Amd 6 and 8 core processors any use for Sonar?

My new machine has an inexpensive entry-level AMD FX-6300. 6 cores. SONAR uses all of 'em. It's working well: I've got a project with 43 tracks and 8 sampled instruments and the CPU's only at 20%. 

SONAR will use as many cores as it sees.
 
I moved this to the Computer forum because you will get better computer hardware specific answers there.
 

bitflipper
My new machine has an inexpensive entry-level AMD FX-6300. 6 cores. SONAR uses all of 'em. It's working well: I've got a project with 43 tracks and 8 sampled instruments and the CPU's only at 20%. 

When you say sampled instruments you mean addictive drums, dimension etc? 

When you say sampled instruments you mean addictive drums, dimension etc?

Yes. In my case it's Superior Drummer, Omnisphere and Kontakt. But yeh, it could as easily be Addictive Drums, Dim Pro and SI-Bass.
 
Sycraft's right, AMD chips don't perform as well as Intel. However, the price difference is pretty significant. My motherboard (without CPU) is $58 on NewEgg.

Been using an ASRock board for 3 years with a phenom x3, 2800, overclocked to 3200.
Recently put in a phenom x4, 3000, OC at 3600.
This "cheap" board has lots of OC settings for cpu, board, ram,... Easy to play.
 
Got a large ninja heat-sink, 120mm fan, cpu temp at about 35 at idle, max use of 96 watts.
 
Got an amd based fanless vid card.
 
8 gig g.skills ram
 
The case-fan died last week. Temps are all within optimal range. Using speedfan to check.
 
I have projects that are 60+ tracks with dozens of effects, DP, zeta, SD,...
 
The biggest problem is with the aging audio card not getting new drivers. So the midi part occasionally poops sonar.
 
Been using mostly amd for last 12+ years.
 
 
 

I wouldn't go with less than an i5 Intel CPU.  If I remember correctly an i3 is a dual core CPU. 
 
My main system is an i7 and my backup is an i5.  I had to use the backup for almost a month as the i7 system was down for warranty replacement of the motherboard.  With what I do in Sonar I didn't notice any difference.  However, with an i3 I would have. 

I am also considering the AMD route. I've seen much of the performance data comparing intel and AMD. Clearly Intel has an advantage but sometimes I wonder if the advantage is really significant for the "average" home studio user. I don't think I've ever gone over 30 tracks on anything I've done. And for me it isn't simply about track count. More important is will it perform when loaded up with multiple plug ins soft synths. Like many I freeze most of my tracks as I go and this greatly reduces load.
 
I have always built Intel machines in the past...I have felt that they make very reliable hardware. I can't comment on AMD reliability but my perception however misguided it might be is that there is potential for more problems using AMD hardware....I know I could be wrong about this as hardware is ever evolving from both parties.....so for me the idea of reliability trumps cost.
 
If I'm wrong about this semi educated hunch, why not save money if the computer you need is everything a decent AMD chip can do? OTOH there is something to be said for performance even at greater cost.
 
These kinds of discussions always leave me with more questions than real answers usually, and this isn't the fault of any contributor.....I think we need to include more variables.
 
It isn't very often we see a direct test that regards audio recording. As I see it most of the performance computers are being built for movies and gamers. 
 
Here are a few considerations that I think would be really helpful "if" they would be included in testing audio computers:
 
How has the OS been tweaked? This can make a huge difference in performance all hardware aside.
I want to see the results based on not only track count but on usage when loaded up with software synths and plug in effects. This all must consider multip[le hards drives/HDD speeds etc.
Not all software is equal in terms of memeory usage and hit to cpu either, so know the programs involved is very helpful.
 
So far the best explanations that we seem to get are user examples like " I built a so and so and it runs 50 tracks" 
 
The mentality has been that any computer built within a certain spec will make most users happy....the only problem is you won't know if you happen to be that user unless you build the computer and try it for yourself. If you come up short because you cut corners it can cost you more than if you simply bought  a higher ended chip. Usually a generation under the most current is the most cost effective move IMO.
 
I really hate to build or buy another computer because the 8000 series Quad core is humming along nicely right now. I had a recent software conflict which caused my computer to reboot, but I think I have that narrowed down.....so my decision is based more on statistical hardware failure and obsolescence than anything else.
 

For the normal home studio, no probably no real difference. In general, audio has become "easy" these days, computers have more power than they need for most audio tasks. So you don't need a super powerful processor. My Haswell-E is total overkill. My 2600k was total overkill.
 
I just like to make sure people understand that AMD does come at a performance disadvantage, so they don't get sold a false bill of goods believing that they are getting a n unbelievably good deal.
 
As for the system, I'd stay away form HP. I have not had good experience with their reliability and tech support, even of their enterprise class stuff.

I have a core2quad rack pc (it was a top of the line 3 ghz model), an Core2duo laptop and now a amd 6 core rack pc (back up and now living in the house). I have had a dual Athlon MP. And I have access to a i3 laptop, i5 laptop and a i7 laptop with an i7 with hyperthreading (meaning the os sees 8 cores). My AMD AM3 6 core (95 watts model) works great and feels as powerfull as the i7 laptop. I mean the cpu does not stand in the way of creativity. I did however buy a 650 watt powersupply to be on the safe side. My dual Athlon MP had a 400 watts powersupply. And in retrospect this was too little...