I am going to be building a new computer for the studio and am at a crossroads.

I know there are optimizations in Sonar for Intel chips. Are there also optimizations for AMD chips?

I am considering building using an ASUS Sabertooth 990FX AMD AM3+ TUF Motherboard with a AMD FX-8120 Processor.

Would appreciate some knowledgeable and experiential feedback.

I really don't know if this is true, but I have read that the best optimisation for an AMD chip is to get an Intel one instead. Any reason for going against the conventional wisdom and getting a AMD chip?

I wouldn't be concerned about going AMD and saving a few bucks. The CPU choice is just one of many factors, and probably not the most significant among them. How many times have topics come up here wherein somebody's getting dropouts despite having a pretty hot machine? 

Far and away the best optimization anyone can do is to dedicate the machine to the single purpose of being an audio workstation. Which is what it sounds like kevo is doing. That means no network (or at least one that's only enabled when needed), no unnecessary devices (e.g. use a corded mouse rather than a cordless mouse), no non-audio software (leave out Microsoft Office and definitely no computer games), no unnecessary services (e.g. security monitors and anything network-related). The key to stability and performance is keeping the configuration simple and then leaving it the hell alone.

My dedicated DAW has an older generation 6-core AMD Phonom II 1100T and I have more horsepower than I know what to do with.  As bitflipper says, I think there are other considerations.  I spent a lot of time hand-picking components for a silent DAW (passive cooler on the video card, liquid CPU cooling, ultra-quite PSU, etc).  Most of us with PCs built in the last couple of years are not hitting limitations based on the CPU.

"bitflipper"
Far and away the best optimization anyone can do is to dedicate the machine to the single purpose of being an audio workstation. Which is what it sounds like kevo is doing. That means no network (or at least one that's only enabled when needed), no unnecessary devices (e.g. use a corded mouse rather than a cordless mouse), no non-audio software (leave out Microsoft Office and definitely no computer games), no unnecessary services (e.g. security monitors and anything network-related). The key to stability and performance is keeping the configuration simple and then leaving it the hell alone.

<cough>+ 1</cough>

Far and away the best optimization anyone can do is to dedicate the machine to the single purpose of being an audio workstation. Which is what it sounds like kevo is doing. That means no network (or at least one that's only enabled when needed), no unnecessary devices (e.g. use a corded mouse rather than a cordless mouse), no non-audio software (leave out Microsoft Office and definitely no computer games), no unnecessary services (e.g. security monitors and anything network-related). The key to stability and performance is keeping the configuration simple and then leaving it the hell alone.

Excellent points. I am planning on reformatting my HP laptop and keep it minimal. One quick question, what's wrong with cordless mouse? I have a MS Mobile 4000 and I love it. 

Glyn Barnes


I really don't know if this is true, but I have read that the best optimisation for an AMD chip is to get an Intel one instead. Any reason for going against the conventional wisdom and getting a AMD chip?

nope..its not true... there is no conventional wisdom here... only that of a majority market share where the 2nd place player offers performance one class above for the same price...personally i align 100% with Bit.. the very best thing to do is to have a dedicated sonar/audio workstation.. determine a budget and optimise within that... after all, buying an i7 based machine and using onboard audio cos your budget ran out will quickly disprove the Intel argument :D

I Appreciate the feedback.

I make my choices based on "bang for the buck", stability, reliability and then performance.

I have built many AMD systems over the years for the simple fact that Bang for the buck AMD has provided more for the money than Intel.  All of the systems have been rock solid.

I listed the MB and CPU I am seriously considering. IOW if I purchased right now, that is the combo I would get.

I am looking for success or fail stories with this combo... or any other information that will help in making a final choice. For instance, if someone were to say "Hey this MB and CPU will work better and is around the same price range!" or better yet, "I have this MB and CPU and it works great and is around the same price as the combo you listed!"

Then I'm all for it.

I am also curious if Sonar's optimizations are only for Intel processors.

+ 1 for bitflipper and silicon audio...  

I have an old AMD 6200 dual core running on a gigabyte board (am3+ capable) using ddr2 memory, put together 2 years ago.  Haven't found a limit yet although my max project is 52 channels of audio, 32 channels of midi, and 22 effects.   I have 3 hard drives, one for each OS from Vista up.  There is one small problem I ran into with vista and 7 64 in my configuration. The 64 bit OS's didn't load when there were more than 2 gigs of memory available.  Simple fix - pair memory down to 2 gig during os install, then pop it back in.  8 didn't have the problem.  Love to hear back about the 8120 when you are done. Thats my next step.

Best regards,

L

ive benched tested intels against AMD's for a while now specificaly the AMD 6-core phenom II 's are great processors

not a skip in the world here,it actualy intrigues me to see people say some of things they do about AMD with out any knowlege of ever testing or using one...so your going by what ?? word of mouth ?
a post you read on an intel forum ?
its possible you may stray someone away from a product that is more then capible of producing excellent loads of power,because of something you read ?
if you really dont know if its true,then why even post?
baffling.