There's an interesting link to some Sonar specific benchmarking and AMD's bulldozer on Noel's website here.  It seems one of the AVX optimised routines (Copy Float32toFloat64) has a problem on the bulldozer processors.  This test was performed almost a year ago and the reviewer suggests an application patch or Visual Studio service pack could be needed to fix the problem.

It would be interesting to get an update on this.

For what it's worth I've been using AMD Chips for the past 6 years and have had great performance. 

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.

I used to use one dual-boot PC with separate installations for DAW use and family use.  The DAW installation was minimalist (as described by Bitflipper above), whereas the other one had everything to meet the requirements of several diverse users.  Sonar was installed on both, and the difference in performance was extreme.

I had a singel core AMD machine dedicated as a DAW, used it for 7 years with sonar 5, Woekwd great. decided to upgrade to x1 about 6 months ago so bought a new amd 6 core machine. It is working perfectly.  The only time I have dropouts is when I am mixing and have a TON of stuff going on (effects etc).  I can run a lot of efects etc (and I mean A LOT!!) before any dropouts happen. When I mix I use a high buffer size and have very little issues with it.  I am not sure but I beleive the 64 bit allows to use more RAM. Overall X1 is really stable on my machine. Can't tell you much about the intel, but I'm sure they are good also.  Tha same machine I have with the Intel chip was $100+ more.

chuckebaby


if you really dont know if its true,then why even post?
baffling.

In my case because I would like to know. I will be getting a new DAW next year.

kevo


  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 have an AMD Phenom (tm) x6 1075t processor 3.0 GHz with 8 gigs of ram. The AMD has 6 cores. Sonar runs fine with no problems. I run a ton of plugins with every project. The computer is used for other things as well. I have seen no difference between this machine and an I5 processor. However most of projects are no more then 30 or so tracks plus effects and busses. I am not sure about performance comparisons here. I am only saying everything works well with no problems. I should probably buy more ram since I have 6 cores.
 
but I will say bitflipper is right when he says "Far and away the best optimization anyone can do is to dedicate the machine to the single purpose of being an audio workstation."
 
I had a machine that was only used for recording back when I had Sonar 8. It worked better when Sonar was the only thing on it and the background services I did not need were turned off. I had to give that machine to my son.
 
I don't think you should have any problems running Sonar with the system you are going to build. I remember reading something a while back about how Sonar takes advantage of hyperthreading in the intel chips.
 
Intel's proprietary HT Technology is used to improve parallelization of computations (doing multiple tasks at once) performed on PC microprocessors. For each processor core that is physically present, the operating system addresses two virtual or logical cores, and shares the workload between them when possible. The main function of hyper-threading is to decrease the number of dependent instructions on the pipeline.
 
Hyper-threading requires not only that the operating system support multiple processors, but also that it be specifically optimized for HTT, and Intel recommends disabling HTT when using operating systems that have not been optimized for this chip feature. I think any optimizations in Sonar may deal with this process of hyperthreading. Someone help me out if I am wrong here.
 
That is why a newer operating system like windows 7 or 8 would will work better with these kinds of processors. Your AMD is slightly different in that it has 8 physical cores. This is a screaming machine and you should have no problems
 
I would say the main concern is to put in as much ram as you can afford. 8 gigs of ram will give you 1 gig per core. more ram should up the performance

Hi kevo,
had a AMD- machine for years with logic 4 and 5   
running and absolute stable.
At the choice of the new processor (AMD or Intel)
one thing has to be considered.....
the wattage of the processors

What I read in magazines and benchmarks is that the 
AMD 6 - 8 cores are really heavy in this,
means that the money one saves at buying an AMD-multi-core,
you  spend later for the electricity and more. 

  I´m building a new PC in oct., so it´s also a question 
to me.Thanks. 

We haven't received any newer evaluation machines from AMD so I can't comment about any newer offerings but the prior generation from them as of last year did not perform as well using AVX as did the intel counterparts. The Tom's hardware review linked in this thread did some tests using our benchmark tool and found them to be slower with the AMD hardware. 

I'm running a similar specked rig, no issues. Moving from a 6 core AMD chip to the 8 core gave me a noticeable improvement in low latency performance. Even single threaded perf is slightly lower for different apps.

There are AVX optimizations in X1, but as stated before, not every case shows the best performance. 

I'm also running Windows 8 Pro RTM. There was an AMD Bulldozer patch for Windows 7 that resolved some threading issues. http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Bulldozer-Windows-7-Performance-Patch-Tested-Results-Disappoint-241228.shtml I'm not sure if that is rolled into normal patching of windows 7 as the hotfix seems to be dissapeared.

Scott from ADK often posts his thoughts on the AMD vs Intel debate.  He has done alot of research and posts his benchmarks on the ADK website for all to see.  He says Intel is the better deal currently, for both the price and performance.  I trust Scott and his research.  Visit the ADK site and look at the benchmarks for yourself.

With that said, I run a 3 year old machine with a AMD Phenom x4 black edition at 3.61.  Many of my projects are very large with lots of VST's, tracks and soft synths (Hollywood Strings and other EW libraries).  I only have 8 gigs of RAM and do just fine (yes, I have to freeze and bounce at times).  On a semi-educated guess, the majority of Cakewalk users do not typically create such large and intricate projects. Which means, even if Intel outperforms AMD, it does not matter for most users, as any current processor will handle your projects just fine.

I also use my PC as my business computer, normal online computer and on rare occasions, when the wife and baby fall asleep early,,,a gaming computer :)