Any reason to avoid AMD these days?

I do not think AMD was ever evil in a DAW. Early on there may have been glitches with code that was specifically written and tested on WIntel machines, but current SONAR system requirements include AMD as well as Intel. At one point the clear bang for the buck went to AMD because of the significant price difference and comparable performance, but in more recent years, the complaint has mainly been that AMD has not kept pace with Intel in performance leading a lot of people to opt for the Intel products in spite of their price. For a more nuanced, though probably not unprejudiced take on this issue:
 
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/here-we-explain-the-basic-differences-between-intel-and-amd-cpus/
 
 

Reading SBF's link (Thanks) and some followups tells me things are waaaaay different than they used to be.  No need to even consider AMD - unless Zen blows everybody away.  Even if it does, I'm not an early adopter type.
 
Thanks guys

Been using intel for over a decade but always used/supported AMD till intel pulled away, DAW performance wise...I just stress my cpu too much, although things are way better now with Sonar's/W10's core distribution/efficiency improvements  Intel has been stagnating as a result of no competition; their latest CPU's are no better than their last CPUs for power users, DAW wise. Indeed, my older 6 core cpu is still nearly as good, and it's been quite awhile...
 
I truly hope Zen puts AMD back into the drivers seat; it appears as good or better than the best intel(which is BIG bucks)... and will  DEFINITELY be cheaper and more future proof, platform wise (mb, socket, etc).  If I were you and could wait a month or two, I'd go AMD in a heartbeat as the initial results are Zen is truly a beast.  You'll save money and support the only company driving innovation.
 
There's an individual into mega machines over at VI Control, into HUGE DAW/VID projects who'll b testing Zen shortly... I'm tracking the thread and will report the results.

Jim Roseberry
If/when AMD CPUs pull ahead of Intel, we'll be first in line to use them.
For the foreseeable future, it's Intel. 

I completely agree that at this point in time, Intel makes a faster processor, and they rock in lots of areas.
 
My reasons for currently using AMD, are because of bang for the buck.  AMD bundled CPU and motherboard deals allow me to purchase a very capable AMD processor and a good motherboard, for FAR less money than a comparable Intel combination.
 
Doing that allows me to spend money for more memory and better and bigger hard drives, etc.
 
My AMD-based machine will not match the high-end Intel CPU's, for performance, however mine does everything needed of it, and the performance of the computer is plenty fast enough for all of my Sonar needs.  I would have had to spend several hundred dollars for a comparable Intel-based system, and there was no need for it.
 
Lots of memory and good data streaming are also quite important to performance in music production, and I am quite happy with my AMD-based computer's performance.  With a solid-state drive for a primary drive (C:) a couple others now for the sample libraries I have, and 32 GB of memory, my system rocks, and is completely stable.
 
Again - not knocking Intel - I just get great performance for lots less money.
 
Bob Bone
 

I know it is likely to be completely objective but I would stay with intel.
 
I have had issues with every AMD system I've had. Maybe AMD just doesn't like me. Or maybe there is something in my chakras that doesn't allow AMD's to work reliably. shrugs

FWIW,
The more CPU speed, the more effectively one can work at ultra low latency settings.
For the user wanting to work at 64-sample ASIO buffer size or smaller, it's worth the extra cost.
Especially if you consider the cost difference over the life of the machine (say 5 years).
In that light, the cost difference is negligible.  
 

Jim Roseberry
FWIW,
The more CPU speed, the more effectively one can work at ultra low latency settings.
For the user wanting to work at 64-sample ASIO buffer size or smaller, it's worth the extra cost.
Especially if you consider the cost difference over the life of the machine (say 5 years).
In that light, the cost difference is negligible.  

I doubt anyone is trying to claim that you can get better performance from a lower performing CPU, or conversely that a better performing CPU cannot do some things better. The question of amortization of the increased cost is more complicated, but it becomes irrelevant if the buyer does not have the resources to make the higher priced investment in the first place.

This seems to be a pretty good summary of the pros and cons of various CPUs for audio workstations:
 
https://www.scan.co.uk/3xs/info/audio-pc-processor
 
Note, that it is from a company that sells CPUs so it may not be totally impartial but the facts as stated seem to make sense.
 
AMB
 

Understood, Jim, thanks.
 
I actually DO have a system with an i7 and a couple of other systems with AMD - both work plenty well enough for my running Sonar.  (I also save on the motherboard when building with AMD, due to bundle pricing at Micro Center for AMD-based CPU/MB purchases).
 
Either works great - get a bunch of memory and several drives, and have a blast.
 
Bob Bone