|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Intel vs. AMD for Pro Tools
Hackintosh my fellow brethren !!!
Hackintosh the best computer u can imagine for $1500 or less
__________________
Daniel HDX - PT12.5.1 - HD I/O 16x8x8 Win10-Pro (v1709)- 6 Core i7-6850k - ASUS X99 Deluxe ii D-Command Main Unit - 'Ole Blue http://www.sknoteaudio.com/ plugins rock and are affordable. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Intel vs. AMD for Pro Tools
Yeah I would go Win7 if I went back (I'm not) !!
__________________
Daniel HDX - PT12.5.1 - HD I/O 16x8x8 Win10-Pro (v1709)- 6 Core i7-6850k - ASUS X99 Deluxe ii D-Command Main Unit - 'Ole Blue http://www.sknoteaudio.com/ plugins rock and are affordable. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Intel vs. AMD for Pro Tools
Personally I run an older q9550 quad with Mountain Lion and Windows 8. I'm happy with the performance with both. Windows 8 fixed the freeze during bounce and it boots much faster. Lion was better IMO but in upgrading my video card to an Nvidea GTX 650 I just couldn't get Lion to work anymore. Mountain Lion works as it should and its nice to have both sides to use for different tasks. I use Acid (windows only) for tempo matching and I like the way OSX lays out the windows in dual monitors. Problem with AMD, it's not supported, it's near impossible to get OSX to work right. But it's cheaper. I find my wife's AMD laptop runs extremely hit as well. I'm not sure if they do in general or not. But it's terrible. Just a couple penny's for your pondering. :).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Intel vs. AMD for Pro Tools
Hard to beat a hackintosh in the priceerformance category. Won't deny that.
__________________
Dell T5810. Harrison Mixbus 32C. Haven't used PT since 2015 and never been happier. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Intel vs. AMD for Pro Tools
But is there any empirical evidence that shows a hackintosh is more powerful than a Windows i7 6 core/X79/Quad-channel RAM setup? If you prefer OSX, then it certainly makes sense, but I don't think there's a performance advantage to a hackintosh, vs. a well-built PC I was an AMD fan for many years(and have built 5-6 AMD systems), but the i7 9xx was a milestone in performance, and those using the newest 6 core make me jealous, for sure...............
__________________
HP Z4 workstation, Mbox Studio https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...0sound%20works The better I drink, the more I mix BTW, my name is Dave, but most people call me.........................Dave |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Intel vs. AMD for Pro Tools
Quote:
I had a AMD 6 core running 8.0.1 I had lent to a friend along with a MBOX and it ran PT just fine. Performance was roughly the same as a Q6600. The AMD Stars series and the current FX series still use a little more power than the Intel stuff and still have less performance. However they are priced nicely and you can overclocked the unlocked ones pretty easily. Although you will pay the price in power and heat. Bulldozer switched to a new front end architecture for AMD were each integer unit of the dual core module is sharing a single floating point unit along with shared L2 Cache. This is why the older Phenom series was beating bulldozer in a few benchmarks. The newest cores have a lot of tweaks regarding power gating and some fine tuning that helps the benchmarks and power usage. Not enough but there's less of a penalty. PT LOVES large L2 and L3 caches since it reduces the amount of writes it needs to make to the main memory. Intels foundries being a step or two ahead has let them build chips with large caches or more transistors and keep them with in the power envelope . Starting with the i5 series they put a tremendous amount of time and engineering into the branch predictors and fine tuning the L2 cache for optimal performance across a variety of workloads. From a performance or power usage your not going to beat Intel right now. AMD is still a great choice for budget builds and general desktops. And while we all want something more energy efficient its unlikely you will ever use the price difference in electricity over the life of the computer. This would be more of issue if you were running an entire office of terminals or a server room. For the average home owner with one or two computers this isn't an issue. And AMDs embedded graphics are powerful enough that in most situations you don't need a add in graphics card. I would have no qualms about recommending AMD for general computing.
__________________
Scott Formerly Hobo Wan Kenobi Core 2 Specs Page ASUS P6T6 Revolution | i7 930 | 12GB OCZ DDR3 1600 7-7-7-20 | PTLE 10 | CPTK | 003 | Presonus D8 | 11Rack | Alesis AI3 | Presonus HP60 | Mercury + Studio Classics | Sound Toys | MasseyPack | Axiom61 | MAudio Keystation Pro 88 |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Intel vs. AMD for Pro Tools
Howdy Scott,
The information you provided here is exactly what I was looking for in the discussion. I don't fully understand all of the technical points, like sharing a single floating point unit, or power gating, but the L2 and L3 cache size makes sense to me. I looked up the cache size for my Phenom II 1045T (3,072 Kbytes and 6,144 Kbytes) and my FX 6300 (6,144K and 8,192). The Phenom II outperforms the FX 6300 in the 2 tests I have run-Super Pi and Passmark CPU test. The best Passmark CPU score I could get with the FX 6300 was 3,875 compared to Passmark average of 6,541. Must be something about my specific setup. The Phenom II got a score of 4,383 compared to the avg of 4,889. I'm not going to worry too much about scores, both processors work fine with my PT setup. I may put the Phenom II back in the PT machine as it seems to run somewhat cooler than the FX. Up until about 18 months ago I was still using the Intel Pentium D (dual core) that Sweetwater put in the original build. Then the motherboard failed, so someone gave me a used mobo that i put a new Intel Core 2 Duo E 4400 @2.00ghz. That was a big upgrade. Went with the AMD and Gigabyte board this past summer, and am not looking back. I guess the takeaway from your comments is that if you want and need the most horsepower, then at the present, Intel is the way to go. For the rest of us, a current day budget AMD build still far exceeds the performance of the top end Intels from a few years ago. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Intel vs. AMD for Pro Tools
Quote:
But windows or osx that doesn't make a lot of difference as far as performance IMO.
__________________
Dell T5810. Harrison Mixbus 32C. Haven't used PT since 2015 and never been happier. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Intel vs. AMD for Pro Tools
Quote:
__________________
HP Z4 workstation, Mbox Studio https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...0sound%20works The better I drink, the more I mix BTW, my name is Dave, but most people call me.........................Dave |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Intel vs. AMD for Pro Tools
Don't say Hackintosh and better in the same post - Kasper might show up and give us all a stern talking too
__________________
Daniel HDX - PT12.5.1 - HD I/O 16x8x8 Win10-Pro (v1709)- 6 Core i7-6850k - ASUS X99 Deluxe ii D-Command Main Unit - 'Ole Blue http://www.sknoteaudio.com/ plugins rock and are affordable. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
pro tools 6.1 and intel i7 | barry1 | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 9 | 09-04-2010 05:03 AM |
Intel X-25M 80 Gig SSD and Pro Tools LE! | gearhead2010 | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 5 | 04-20-2010 12:40 PM |
GRM Tools go Intel | mindnoise | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 0 | 12-27-2006 05:51 PM |
GRM Tools for Intel Mac | whtrabit | Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) | 0 | 12-27-2006 05:36 PM |
intel and pro tools? | LadyElectrikStudios | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 1 | 07-20-2002 04:21 PM |