AMD or intel cpu for home recording studio ?

N

neojjjk

New member
Hi,
I am planning to build a small home recording setup ..
I know that intel is bit faster than amd ..I am not seeking for a faster gaming system .
wish to build a system without any compatibility issues for softwares .
planning to use softwares like

sibelius,fl studio ,cubase ,pro tools

1)please tell me which bpu brand to choose ?

I would like to connect M audio axiom 49 to my new build . so please advice me a good sound card for my new pc . I am using a 32bit win7 OS .would like to buy a sound card without any driver issues ,cause I am connecting axiom49 to the pc .

2)please advice me a better card (creative /m audio ?)
 
Well, my first dedicated DAW workstation used an AMD chip and it worked fine. However...

If you read the small print on several manufacturers of DAW software you'll find notes saying that in some cases the SSE instructions used for sound work are not properly supported by certain models of AMD chip, despite AMD claiming they are fully SSE compliant. Protools and Audition are two that I know have made these comments in their support areas and I believe there are others too.

For this reason, I tend to stick to Intel processors despite my previous liking for AMD.

As for sound cards, there are lots of good ones. I use M-Audio just now and have used Edirol, MOTU and E-MU in the past with good results. The one I suggest nobody should ever touch is Creative which are gaming cards, not serious audio cards.

Bob
 
^thank you very much .I ll choose intel cpu .
As I have to connect m audio axiom , I think m-audio sound card will be a better option.so that I can avoid driver issues in pc.
please advice me a good model of M audio sound card ?
 
It's probably fair to say that Pro tools is the 'fussiest' software suite; Or perhaps Avid are just the most cautious.

They have a list of supported computers on their website, so if you check that out you can't go wrong.


For picking a soundcard (or interface), we'd need to know more about what you plan to do.
Recording synths/keys only, one microphone at a time, several microphones at a time,

What are your plans?

Hope that helps.
 
Are these hardware synths that need a line in, or is it midi in to a software synth?

If it's the former, you'd probably be best looking an at 8 channel interface that gives you line/mic per channel.

Something like a presonus fp10 maybe?
 
I am using and AMD Athlon x4 and have never had problems with any flavor of Audition. I also ran Audition 3.0. on an old Athlon 64 and an Opteron 185 with no problems. I don't know about pro tools because I don't use it (and don't really see any reason why anyone should unless it comes free with your interface).
 
I've been on amd cpu's since my 1st DAW, and I've had zero problems with it. Currently using AMD x2 6000+ and I never even come close to bogging down the cpu. Even on my biggest projects, which are about 20 tracks with a couple plugins on each, and a couple heavy duty vsti's - the 'vst performance' cpu meter in cubase doesn't move much.
 
is it true ? 1st my plan was to get athlon / phenom ii x3 tri core. , so that I can buy a cpu & mobo for 150 $ .
but bobbsy told me that intel is better in SSE instructions .
now I am confused .
 
AMD worked flawless for me with Cubase as well. I use i7 now, but only because I wanted the fastest I could buy.
 
neojjjk said:
bobbsy told me that intel is better in SSE instructions.
Click to expand...


Not to be picky, but that's not quite true.

He spoke of possible instances of certain models lacking some functions.
I don't think he's saying they're all unsuitable, but rather, be certain about what you're buying when you buy it :)

Hope that helps.
 
As I started my post, I used to use an AMD and never had a problem. However, both Avid Protools and Adobe Audition say in their FAQs that their software is "optimised" for Intel and there have been known problems with SSE implementation in certain AMD chips. the Audition site goes as far as to mention patches that AMD had to issue.

Chances are you'd be okay with AMD--most are. But the DAW FAQs planted enough seeds of doubt in my mind that, for sound work, I'll stick to Intel unless there's a compelling reason to take the (admittedly slight) risk.

And, as for rfahey86's MAC comment, I guess that counts as suggesting Intel now! :)

Bob
 
It don't matter - but whatever computer you want - any current computer can run just about any current DAW. but you need to pick one - no one runs Cubase and Protools and FL Studio - they all do the same thing - just pick one then check the minimum requirements for the software - there is no point in trying to learn 3 DAWs and it would be quite a pointless waste of money
 
I don't need MAC ..I love win7 & xp very much.

@ arcadeko - true mate .you are right .I was about to ask you guys which software is better ?

cubase /fl studio /reason ?
searched a lot ,everyone says that pro tools is not a good software ..
 
Murdersgalore said:
Try Reaper. It's free for personal use and if you ever need to buy a license it's quite reasonable.
Click to expand...

Er, to be pedantic after 30 days you're supposed to buy a $40 licence for personal use. It's true they work on an honour system and don't cripple the trial after it expires. However, since they're one of the few software companies not to mess around with all sorts of copyright protection inconvenience, I kinda think we should do the right thing in return.

Payment and licence details HERE.

None of this means it isn't a darn impressive piece of software even at $40.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top