AMD vs Intel for music program plugins

[robles]

I use Cubase SL and I am constantly pushing my old Athlon 1.2Ghz to the maximum. I load up a few software synths, or vsti, in my program and I'm peaking out. I'm looking to upgrade my processor, but I'm not quite sure which architecture will best handle plugins inside a single program. I noticed AMD seems better at single apps, whereas Pentium with Hyper-Threading is better for multiple apps. Is having numerous software synths running simultaneously in a single program considered a single app or multiple app?

I've noticed that Tom's Hardware Guide always tests music programs by testing raw file conversions, but I would love to see a test that shows how many plugin effects or software synths can run simultaneously without stuttering.

 

[HansGruber]

Intel 840EE would have advantage for running 4 or more apps that are CPU intensive, but for anything else AMD dual core owns.

Basically AMD X2 is better at everything, that has something to do with real-life application usage.

Btw, are those applications that you use multithreaded ?

<font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein</font color=red>

 

[robles]

I'm afraid I'm not sure how to determine if me apps are multi-threaded. Basically, I am running one music program-Cubase SL2, which is not 64bit optimized. What I need it to do is play numerous midi tracks, and numerous software synthesizers sent into software effects, and record the live mix right into Cubase, all at the same time. I enjoy working this way as it streamlines my compositions-I don't have to record an audio track, and remix everything. This set-up works for me very well as is, but I'm using special software synths that drain alot of CPU power. All I'm looking to do is maximize the number of software synth and effects plugins I can add within my Cubase program.

 

[HansGruber]

Best bet is to get dual core AMD, it runs everything fast.


<font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein</font color=red>

 

[StarFoxTB]

Dude -

If you've done your homework and checked all the "shootout" articles, you'll see that AMD smokes Intel at just about every catagory ... except when it comes to audio encoding and the like. All of the sudden, Intel jumps right back up to the top of the list ...

In just about every article I've read, Gaming tests show AMD the better path, but Audio/Video encoding ... Intel. If you're building a music studio, especially with soft synths, then "encoding" is the area that you should be most interested in. I just upgraded my studio rig with the following:

ASUS P5WD2 (Thank's everyone for stearing me away from the nVidia chipset!!)
Intel D 840 3.2 (tweaked alittle bit, 3.6 ...)
2 GB DDR2 533
MSI 6600 PCI Express video (basic)

I run Sonar, which can recognize dual processors (and is about to release Sonar5 the 64bit version!!!)
I use Battery2, SonicSynth and Reason 3.0.

Now, assuming I'm working on a track with 10 instruments and 10 vocal tracks, I'm asking my Computer to (1) Process EQ on 3+ vocal tracks, (2) process delay on one vocal track, (3) process reverb on 4 vocal tracks, (4) process in real time, the output of 10 softsynths, mix that all down to my M-Audio driver (firewire 410) and send it from memory (the audio driver) to the firewire interface (located on the south bridge) to my actual Audio interface. That's alot of things to have to do ... IN REAL TIME. Lets not mention processing (in real time) a mike input hooked up to my audio interface...

I'm having no problems with AT ALL and was basically able to do this on my P4 2.8 Laptop!!!! (until I broke my screen).

I was thinking about going the AMD route but I had to consider a big issue, "would all my drivers, applications, etc., work smooth with the AMD chip??". Trust me, I have NOTHING BAD to say about AMD, but my Intel setup worked well, and the last time I checked, you can't take processors and motherboards back because they didn't work with your favorate app!!! Knowing that the extra speed (overall) that AMD brings to the table wasn't going to be a big factor (my 2.8 Laptop worked...), I went with the Intel.

Anyway, good luck! I hope I provided some food for thought...

StarFoxTB.

 

[MeTaLrOcKeR]

Just to let u know, anything a P4 can run, an Athlon 64 can run aswell...just better...

Infact im willing to bet a X2 put up against an Intel equivelant, in the REAL world, the X2 will outperform, run cooler, be quiter than the Pentium D equivelant...add synth's and all kinds of different plugins into the picture and watch the X2 walk all over the P D...


And again, AMD chips do NOT have incompatibility issues with any programs...drivers are ALL specific to ones hardware...OBVIOUSLY (at least i hope u wouldnt) you wouldnt forcefully instal via 4-in-1's on an nVidia chipset or the unified driver package from nVidia on an Intel platform...aside from that what other incompatibilities COULD there be??

afterall x86 is, well, x86...ya, intel may have "invented" it, but AMD has perfected it


<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=13597" target="_new">-MeTaL RoCkEr</A>

 

[slvr_phoenix]

Since you don't know if your program is multithreaded or not (I'd bet it is, but best to be sure) you should probably look that up. I'd think that the software has a web page, and if the info isn't there, there's bound to be an email where you can ask, no? But if you're running WinXP (I think Win2K has this option too) you can use the Task Manager settings to view the number of threads used by each process. If the number of threads goes up each time you add a synth, there you go, multithreading, yo ho ho.

If your software is single-threaded, go AMD single-core. If your software has two threads, AMD's X2 will do nicely. If you have four threads or more, would suggest a Hyperthreaded Intel dual-core processor if that was feasable. (But to my knowledge, it's not.) So actually, if it's over four threads you're probably still better off with an X2 from AMD unless you want to spend some big bucks on an Intel Xeon two-CPU box.

Of course giving us an idea of how much you're willing to spend, how far you're willing to go to build a system on your own, and how far towards bleeding-edge hardware you're willing to trust would undoubtedly help us help you better.

یί∫υєг ρђœŋίχ
<font color=red><i>Deal with the Devil. He buys in bulk.</i></font color=red>
@ 197K of 200K!

 

[EugeneMc]

Sorry, but in audio editing, AMD owns too:

<A HREF="http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm" target="_new">http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm</A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by eugenemc on 09/12/05 06:32 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[StarFoxTB]

Check this article out ...

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-fx57/index.x?pg=1

Look at how the AMD processors BLOW the Intel ones away ... right up until they start the encoding benchmarks. If a baby Intel D 820 is keeping up (and in some cases in front of) an AMD Flagship FX-57, that says alot.

Again, I'm not on any Intel or AMD bandwagon and when it comes to raw, flat out speed, AMD gets the trophy girl ... but he's talking music production which is encoding audio. AMD with it's built-in memory controller makes Intel look ... lets say "shy" in the memory tests, but if you loose the speed converting an algorythm into an audio stream, you loose your lead. If your converting multiple audio streams and are loosing a step with each one... you kinda break even.

StarFoxTB.

 

[endyen]

NO. You do not compare a dual core to a single core, if you are looking for multithreaded.
Truth is, not only do the intel chips get eaten by the Amd x2 chips, but it is hard to find a board that supports them.
Even then if you use them @ anywhere near optimal, one core will probably throttle, and the system will put out enough heat to keep a large room hot in winter.

 

[StarFoxTB]

My comment wasn't intended to compare a dual to a single, but more to show (based on the report) how the Intels close the Big Gap AMD has when it comes to doing anything else.

If you can purchase a dual-core 8.20 for 2+ bills and it's right "up there" with one of AMDs fastest single-core processors ("up there" for some applications which are specific to what this guy is trying to do) ... It makes sense to mention it.

Also, if he has an app he uses for his music that supports multiple processors (Like I know Sonar does...), it (the Intel processor) will take advantage of both processors and one won't sit and be idle. Both of my cores jump up when I load soft-synths and although one runs higher then the other, I can clearly see that both are active and my sequencer is the only app I'm running (other then OS stuff, etc.)

If an 820 dual core is better at handling dual threaded apps then a FX-57 (it also costs at least $600.00 less), it should at least be mentioned. We can compare the 820 to an X2 4800, but pricewise that like apples to oranges. Of course, if we were all rich we would get the X2 4800, but some of us are on a budget so it's ok to talk about what makes financial sense here too!

BTW, I'd never get an 820 (840s don't cost that much more) but I use it here as an example.

 

[FUGGER]

For those who did not get the memo, throttlewatch does not ID the dual core Intel correctly and people were thinking the second core activity was the cpu throttling.

Intel is still superior in multimedia and threading over the X2, be sure to read between the lines to get the damn thing to work correctly.

http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=mopcmark05&Number=5327047&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1

This is one a few work arounds for the core stalling (common problem) and if I did not point this out you may have missed it for months while you took kicks to the nuts if you were lucky to figure out whats wrong.

I wont go into the startup fixes as I am not familliar with them.

multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect /usepmtimer

dual core boards can be found on the shelf everywhere. compusa, Frys, PC-CLUB and so on and I have seen 945 and Xpress 200 for as little as $99. If I check the newegg refurb section I could most likely find one for even less.

Lets not pick at the poor 2D performance when SLI is enabled. as much as 25% drop in frame rate and it is noticable when dragging windows and too many icons on the desktop. Chances are you wont setup SLI anyways so no need to pick over this atm.

"the drop in performance is almost certainly caused by the additional bus traffic needed to copy one frame half across to the other graphics board."

A bunch of fanboys are you

Maybe the guy who started this thread wanted a stable problem free machine.... did you guys ever think of that?

Take the time to research 1GB memory modules that work correctly? ROFL

<A HREF="http://www.xtremesystems.org" target="_new">www.xtremesystems.org</A>

 

[endyen]

BTW, I'd never get an 820

Indeed, who in thier right mind would want a 2.8 ghz prescott, without HT, let alone two of them.
If you actually have been using a dual core system, the X2 3800 may offer a viable alternative. Only an intel fanboy would put up with the issues of the 800 series.

 

[endyen]

Hey wusy, I dont think it's his heart that keeps pumping out the fanboy shite, but whatever part it is, it's bullish.

 

[HansGruber]

<A HREF="http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-fx57/index.x?pg=1" target="_new">http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-fx57/index.x?pg=1</A>

WHAT THE ?? Are you blind ?

AMD is faster at encoding in that review..

If a baby Intel D 820 is keeping up (and in some cases in front of) an AMD Flagship FX-57, that says alot.

It says that the application is multithreaded, so single core FX is not best for it.
But AMD has dual core CPU's, and Intel can't keep up.

Im a Intel fanboy

Yes we know.. or Mac is starting to use Intel, so that MAC [-peep-] is starting to spread..

<font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein</font color=red>

 

[mpasternak]

I read this thread like i read so many...

it's hard to seperate the bullshit from the truthes here.. everyone is afanboy of one thing over the other.

so i'll give the opinion that will definately get me flamed

Either direction you go in. you will get a competent product to perform the tasks you wish to do.

 

[EugeneMc]

Intel is still superior in multimedia and threading over the X2

LOL

Maybe the guy who started this thread wanted a stable problem free machine....

like this?

<A HREF="http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=73886" target="_new">http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=73886</A>



BTW... It's laughable to read that one of the biggest intel zealot-fanboyism and nonsense guy, aka fugger, call others fanboys...

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by eugenemc on 09/13/05 06:38 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[EugeneMc]

--

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by eugenemc on 09/13/05 06:49 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[EugeneMc]

there is X2 3800+...


btw, did you read it? (in this tests an A64 x2 3800+ will have similar cpu usage than A64 X2 4400+...)

<A HREF="http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm" target="_new">http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm</A>

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by eugenemc on 09/13/05 06:50 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[FUGGER]

GG, he was having hd setup problems and nothing related to this topic. The board has 3 IDE connectors (baffles AMD users) and the primary one is the blue one the other two are raid. He was hooking up a drive to one of the raid ports. You so burned me on that one...

I love the AMD circle jerks in every thread like this here on THGF. You shove AMD anyones throat no matter what the scenario is. When ever someone debates the AMD fanboys they pack up like dogs to belittle, disrespect, and brow beat them into never wanting to post here again. FU2

I DO NOT WORK for Intel, geesh. You guys cannot get one single fact straight, you will say anything to suit your needs.

A 600 series with HT is superior to X2 ATM till the get the bugs out. But most of you guys go on what others post and dont actually own one or even used one let alone set one up and dealt with the BS CPU driver problems.



<A HREF="http://www.xtremesystems.org" target="_new">www.xtremesystems.org</A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by FUGGER on 09/13/05 01:07 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[FUGGER]

Ah, I found it.


Page 17 of the AMD fanboy handbook states "FUGGER works for Intel" That is just below "AMD R0xz, post in all Intel based threads where someone is seeking advice"

<A HREF="http://www.xtremesystems.org" target="_new">www.xtremesystems.org</A>

 

[robles]

Amidst all the Intel and AMD swipings, the best advice I received came from slvr_phoenix who suggested I check my Task Manager to see if the number of threads went up when loading synths. Guess what? They did not go up, not even when I decided to real time record audio into the program, with the four softsynths playing through my outboard mixer and back into my Cubase program. However, I opened up a new program, CoolEdit, and the thread count jumped. What it's looking like to me, from what I've been gathering from the AMD vs Intel dual core duel is that Intel beats AMD with multiple applications running simultaneously, but AMD beats Intel when a single application is running. Since the thread count seemed unaffected by adding softsynths, I'm going to consider my Cubase program a single application, and go with AMD.

 

[FUGGER]

Lets not forget, the Intel boards feature HDA, High definition Audio, not AC97 crap

Once you do something else that takes CPU time it will effect your single threaded audio program quality.

<A HREF="http://www.xtremesystems.org" target="_new">www.xtremesystems.org</A>

 

[robles]

Yes, but no one who is serious about audio recording is going to use motherboard audio. I've got an M-Audio Audiophile USB on mine, and only use my motherboard to augment my number of midi interfaces.

 

[EugeneMc]

haha you know... this is the knowledge fugger has.