AMD 8core vs I7 - which?

this is something I am very well know to as I just got done building an Intel I7 4790K 1150 LGA.
my previous build that I used for 2 years or so was an AMD 8 core bulldozer.
I don't over clock any of my processors. and I don't use super cooling methods.
 
I noticed an instant difference in speed using Sonar.
loading time, project depth (resources being used) I can load a ton of plug ins with plenty of room to spare.
how ever the difference  is not what you would think. its not oh my god why haven't I been using Intel.
I found AMD to be pretty effective TBH. but the I7 is a step above no doubt and the 16GB or ram vs. 8GB is also a step up.

The last info I had about AMD cpu's is that they have multi threading as opposed  to hyperhreading. Hyperhreading is pretty much a patented Intel function. This may be one reason that Intel runs Sonar so well, since it's designed to run on multiple cores well.
 
An 8 core AMD chip will make much more heat than a similar more recent Intel chip. Too much heat and not enough cooling can slow a cpu down or lock it out altogether.
 
I'm not sure if there are other issues with your OS. This is also a possibility.

We restore thousends of tapes and vinyl and have projects with over 200 GB of audia-data.
We only have 3 PCs Intel QuadCore and 8 GB of RAM. And we have no problems.
But I also make music with many tracks, plugins and vst-instruments and have no problem.
 
From my experience - over 15 years SONAR - Intel is always much better then every AMD.
I would never buy AMD for an Audio-Workstation.
 

If you're after maximum performance... you want an Intel i7 CPU.
The cost savings by going AMD (especially when considered over the life of the machine) is minimal.
 

 

Starise
Are you referring to HT? My 6 core intel chip shows 12 cores in Sonar. I have 6 physical cores. With HT engaged a 4 core chip will show 8 cores. If an Intel chip is marketed to have 8 cores, then it should have 8 physical cores.

Yes, that is the correct statement! But some (most?) people are, eh...confused, how this works in reality. And the marketing departements here and there doesn't make things clearer.
Take for example the Haswell i7 4770k: (Exchange the "__" to "tt", otherwise the forum erases my links)
h__p://ark.intel.com/products/75123/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz
That in the spec sheet says 4 cores and 8 threads, whereas the nearly identical silicone Haswell i5 4670k: h__p://ark.intel.com/products/75048/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz
specifies 4 cores and 4 threads! Main difference is that Intel has disabled the HT logic...

Now, Intel has manufactured 2 physical cores CPUs with HT, and Intel evidently manufacture processors with 4 physical cores without HT. Both this CPU's will show up as a 4 core CPU in Windows.

As people got confused by this, Microsoft recently has begun to (I don't know which Windows version that got this "update") specify "Cores" and "Logical processors" in the Task Manager, so now it is easier to see what kind of CPU you got under the hood.

Unfortunate for AMD, they didn't manage to convey to the community the principle and potential advantages of the FX cores. Namely that an 8 core FX behaves like an 8 core while executing integer math, but like an 4 core executing float instructions. Few people know that most program code use mainly integer instructions, so with a few exeptions an 8 core AMD really IS an 8 physical core CPU! Nevertheless AMD also nowadays shows up as 4 physical and 8 logical cores, despite an altogether different design compared to Intel.

The irony is that in the early Pentium 4 versus Athlon days, AMD was better at float math, and consequently(???) got critisized for that too!!! It is never easy to be the "underdog"... ;-(  And if you take a walk down the history lane, there were several softwares that took a serious performance hit when enabling HT on the earlier Intel CPU's.

For the record, and without knowing anythig specific, I am convinced that a DAW uses nearly exclusively integer code, with some additional specific SSE functions where the need of high precision and fast floating point calculations occationally rises. My experience with my AMD FX8350 is that it has always behaved fast, stable and with an effective load balancing on all 8 cores. On top of that it has always been a blazing multi-tasker, and I can have several programs loaded and running at full load, without any hesitation when I "Alt-Tab around" among all windows. My Intel i7 at work (CAD-station) is rather more sluggish compared to my home setup, which contradicts the "established truth" among the "experts"... (to me, anyway...)

denverdrummer
The only thing faster is a Xeon which start at 4x the price of an i7.  

Don't be seduced by the Xeon name.
There is no benefit to using a Xeon CPU for a DAW.
You'll pay significantly more... AND... take a performance hit.
Xeon clock-speed is significantly slower.
 
Witness, right now, the fastest Mac you can buy is NOT a Mac Pro.
Rather... the latest iMac with 6700k