Apologies if this has been done to death but having issues with the forum search, not really returning anything about this question.
 
So, I have Win 8.1 x64, Sonar Platinum, 16GB RAM, SSD, Gigabyte board running an AMD FX 8 core processor running at stock speed.
 
I've started mixing a project and my CPU is crapping out even at the highest latency setting on my RME Fireface UCX. Freezing Addictive Drums to separate outs takes an absolute age - I mean somewhere in the region of 15 to 20 minutes! This may be another issue but have tried tweaking the freeze options, the bouncetomsec config settings to no avail.
 
Anyway on the crux of my question, will I see much of a performance boost if I go for a current i7 CPU vs the AMD 8 core?
 
Cheers! 

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.

Thanks for sharing your experience Chuck.

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.

"The last info I had about AMD cpu's is that they have multi threading as opposed  to hyperhreading"
Good point, will read up on this

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.
 

also a great article here.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-5.html
its a few years old as AMD has really evolved since.

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.
 

If it is taking 15 - 20 minutes to do something then there is more wrong that just the processor. Maybe you have a drive going bad? Or there are conflicts on the bus or with drivers.
 
As to intel, all I can say is I'm biased.

DrLumen
If it is taking 15 - 20 minutes to do something then there is more wrong that just the processor. Maybe you have a drive going bad? Or there are conflicts on the bus or with drivers...
 

Correct!!!

 

 
 

 
I have to chime in here! Yes, the newer (more expensive) Intels typically are a bit faster than the AMDs. And AMD generally gets hotter.

But, to my experience, an 8-core AMD cpu is absolutely adequate in the most cases, and if something takes
 
ridiculous time something else usually is wrong.

First; AMD FX are true multi-core processors (yes, I promise!), as opposed to Intels hyperthreading (HT) where each core executes two threads "at the same time" but in reality serialized. HT is just an glorified cache optimizer so that the cheduler can fill up the cache more effective.

An 8-Core Intel i7 has only 4 physical cores, where each core can handle two threads. Some softwares in reality takes a performance hit therefore, and could benefit from disabling HT. Of course the most programmes benefit from HT, but not all.

An 8-Core AMD FX really has 8 physical cores, BUT (and here lies the source of controversy) each core-pair shares the floating point unit. In other words, an amd FX has 8 integer "units" and half of that (4) floating point "units".

AMD was betting that softwares in the future would use other means to calculate float math (i.e. the GPU which is much faster at floting point calculations). A sound theory, but the marketing folks at Intel and, hence, the software developers, didn't want that to happen. And the rest is history... Software using mostly integer instructions is VERY fast on AMD! This story could be longer, but really is irrelevant and off topic in this case...

I have an FX8350 humming along at 4,5 GHz, 16GB low latency memory, a modern motherboard with SATA3 speed (500+ to my SSD's). I have tweaked the bios a little by disabling all "low power" states, and also synchronized the HT and the NB frequencies. This setup have been basically the same for over three years, and my computer NEVER have any strange hiccups. Sonar SPLAT only seems to get "better with age".

If you, on the other hand own an old, say, FX8120, an motherboard with only SATA2 capacity, you are slow to begin with. Adding outdated drivers and a non-optimized BIOS, certain things CAN be slow. But that certainly applies to un-optimized Intel setups too!
 
So, buying an brand new (Intel) setup shouldn't be your first priority!