I was Told Intel leads in Performance , i cross read AMD excels in its Cores @ a cheaper price … what would u pls suggest for DAW , a lot of Effx n using a lot of Vsti/s in C 6.5 , come on this wars will continue … AMD had its Faults , but i read they’ve woken up since…n i belive n important factor 2 keep Intel in check… also read that there r lots of fauliur e in Intels i3/s 1 st gen … n i 5 ??? many say , jut put a good heatsink on the AMD , n u r on … Most of all , does performance , or more cores matter in DAW applications… so any one s latest reviews… thanks s
AMD? in a word NO…
for every price point of AMD i can show you an intel processor that out performs it.
even the 8 core AMD is a joke its actualy slower than the older 6 cores for audio/video and is drastically behind Intel…
Thanks any more back ups .on this …???
http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm
2nd graph down
@32buffer the lighest blue is the AMD 1090T which is better than the newer 8 core. only did 80 RXC
the 2600 (black) did 183…
comments on when i tested but didnt bother to add the newer AMDs
AMD’s new FX-8350 has done well in recent tests. I’ll probably upgrade my current rig with it some day soon, and will report how it works with audio. There just hasn’t been any real reason for an upgrade yet, since my current Phenom 2 X6 1090T has served me very well.
The whole (sometimes heated) discussion between AMD and Intel has been pretty pointless for most of us, since both platforms are powerful and reliable. Most users won’t notice any difference or find the limits in their everyday work, no matter which one they choose - especially when the other components in the DAW are up-to-date. I tend to recommend AMD parts because I’m familiar with them and satisfied with them, but there are (also in this forum) people who wouldn’t recommend them for any price. Are they right or wrong, that’s up to everyone’s own experiences. For some reason, that choice has always been a bit like “Obama vs Romney”, too: emotional, even ideological. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, as long as there’s certain sanity behind our choices.
There was a time when I myself did all kinds of benchmarks, trying to squeeze all the possible performance out of my computers, more for fun than for any real-world need. Numbers mattered then, as they still do for kids who compare their gaming computers without realizing that having 80 or 90 fps speed in Skyrim game means nothing: both speeds are more than enough. 
These days I only want to have a reliable, quiet, fast enough DAW, no matter what CPU is inside of it. Others may compete with who has that 5% more performance or so. I just keep on making music. 
There are, of course, professionals in this forum who need every bit of juice out of their 12-core monster
DAWs. For them, even smallest differences in performance may be important.
There’s no need to have emotional preference. There’s facts. So many DAW benchmark test are run (and published) these days. If Scott says “for every price point of AMD i can show you an intel processor that out performs it”, I’m convinced. He’s more professional in this single issue than anyone else in this forum.
Of course. Just like great majority of us. But why to spend your money to A-branded product (no matter how emotionally attracted you are with it), when I-brand gives you better bang for the $$$?
well i did just test the 8350. rather than repeat here is a link to my findings.
I root 4 the underdog , n hope they rise up soon 2 the competition ,@ least will keep Intel rates in check…sm
Nice work Scott, I hope AMD can reclaim a solid spot in the CPU market.
Thanks, Scott! Interesting findings. Just wonder what explained the overclocking results. In most tests the scaling has been quite good.
Seems like 8350 will be my next update - only needs a bios update for my Asus AM3 motherboard.