From his Wikipedia entry (in italics; my comments, including why I stuck with Intel all these years, follows):
 
Hector de Jesus Ruiz (born December 25, 1945) is the chairman and CEO of Advanced Nanotechnology Solutions, Inc. and former CEO & executive chairman of semiconductor company Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD).
.
.
.

It's not personal for me in the least.  I just want most power for the least cost.  If Duncan Donuts were to come out with a super high performing, lower cost CPU I would have to consider it 

What it seems to come down to between AMD and Intel is the microscopic size of the traces and some of the mother board chip controller implementation  of Intel has pulled ahead of AMD. That said, AMD is known to have some of the best video card chips out there.
 
Smaller cpu connections mean less current= less heat =faster performance. Intel has patented a system to make theirs smaller and and until AMD can come up with a way to compete with that they aren't likely to ever be quite as fast as Intel on comparable chips and their chips will generate more heat. These differences are really small though, so small that in many cases it won't tip the scale for the average home studio user running minimal 24 or less tracks and not getting too radical with soft synths...this is why Sonar has "freeze". 
 
I am not one to look too closely at company profits but I don't think AMD is hurting as the underdog. They offer a product that gets most people there for less. They look really tasty to vendors who build computers for the average "joe".