What is the best Motherboard and processor

[jhrv]

In the <200$ price range Amd wins in price/performance. The Phenom II X6 are coming soon (April).

-Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2Ghz 125w --> 300$
-Phenom II X6 1055T 2.9Ghz 95w --> 200$

 

[dmmi]

Alright. I have never had a session with anywhere near 100 tracks.
I might have been wrong there.
Just did a bit of google searching and it seems that Cubase5 for example does indeed make use of all cores and some other CPU benefits the i7 has.
Did you ever watch with a decent systemmonitor when your PC was getting slow?

However the OP didn't say the budget and for what he uses the PC really, music production only? Video editing? etc. So there might still be the price/ratio question.

I'm gonna download the available demoversions of the plugins you mentioned and make a project with an insane number of tracks and plugins and see how fast my computer starts to break down.

Try loading 10 instances of omnisphere, and or Trilian (actually both of those are multitimbral, so 1 instance can be 16)

then load some samples into midi channel routing....then throw in Superior Drummer with metal foundry, and start mastering.

You'll notice your RAM loaded very quickly...granted 12GB is a lot, to much is not an issue, the more the better. So typical project:

- say 20 tracks (uncluding whole kit
- midi samples for layering
- tons of compression plugs, reverb plugs, mastering plugs
ETC.

Nope I don't say 12GB is too much AT ALL......granted, I only run 8GB....but it's all I could afford at the time.

Note.....I've loaded 1 Trilian sample set in at 400 MB....Superior can be over 1.2GB for a kit...then there is OS, all the other plugs....you get the picture.

 

[MetalSound]

any recommendations for a new board with 4 pci slots and some pci e slots?

the aim is to run 4 uad-1 cards and some new uad-2 cards in the future.

 

[Seth Munson]

what would the advantage of running 4 uad-1 cards be?

I have 1. and I can run any uad plugin i own.

 

[TheWinterSnow]

The Intel fanboys don't realize the deal with AMD. AMD has the best performance to price ratio. On top of that in actual benchmarks the Intel chips outperform the AMD's by a very small margin, a margin which would be difficult if not impossible to tell a difference. On top of that again, AMDs are more stable and run much cooler. When it comes down to it Intel is just bragging rights that you can blow excessive money into a computer to squeeze out every last drip of performance which in the overall picture is not really worth. In the end you might get two or three more tracks or one more plugin on an Intel to the relative model AMD, and for an average difference of $100-250 more, its really not worth it.

 

[MetalSound]

what would the advantage of running 4 uad-1 cards be?

I have 1. and I can run any uad plugin i own.

you are able to run much more plugins simultaneaously. try running the precision multiband and another plug on just one card and you will see.
btw, there are some plugs that only run on the newer uad-2.

 

[FloridaRolf]

AMD has the best performance to price ratio

Well, only below <150&#8364;. For example, compare the Phenom II X4 to the Core i5 and you should see, the i5 beats it. Same price (when I bought mine, shouldn't be very different now), better performance and it needs less power (95W instead of 160W)

On top of that in actual benchmarks the Intel chips outperform the AMD's by a very small margin

This may be true, but you should know the criteria for those benchmarks, which are only FPS rates from games and eventually a video render or winrar test

AMDs are more stable

Definately not, after having ~7 PCs with equal amounts of Intel and AMD machines, both are equally stable. AMDs sucked ~8 years ago, but that's not relevant for now.

and run much cooler.

Never ever. AMDs have always been hotter than Intel CPUs and they still do.

inb4 Intel fanboy
I'd still buy an AMD if they offer more performance for the same or less money, but they don't.

 

[tobin1]

I agree...There are so many problems with AMD's overheating as of lately

AMD is just limping through the budget market right now.

 

[chdrummer]

The Intel fanboys don't realize the deal with AMD. AMD has the best performance to price ratio. On top of that in actual benchmarks the Intel chips outperform the AMD's by a very small margin, a margin which would be difficult if not impossible to tell a difference. On top of that again, AMDs are more stable and run much cooler. When it comes down to it Intel is just bragging rights that you can blow excessive money into a computer to squeeze out every last drip of performance which in the overall picture is not really worth. In the end you might get two or three more tracks or one more plugin on an Intel to the relative model AMD, and for an average difference of $100-250 more, its really not worth it.

+1

 

[Seth Munson]

you are able to run much more plugins simultaneaously. try running the precision multiband and another plug on just one card and you will see.
btw, there are some plugs that only run on the newer uad-2.

i think i run about 6 of teh 1176 in every session, if not more.
always running at least 1 preflex.
and if i wanted to use more i can. so i am kinda still curious on what your talkin about

and going a little more OT, i really want a UAD-2

 

[TheWinterSnow]

Well, only below <150&#8364;. For example, compare the Phenom II X4 to the Core i5 and you should see, the i5 beats it. Same price (when I bought mine, shouldn't be very different now), better performance and it needs less power (95W instead of 160W)

Here are the benchmarks to the Intel equivalent to the Phenom II 965 BE (the fastest AMD chip)

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=145&p2=102&c=1

The AMD price: $185
The Intel Price: $ 300

Considering the benchmarks and the price differences, unless a whole whopping 5 frames per second more in World Of Warcraft or one or two more VST plugins is worth almost DOUBLE the price for the CPU, AMD is a very smart choice when it comes to a wallet friendly solution.

This may be true, but you should know the criteria for those benchmarks, which are only FPS rates from games and eventually a video render or winrar test

If you look at most benchmarks, there are much more than that, typical setup include everything from web browsers to most common used programs including most popular games/3d graphics, photo editing, video/audio encoding, microsoft office etc. The only thing I think that is not included in a benchmark is DAWs, however games these days are slightly more demanding than VSTs and the number of tracks you can have is determined by your hard drive, you can estimate where DAW performance is concerned between the two chips.

Definately not, after having ~7 PCs with equal amounts of Intel and AMD machines, both are equally stable. AMDs sucked ~8 years ago, but that's not relevant for now.

in my experience, and it may be from brand name Intels but our most stable computer up until I started building my own was the family's Windows 95 Machine that was an AMD (and this was back when they "sucked"). When I started building my own PC's when I lacked money my choice was AMD and with all the hardware issues I had on an Intel platform I must say that up to this point I have not seen any other platform that has not had a single hardware hiccup other than my current AMD machine.

Never ever. AMDs have always been hotter than Intel CPUs and they still do.

Not with my experience, even with correct thermal paste my P4 machine was idling at 50-55C while my first AMD Dual core idled at 45C. My new Athlon II has been idling at 37-40C with the stock cooler. Intel stock coolers are much more solid and contain more copper than the AMD coolers, funny how a better cooler on a single core Intel ran hotter than a dual core AMD with a poor cooler. Again just my experience with my machines, I have heard everything from one extreme, to the next and every thing in the middle, but more often than not I am seeing AMDs running about 5C cooler than their relative AMD counterpart.

inb4 Intel fanboy
I'd still buy an AMD if they offer more performance for the same or less money, but they don't.

believe me if I had the money for it I would have an Intel setup, my only real gripe is the extreme bandwidth bottle necks in the chip and the fact that AMD makes true quad cores. If Intel got rid of their bottleneck design, upped the onboard cache, had a true quad core setup and was like even %50 cheaper then they would absolutely slay AMD, but $1000 for a chip that is relatively marginal in performance to a $180 chip is just fucking ridiculous.

 

[KillFrenzy]

The only thing I think that is not included in a benchmark is DAWs, however games these days are slightly more demanding than VSTs and the number of tracks you can have is determined by your hard drive, you can estimate where DAW performance is concerned between the two chips.

That's true, but graphic cards make MUCH MORE difference in games than processors do in terms of FPS. I think games are the worst reference for us, looking for benchmarks that reflect on DAWs. In fact, I really don't know what we chould look for in comparisons, as the mobo itself affects the performance.

 

[drew_drummer]

The Intel fanboys don't realize the deal with AMD. AMD has the best performance to price ratio. On top of that in actual benchmarks the Intel chips outperform the AMD's by a very small margin, a margin which would be difficult if not impossible to tell a difference. On top of that again, AMDs are more stable and run much cooler. When it comes down to it Intel is just bragging rights that you can blow excessive money into a computer to squeeze out every last drip of performance which in the overall picture is not really worth. In the end you might get two or three more tracks or one more plugin on an Intel to the relative model AMD, and for an average difference of $100-250 more, its really not worth it.

Bragging rights? You're the one stating a bunch of supposedly objective facts, without providing any evidence whatsoever.

Show me the figures.

 

[TheWinterSnow]

Bragging rights? You're the one stating a bunch of supposedly objective facts, without providing any evidence whatsoever.

Show me the figures.

why don't you look up a few posts :Smug:

 

[TheWinterSnow]

That's true, but graphic cards make MUCH MORE difference in games than processors do in terms of FPS. I think games are the worst reference for us, looking for benchmarks that reflect on DAWs. In fact, I really don't know what we chould look for in comparisons, as the mobo itself affects the performance.

video/audio editing and encoding/decoding. While graphics are mostly on the GPU there are many things that have to be done by the CPU, including some of the lighting models, physics etc. I have actually seen killer GPU with poor CPUs play games badly in some visual effects.

I would definitely look at music encoding and video editing as a judgement. Overall you can use a general hardware benchmark that test the overall PC performance for computing raw data, that will help give you an idea how powerful your whole machine is into a number that you can compare to other machines.

 

[Ermz]

Looky looky what came out this month: http://www.tweaknews.net/reviews/intel_i7-980x_gulftown_processor_review/

Hopefully some more affordable hexacores hit the market soon.

 

[I-Quality]

performance on the exporting of a nuendo project

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/778-9/comparatif-geant-146-processeurs-intel-amd.html

amd is clearly behind....