Thanks for that info Prog Nut. 
 
I have a question about this: 
 
"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."
 
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.

 

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...)

Thanks for that info. I thought that I knew what you intended there. I didn't want to mislead a potential Intel customer in thinking that the cores advertised weren't the actual number represented. Anyone serious should investigate the specs before buying, especially if they want to use HT. I wasn't aware that HT was disabled in some chips.
 
I'm curious what effect the new load balancing will have on Intel .vs Amd chips.

  If cost is a concern, I wouldn't go over $150 on an AMD processor.  The FX 8300s are a nice value. Other than that stick with Intel. Hopefully AMD steps up their game since Intel is pricey.

I used to build systems with AMD back in the late 90's early 00's but I pretty much exclusively use Intel now.  Quite simply they benchmark better.  Even certain 4th gen i7's will outperform the latest AMD 8 core processors.  The only thing faster is a Xeon which start at 4x the price of an i7.  I get that the AMD has 8 physical cores, but the processors in general are slower.  Intel is also better at making very fast mobile processors that have reasonable power consumption for laptop/tablet use.
 
For the amount of cost savings for an AMD processor, you could buy a 4th or 5th generation i7 for the same price or lower and have better performance.
 
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
 

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
 

denverdrummer
I used to build systems with AMD back in the late 90's early 00's but I pretty much exclusively use Intel now.  Quite simply they benchmark better.  Even certain 4th gen i7's will outperform the latest AMD 8 core processors.  The only thing faster is a Xeon which start at 4x the price of an i7.  I get that the AMD has 8 physical cores, but the processors in general are slower.  Intel is also better at making very fast mobile processors that have reasonable power consumption for laptop/tablet use.
 
For the amount of cost savings for an AMD processor, you could buy a 4th or 5th generation i7 for the same price or lower and have better performance.
 

 

Well, I bought my AMD setup in 2012 (when the revised Bulldozer went "Vishera"). The Intels you could buy at this time was the second generation "Sandy Bridge" architecture (the core i2xxx, for example the i5 2500 or i7 2600 models, with and without HT...  ). At the time Intel were very expensive, and their motherboards were on the verge of being outdated (and, of course, nevertheless very expensive...).

At that time (2012) AMD was absolutely competetive, and I had hopes that the community should embrace what AMD thought was best for the future of CPU's!

Unfortunately Intel wouldn't allow for this, and paid many software developers money for "optimizing" the code in a way that AMD should look bad in comparison. There are vast information available to dig out fact about this, but being OT otherwise lets say that hand written optimized (for each CPU) code often was a great deal faster on AMD. Now, nobody writes manually in Assembler, and since Intel did "help" the compiler developers, the code was never ever optimized for AMD's CPUs... Adding to this the HEAVILY Intel optimized "benchmarking programs", that many people took for the truth, made AMD look like the fools they absolutely not was. One could wonder if people really buy computers solely for running benchmark programs day and night??

As a consequence AMD's "naive" hope that the smartest architecture would win went down the drain, and so did the economy of the company.

Naturally, as this made it hard for AMD to develop new and more effective CPU's, and at the same time Intel came out with the third, the fourth, the fifth and the sixth generation, it would of course be a shame if a new "Skylake" i7 6800K wasn't substantially better than an old "Sandy Bridge". Funny(?) enough the difference is not as big as one would thought. There are many "Sandys" humming along presently, and likewise many AMD FX still do all thrown at them without ever hesitating.

But, of course, building "the fastest" computer today requires an Intel CPU, that is a fact (at least until AMD's new ZEN CPUs comes out)! For me, as an "idealist", I will nevertheless continue to support AMD because I know that if Intel would gain monopoly everybody will loose (except Intel's owners...). And I also know that an optimized AMD system in 99 cases of 100 still is enough!

I have to say that my investment (in 2012), without a doubt, was the right one, and using 8 4,5GHz cores these four years has spoiled me performance wise, and never let me down!

In the Bulldozer architecture, there is one shared FPU (floating point unit) for every two cores. This would lead to reduced performance in a DAW application (and many others as well). AMD was sued over false advertising regarding this issue. This is one major reason Intel won out over AMD regardless of conspiracies, real or imagined.
The Zen architecture does look more promising but to date, I have not seem any benchmarks since I do not think the silicon is at the sampling stage.
 

If AMD offered a CPU that was faster (for our purposes), we'd be first in line to use it.
(We used Athlon CPUs back when they were outperforming Intel)
 
Over time, hardware changes...  (as well as the accompanying configuration/tweaks)
A brand that's not on top today may be one of the best choices several years later.
ie: Anyone remember Maxtor HDs in the early 90s vs. the later 90s?
Maxtor made huge strides in the later 90s.
 
 
 

Jim Roseberry
If AMD offered a CPU that was faster (for our purposes), we'd be first in line to use it.
(We used Athlon CPUs back when they were outperforming Intel)
 
Over time, hardware changes...  (as well as the accompanying configuration/tweaks)
A brand that's not on top today may be one of the best choices several years later.
ie: Anyone remember Maxtor HDs in the early 90s vs. the later 90s?
Maxtor made huge strides in the later 90s.
 

 
I have had nothing but issues with AMD processors and video cards. Even when AMD's were faster, I was still using intel. For me, the possible speed increase was not useful if the system was not stable. That is the main reason I will never overclock either but to each their own... I can wait a few milliseconds if need be.
 
I had some Maxtor's back in the day. I will have to check but I think I may still have one in a Linux box.
 
Similarly, (in spelling anyway) Matrox video cards were once the shiznit. I would have to go check to see if they are even still in business.
 
I think it will be a while before intel gets knocked down, Qualcomm could possibly be one to give them a run considering their market share and the current push to smartphones and tablets. I know AMD is still kicking but I just don't see them making any type of comeback in the near future. It may be a bit unwarranted but I get the impression that the AMD processor division is circling the drain. If it weren't for Qualcomm and others like TI, I could see intel propping up AMD to hedge any monopoly type issues (ala Microsoft and Apple).
 
Back to the OP's point, I know some people swear by AMD and, per the specs, they are just a bit slower. But, they are a bit cheaper. If the performance is not a very serious issue and you feel lucky then get an AMD.