KVR Audio

Doug B · Post by **Doug B** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:13 am

I know Intel makes the i3, i5 and i7 cpu's. What are the equivalent AMD processors? (more or less)
For example what amd processor = the i5?

Thanks

jcschild · Post by **jcschild** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:06 pm

there is none. Intel far outperforms AMD.
with that said if you insist on buying amd then the 8350 is the way to go or get the 6300 and over clock it.

Scott
ADK

Doug B · Post by **Doug B** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:56 pm

jcschild wrote:there is none. Intel far outperforms AMD.
with that said if you insist on buying amd then the 8350 is the way to go or get the 6300 and over clock it.

Scott
ADK

I'm not asking which cpu is better, I was wanting to know if there were rough class equivalents:

i3= ? AMD
i5= ? AMD
i7= ? AMD

If AMD wants to compete they obviously have to have more or less equivalent model cpus in a certain class.

You mention the amd 8350. What Intel processor is it trying to compete with? The i5? i7?

fedexnman · Post by **fedexnman** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:12 pm

amd vs intel. ...... look at tomshardware also reviews at newegg help a little , google will help . There seems to be some savings on the amd mobos and a little on the cpu s. , but intel s newer i7 will always beat the top of the line amd , i always hear the top of the line amd is on line with the intel i5 s. Youll have to do your home work so google and tomshardware is where id start . I hope this helps you out a little bit .

Doug B · Post by **Doug B** » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:09 pm

fedexnman wrote:amd vs intel. ...... look at tomshardware also reviews at newegg help a little , google will help . There seems to be some savings on the amd mobos and a little on the cpu s. , but intel s newer i7 will always beat the top of the line amd , i always hear the top of the line amd is on line with the intel i5 s. Youll have to do your home work so google and tomshardware is where id start . I hope this helps you out a little bit .

Thanks for the suggestions, but I don't have the time to spend ages just getting a head ache. It's really not worth trying to save a couple of $ I'll just get an intel i5 s or i7 and be done with it.
Too much hassle re: AMD

Ashe37 · Post by **Ashe37** » Sun Sep 01, 2013 4:55 am

Unfotunately, AMD won't send Tom's Opteron-based stuff to run our workstation tests....

soundklinik · Post by **soundklinik** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:05 am

These are "somewhat" compatible with Intel processors.
AMD FX 4100 (3.6 GHz),
AMD FX 4350 Black Edition (4.2 GHz)
AMD A8-6600K (3.9 GHz) Black Edition,
AMD A10-6800K (4.1 GHz) Black Edition.
AMD FX 8150 (3.6 GHz)
All can be easily overclocked.
I didn't say they are better, but depending on what you're doing these may be good enough. I have an AMD X3 445 @3.250MHz and it performs great...and it is nothing, compared to the above list
The question is $$$....I would invest in a great sound card, before spending big bucks on a processor, costing 2-4 times as much as an AMD and similar performance.

I am not saying this to troll Intel users, just saying that depending on your budget, you can have a excellent, fast AMD based PC and have some money left over.

Kaine · Post by **Kaine** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:05 am

Doug B wrote: If AMD wants to compete they obviously have to have more or less equivalent model cpus in a certain class.

AMD offically gave up trying to compete a long time ago. Scotts point was that the simply isn't an equivalent model in a lot of cases. The chip he listed on the AMD side is pretty much their top of the line currently and if you overclock it (meaning it runs hot), it can just about pull level with a i5.

If you want something that perform like an i7 then I'm afraid your options are pretty much limited to an i7.

Ashe37 · Post by **Ashe37** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:24 am

I'm still, at this point, forced to wonder why AMD hasn't tried triple-channel or quad-channel memory...

tehlord · Post by **tehlord** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:32 am

Why spend on R&D when you can corner the mid range gamer market?

Ashe37 · Post by **Ashe37** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:37 am

Because workstation and server CPUs generally go for up to twice what desktop processors do?

mkdr · Post by **mkdr** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:45 am

jcschild wrote:there is none. Intel far outperforms AMD.
with that said if you insist on buying amd then the 8350 is the way to go or get the 6300 and over clock it.

Scott
ADK

Not really. I got myself an AMD FX-8350 8-Core processor. It's roughly equivalent to an Intel Core i7-3770S according to PassMark cpu benchmarks. It also clearly outperforms an Intel Core i5-4670K.

So why i wen't with AMD instead of Intel?
1. The price of a similar Intel processor was 2x the price of the AMD
2. Upgrading cost was kept down as i only needed to update the processor, not the whole schebang with Mobo's, memories, pci-cards etc.
3. AMD's power saving features have no ill-effects on low latency performance. That means no tricks, no dpc latency tools, no bios switches. Everything just works. Even the 3 Powercore cards i have in there.
4. The FX-8350 has great thermal properties right out of the box. No modding needed.
5. The FX-8350 has no forced HYPERPOWER-BOOST-hillbilly-shit that messes up low-latency performance and cooks the CPU with overclocking. (i recall i did need to turn it off though)
6. 1000 voices of Albion orchestra on Kontakt barely hits a 20% mark on cpu usage. U-HE ACE plays fine on highest quality settings on one core(the worst synth in cpu usage i have).

Sure you can get a more powerful Intel Xeon E5 if you really think you need one, but that will cost you close to 2000 bucks.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

Just wanted to point out there's no need to diss AMD. They do awesome products that work well for DAWS. And actually, they are providing power for the next gen gaming consoles too.

tehlord · Post by **tehlord** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:03 am

Ashe37 wrote:Because workstation and server CPUs generally go for up to twice what desktop processors do?

Which is irrelevant if the R&D necessary to catch up swallows all the potential profit in a market that'll take 2-3 years for perceptions to change?

fedexnman · Post by **fedexnman** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:17 am

@mkdr nice review of the AMD 8350 , I have thought about doing a new build come 2014 and had thought about the AMD , but then you always read about how intel smokes them , I have the 2.6 ghz i7 920 currently , the savings in the mobo and cpu deparment of AMD is really whats attractive going AMD , yes you'll have to get a graphics card but the savings is there . I have thought about just upgrading my samples drive to a SSD and just sticking with the 920 , we'll see come January . Anyways thanks for review @mkdr !

Ashe37 · Post by **Ashe37** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:24 am

Unfortunately, most of the tests in Passmark don't have much relevance to DAW use. Most DAWs use floating point processing, and make heavy use of multimedia extensions. Sorta of using it to make an apples-to-the-rest-of-the-vegetable-aisle comparison. The eight integer cores on the AMD CPU are likely to give it an edge .

AMD equivalents to Intel CPUs