Intel vs. AMD for Pro Tools

[Daniel_Cepeda]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

That is today. The Thunderbolt IP world seems to be changing, as I pointed out earlier.

USB-C is the overall physical port standard, with maybe way too many data communications standards supported on it already. I'm not sure who you mean by "USB" The USB-IF which developed USB 3 and the USB-C connector includes Intel and AMD. Thunderbolt 3 effectively parasites on the USB-C connector standard. If anybody else came along trying to do something similar today they would be crazy not to do the same. But I don't see anybody having the stomach for developing yet another standard to compete directly with Thunderbolt. And USB 4 does not seem to exist.

Thunderbolt has kind of been messed up, Intel and Apple seemed to think they could push it by themselves? Not sure what the thought was there. Too slow an adoption, far too little support from Microsoft, Apple complicating things with video support and locking others out of the market etc. Intel should have seen the effects of that coming. Now Intel seem to be waking up and opening up the specs, saying they will be royalty free, but the devil will be in the details of that. But I take that as largely Intel admitting they screwed this up and need to rescue things.

The whole industry has some challenges getting new standards to market, USB 3.x, Thunderbolt (all versions), PCIe 4 all have had issues. I hope Intel can now get broader adoption of Thunderbolt 3, and for them to be successful that may mean having to accept opening it to others including AMD.

I thought USB was developed by an independent company, thanks for the info

Apple and Intel just doing their thing man... It's always the same with these two!!!

I"ve suffered this actually, when I got my Universal Audio Satellite 2 Duo it came with a Thunderbolt connection, but I use a PC. So I had to buy a FireWire PCIe card to use it. To be fair, my motherboard was very old so it didn't include Thunderbolt. But still, not many include it as standard.
I hate this "wars" in the industry, they only make things more complicated for the user. Money, money, money...

[sonicapg]

Originally Posted by guitardom

Not really.
Again, if you are just going by core count, they don't match core for core. Intel and AMD never have.
What if you need Thunderbolt?
What if you do anything with OSX?
What if you need more CPU lanes?
What if you run a multi GPU setup?
what if you want a faster Southbridge for peripherals?
What if you are more comfortable with a known object with a reputation?

There is a lot more at play when putting together a system than to just automatically choose what is cheaper.

It's not about cheaper, AMD is simply better .And it is MUCH better.
1. OSX is only officially supported on Apple hardware
Now some people like to try and that's not bad ,but saying Intel is better cause of osx support is a joke .Plus AMD OSX groups exists.
https://amd-osx.com/

2. Multi GPU is so much better with AMD ,google it.
3.How do you measure Southbridge speed ???

AMD is giving people more power for the price they pay
go on compare Intel cpus from 2012 to any before ryzen cpu .Minimal performance gain...
Then AMD came with Ryzen.And instead of you thanking them for competition that FORCED cpus to new heights , you simply made invalid arguments

PS :A Banana is also "well known object with a reputation" ,USUALLY SMELLS & TASTES GREAT