Cubase 5 with AMD Phenom II x6 1055T

[ItsAciD]

Hi, im new to this forum, i been waiting to get my account activated.. (-_-), it took like a week... But anyways, im planning on making my first DAW. I would prefer to go with AMD Processor as money is an issue =P. So i was looking at the Phenom x6.. I was wondering if that was like an overkill, like would Cubase even use ALL 6 CORES? Or would it only use 4? I just recently bought Cubase 5 so i don't have much experience with it, but i plan on getting better. I plan on recording just some rock/funk/jazz/metal/punk etc type of music with my band, and perhaps my other friends bands. I want to know if this would be a good idea or if i should instead just get the Phenom x4? Also aside from the CPU, what motherboard would be best? I want this DAW to be at a good budget, but not to cheap that it wont last me long. I want a good durable budget type DAW. Also i was reading here on the forums something about RAID 0 on HDD. What is the benefits and disadvantages(if any) of RAID. Sorry if im asking newbie type questions, i just really really want to make a good budget DAW that will last. Give me some suggestions plz!!
Thx in advanced!!!!


-ItsAciD

[jcschild]

if you look closely the AMD 6 core is MORE money than an intel 750.
the Intel 750 will out perform the AMD for audio and video
so WHY buy and AMD?

and yes Cubase will use all cores

Scott
ADK
_________________
Scott
ADK
home of the "Kentucky Fried DAW"

[midimaddness]

[thietavu]

[marcus c]

very true ,however AMD and Intel have slightly different architecture and instructions so you could find with certain software that AMD performs badly,you could also find the opposite but ATM intel seems to be the the default with regards to developers writing for intel specific intsructions.


MC
_________________
i7 920 @3.6Ghz/EX58-UD5/12 gigs DDR3,UAD-1/POCO Mk11,VSS3,DVR2/
2x MR816 X/RME 9652-Apogee/CC121/Houston/windows 7 pro 64
Cubase 5-Nuendo 4-Reaper 3.5x

MacbookPro-10.6.1/XP sp3

[jcschild]

AMD 2.8GHz 6 core $199
AMD 3.2GHz $309
Intel i5 750 2.66GHz $199
i7 920 2.8GHz $279 ( a 930 is $15 more)

AM3 motherbord $139
Socket 1156 mobo $184
Socket 1366 mobo $210
both have sata 600/usb3 and firewire.

cost for AMD 3.2GHz $448
cost for intel 750 $383
cost for intel 920 $489
Intel 750 benchmarks (using dawbench dsp)

32 104
64 114
128 120

AMD 3.2GHz
32 80
64 104
128 118

Intel 920

32 130
64 151
128 158

so for $65 less than the AMD 3.2GHz the 750 beats it in price and performance.
for $41 more than the AMD 3.2 i can get a 920 which absolutely kills the AMD.
(have to add an extra stick of ram as well) so $100 more.

the 32 buffer is where you really need to look even if you run @ 256. as this shows how well with a heavy project each will perform.
so again WHY?

the answer would be if you also do some video editing the AMD will outperform the 750 but not the 920.
i will say the 6 core is a pretty good improvement over the last gen quads of AMD.
_________________
Scott
ADK
home of the "Kentucky Fried DAW"

[Fivetowers]

If you are interested in HW performance, here is it the ultimate Performance Test for Cubase 5 Systems:
http://www.moar.net/cubasetest

Please post your results!
Ciao
5T

[thietavu]

This is getting very stupid. What most of us are looking for is a GOOD audio workstation. It doesn't matter a damn thing if one is 5% faster or slower than some other one in some benchmark. The only thing that matters is whether one can get his/her work done with it!

Besides, comparing AMD and Intel is pretty fruitless, since they both have very different architectures, strong and weak points. The only thing I know for sure is that both architectures are very good and serve audio production very well. There is not just one "right choice". There never was. Even when some people considered AMD the "better" choice. Even then people made great music using Intel. And now people make great music using AMD. And Intel. Whatever that works for them.

Painting things black and white doesn't serve our interests at all. Some people may respect benchmarks. I respect what I experience every day when I do my music. Maybe my own system, for example, doesn't look too great compared to the benchmarks of some latest Intel-based systems. Who really cares?

This computer runs cool, is absolutely stable and has plenty of power to spare, for a good price. I'm perfectly happy with it. That is why I find it at least odd to read messages saying: "oh, Intel-based systems are SO much better!". They are not. One can make great music with both, equally.

To me, the reason to use AMD is simple. It's good. And I like to support competition.

Others may have other reasons.
_________________
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T @4 GHz, 8GB Kingston DDR3-1333 RAM, Gigabyte GA-MA790XT-UD4P, 1x Samsung F3, 1x Samsung F1, 1xWD, M-Audio AP192 + Musical Fidelity X-DAC v3, Musical Fidelity X-Can v3 + Grado SR325, AMD Radeon HD5770, Windows 7-64, Cubase 4.52