I think I will make a post for it on the Nuendo forums. Its worth about 15-30% performance.
I think itâs quite obvious that the more conservative and cautious minds will cling to old Intel habits until others have been happy AMD Cubase users for a while. People are different, and the cautious/conservative approach is a legitimate option.
I prefer another approach, where I am willing to take the better performancer as soon as it seems rewarding enough to me to take minimal remaining risks, and it makes sense to me - not two years later.
One reason, why I will prefer AMD hands down in 2021, is not just sigificantly better overall performance, but also AMDs better use of energy. For my next desktop music computer buy, I will not even compare and consider Intel any more, looking at their 11th gen., which I definitely donât like one bit.
Youâll also be immune to Meltdown and Spectre Intel CPU viruses that canât be patched with software.
Not true, this is not only directed at Intel, but also AMD and potentially ARM
1 Like
Ah, so it was an AMD build 
AMD is obviously winning the desktop market at the moment, but this is a pretty typical back and forth like Xbox One vs PS4 vs Xbox One S, etc.
It looks like Intel has given them an extra year lead though, be interesting to see what the new Intel CEO does by 2022.
I might build an intermediate AMD machine on the cheaper side to use until I do my $10,000 intel build.
And the architecture theyâre using is because⌠theyâre in a slower development cycle.
And what would it take to convince you? Iâm actually genuinely wondering. Because the same caveats I see today (in general) are the same caveats I saw a decade ago. But today isnât a decade ago.
My Intel machine has been working for over a decade. Probably a major factor in AMD gaining market share⌠No one is needing to buy new Intels. Actually my current Intel chip is a used one I bought off Ebay that replaced the initial one I put in my machine, which is something I wouldnât normally do, but thereâs only so many things you can put in an older machine.
The market gains are somewhat inflated by data miners buying GPUs, and video gamers trying to squeeze an extra 5 FPS.
So in 2025 weâll still be talking about my R7 1700 I bet⌠Know what I mean?
Donât really know what you mean, I think weâre likely to be talking about Intel in 2022 and no one will be thinking about AMD in 2025. Intel has something like %80 of the market even when they arenât performing well. It appears their stock has been going up just by way of their new CEOs video press release a few days ago.
Iâm a die hard donât give a fk customer. Iâll use whatever is best, and benchmark performance isnât the only aspect of influencing me. They have a history of serious issues, they were having serious driver issues with their GPUs last year. Mainstream integration is an aspect - if something is used more (like Intel) itâs more likely to run into problems early if it does have problems, and be solved quicker. Support, out of box performance, speed of patch releasing, etc, etc.
A decade is nothing in terms of relaxing a judgment when youâre talking about $10k-$30k computer builds that I want to last flawlessly for 10-15 years⌠And a performance benchmark isnât going to change that for meâŚ
Thatâs why Intel didnât make the USB3 bugs public that were present in chipsets for the last ten years?
Not sure what youâre talking about, never had a problem with Intel and USB3 and my is system is full of them, only problem Iâve had with USB3 is it interferes with USB2 if in close proximity.
Not true, itâs true. Meltdown only affected Intel chips. Specter way less impacted AMD in % (only one variant of Specter was creating problems here).
So, not true. Is it true Intel was maybe more affected? Sure, but itâs not true if you have AMD or Arm that youâre out of the water.
It is complex. Sepectre affect x86 both amd and intel but at least some ARM are immune. Meltdown does not affect AMD, but ARM and Intel. But 11th gen should have both fixed from Intel.
Last I checked only one of those two affected AMD. And it seems at least two more people recall the same thing.
Your insistence on this is what makes you look like a âfanboyâ⌠and I really do hate to use that term.
Six of one half a dozen of the other.
Their development cycle has been slow relative to their roadmap years ago. They should have been on new architectures on smaller nodes like a couple of years ago already and theyâre not. If they had been theyâd have been crushing AMD at this point. So within that context theyâre at least partially âstuckâ. You can call it âslow developmentâ if you want of course.
It first of all doesnât answer my question which was what it would take to convince you to change your mind. Secondly, youâre implying that all these people buying AMD are new buyers because the older ones are still on functioning Intel builds, but that isnât entirely logical because it implies people pretty much all bought their rigs at the same time. But that isnât the case⌠You have a steady stream of buyers who decommission their old systems and buy new, and if the pool of customers havenât grown significantly then a significant increase in market share for AMD is absolutely coming from previous Intel owners. So what you imply isnât supported by the numbers.
Again, why do people like you bother posting in this thread??? The point I was trying to make was that people like you will never ever be convinced that AMD is a better choice. Thatâs what I mean that in 2025 someone like you will come along and talk about how my current CPU, a first generation Ryzen, isnât that great, even though at that point itâll be 2025. You wonât be comparing whatever AMD has then to what Intel has then âbecause historyâ. Heck, you might even still try to taint AMD with âBulldozerâ.
That you claim that in 2025 nobody is even going to be thinking about AMD says it all. Leave the thread and go elsewhere. You have zero recent experience with these CPUs and so you really donât seem to have anything to add about how they function. I mean, you ignore user experiences and you ignore the DAW-specific benchmark testing that exists. What else is there? There is nothing. Nothing to convince you.
Move on.
Again: Your mind is made up.
Move on.
Next thread for you.
Six of one half a dozen of the other.
Blockquote Your insistence on this is what makes you look like a âfanboyâ⌠and I really do hate to use that term.
Because it makes you sound like a fanboy? Honestly mate, youâre the only one here who sounds like a fanboy.
Ironically, even in their worst year they still are crushing AMD - does it really matter? no.
NASA switching their entire infrastructure to AMD.
Actually thatâs not very logical, youâre completely overlooking trends, tech cycles, OS releases, purchasing age demographics, etc.
âAbsolutely coming from former intel usersâ⌠or coming form a new generation of young video gamers and streamers who are first time computer buyersâŚ
How do you know what I will and wont be convinced of? weird comment, are you a psychic? Sort of ignorant mate. sort of ignorant.
Why do you care who posts where? itâs an interesting discussion, people will participate how they want⌠why are you so triggered over this? Enjoy your AMD if itâs working for you?
Now you know what experiences I have and donât have?
I know that %80 of the market is Intel, and therefore I know that most things are going to be tested on Intel. Itâs a basic logical analysis that I factor in to my assessment when building a $10k+ machine - why are you offended?
Chill dude, listen to some music
The Robotic Musicians known as: Intelâs Industrial Control in Concert | Intel - Bing video
The difference is that Iâm not going into threads about Intel and advocating for people to get AMD CPUs.
Youâre in an AMD thread advocating people use Intel.
Do you understand that difference?
Iâll start an intel thread and invite you.
The thread is about AMD CPUs, which means, itâs also about CPUs.
the OP is coming from intel, thinking about an upgrade to AMD.
Therefore, itâs also about Intel vs AMD.
Alder lake release 2nd half will be PCIe5 and DDR5
This whole argument kinda reminds me of a similar one happening in autos right now, the new up-and-comers like Tesla takin it to the old stalwarts like Ford or GM⌠And sure the ones with the ripest technology are off and running but where do you think people will continue to gravitate simply because of habit or even safety and peace of mind⌠There are definitely costs with being cutting edge, so those who youâll typically see there are those who have the least to lose⌠When you trust your bankroll to that said technology, sometimes old fashioned dependability triumphs over speed and new features⌠Especially when it might be puttin food on your table next week⌠Weight the pros and cons carefully given your position and your ability to take that hit if poop goes left and you lose some valuable work because you were moving too quickly with your jet plane setup⌠Just my 2 cents
1 Like
Your analogy doesnât really work for several reasonsâŚ
But just out of curiosity: The last time Intel improved their architecture and made a new version that was better than the previous one - did you have the same caveat? Did anyone? Or is âcutting edgeâ only a problem when AMD does it?
Which one was old fashioned dependability when Meltdown and Spectre came along if you were a data center?
Every forum should have a PC/Mac thread and a AMD/Intel thread where all of this can go so people who actually want to talk about⌠oh, I donât know, whatâs in the thread title, can actually talk about thatâŚ
Hello all - It seems to me that the OPâs original request for some testing result that show that âCUBASEâ will perform better on an AMD system has not yet been referenced. Mattias NYC said to the OP "just go search the internet for the comparisons - So I did the search - The DAW-specific benchmark testing that has been referenced used REAPER. In the links by MattiasNYC there was a guy that said the many core system was not really helping, and that he thought the software has not caught up with the HW. Again, it seems that Cubase will do better with a very high single core frequency. I havenât seen ANY CUBASE specific benchmark testing that might show differences in the new powerful Intel like the i9-10900K vs AMD Ryzen. Please correct me if I have missed that, because I am just like the OP and wanted to be convinced â but in the absents of testing results demonstrating AMD superiority with Cubase, I once again went for the Intel. I did a fair amount of searching and did not find testing of the new generations of CPU and preferably at the SAME price point. I would still be interested in references to testing metrics. One more thought my limit for the new build was $2.5k (honestly that Gearslutz thread was just to long for me)
For my budget the likely picks are compared at:
and:
I went for the better single core performance. (that was probably heavily influence by my current (old) cpu, its i7-5960X w/ 16 cpuâs, did not really impress me like I hoped it would with Cubase.)
The 5900X is out of my price range.
Cheers to ya all. (sorry to still be talking about Intel, but answering the OP.)
Iâm not a CPU expert, but youâre asserting that thereâs no room left to be creative within 14nm or 10nm architectures that could match or even outdo a 7nm architecture. Obviously transistor size reduction is the one thing that has the biggest impact, but itâs not the only thing.