AMD FX8120 vs i5 for music production PC

R

rickwoodall

New Member
Hi chaps

I'm hoping to buy a new computer in a couple of weeks, It will mainly be used for music production - basically running multiple audio stems simultaneously and adding effects and editing to them and the project as a whole, not unlike editing the layers on an art program I imagine.

I'm basically just wondering which processor to chose. I've been looking at the AMD FX8120 and the i5, I've found a lot of information on how they compare in regards to gaming and what not but not a great deal regarding what I want to do with the computer.

If anyone can give me any information on the subject it would be much appreciated. also, if there's any other processors within the same price range that would be good for the task in hand then please feel free to let me knows.

cheers


rick
 
I would recommend looking at an AMD Phenom II 960T Quad-Core or a Phenom II 980 Quad-Core over any of the AMD FX series of processors.
 
i would agrree with not going with the FX series...however, i wouldnt recomend going with a phenom over the i series either....it would be helpful if the programs your using use intels sse 4 instruction set more efficiently then amd's equvilant....i know adobe products are coded to use intels instruction set, but will run on amd cpu's, just not nearly as fast, or efficiently....my opinion though, just go with the i5.....this is coming from an AMD user, so no bias here
 
i looked up cubase 7 and it does have an engine that is optimized for intels sse instruction set.....i believe thats your main program you will be using, so id go with the i5
 
to strangehold...i have had the fx 6100 and 8120...both are fine for most things, but when it comes to rendering projects of any kind, be it video, photo, or audio creation, it seems to me that most apps were written with intel instruction sets in mind....for example, adobe premiere cs5.5 will render a 5 min clip with x, y, and z effects added into it 2 minutes or so faster using my girlfriends i5 clocked at 3.3Ghz, compared to the 8120. the 8120 has 2 x the core count.....but when i turn the sse optimization off, they both do the same project in about the same time...so, programs written with intel instructions in mind, will benefit largly if they use a intel cpu in their machine, and the original poster is using cubase 7 which does implement sse optimizations

by the way...post #420....to bad i dont smoke anymore
 
I think kdfresh makes a very good point, now that I think about it media production programs do seem to be geared towards intel. I just did a quick google scan of companies making audio pc's and didn't find a single unit that wasn't running an intel processor. Also, thinking back, pretty much every computer that I have used that has been set up for music production has had an intel processor.

I didn't realize that certain programs were designed to benefit from specific aspects of certain processors but if that is the case i think the i5's definitely ahead of amd for this particular task.
 
i think if you go the i5 route, you will be pretty happy. not to knock amd, cause they do have some decent cpu's, but i look at it 4 ways....1)the phenom cpu's have shown many instances where they outperform the FX line. 2)that being said, a phenom quad core would be the better option. 3) now that its down to a phenom or i series to choose from....i series would be the stronger but pricier option...4)and since you program favors the intel instruction set, i5 would really be the obvious option.

i see that amd also supports the sse instructions as well, however they way in which they are implemented is diferent, and programs such as the ones we have been talking about are written to utilize the sse (4.1 more to point), using intels technique in implementation.

glad to see that i could be of some help...let us know how it works out for you...plus you will be able to overclock the 2500k pretty high, further improving your time it takes to do your audio creations
 
kdfresh09 said:
to strangehold...i have had the fx 6100 and 8120...both are fine for most things, but when it comes to rendering projects of any kind, be it video, photo, or audio creation, it seems to me that most apps were written with intel instruction sets in mind....for example, adobe premiere cs5.5 will render a 5 min clip with x, y, and z effects added into it 2 minutes or so faster using my girlfriends i5 clocked at 3.3Ghz, compared to the 8120. the 8120 has 2 x the core count.....but when i turn the sse optimization off, they both do the same project in about the same time...so, programs written with intel instructions in mind, will benefit largly if they use a intel cpu in their machine, and the original poster is using cubase 7 which does implement sse optimizations

by the way...post #420....to bad i dont smoke anymore
Click to expand...

kdfresh09 said:
i think if you go the i5 route, you will be pretty happy. not to knock amd, cause they do have some decent cpu's, but i look at it 4 ways....1)the phenom cpu's have shown many instances where they outperform the FX line. 2)that being said, a phenom quad core would be the better option. 3) now that its down to a phenom or i series to choose from....i series would be the stronger but pricier option...4)and since you program favors the intel instruction set, i5 would really be the obvious option.

i see that amd also supports the sse instructions as well, however they way in which they are implemented is diferent, and programs such as the ones we have been talking about are written to utilize the sse (4.1 more to point), using intels technique in implementation.

glad to see that i could be of some help...let us know how it works out for you...plus you will be able to overclock the 2500k pretty high, further improving your time it takes to do your audio creations
Click to expand...

FX has the same SSE 4.1 and 4.2 that Intel does.
 
yes and no....they do both Support sse, as i already stated in a previos post, however the way in which it is implemented is different between the 2 processors, which i also stated. its all in the way that the floating point functions, and how the programs method of using the summing bus is....the floating point in the bulldozer cpu is crap when it comes to this type of work....since it is essentialy like intels hyper threading, rather than funtioning like actual cores. it is essentialy a clustered module rather than a core...unlike intel...pragramers arnt writing their programs to utilize the way the bulldozer uses its resources...even windows had to come out with a patch to fix some issues do to bulldozers new design....all most programs are going to be more efficient on intel based cpu's, and which is another reason why phenom cpu's are beating bulldozer in many cases...because the way phenom functions is similar to intel...bulldozer switched it all up.....im no fan boy..but if i were id be more toward AMD's side...however facts are facts and im just advising the OP the best way i should
 
Last edited:
LOL What your saying is (kinda) true, but all screwed up. You really have no idea what your talking about do you? Thats the most unorganized rambling about a subject thats half wrong I have ever read. I'm not even going to reply to it.
 
Am I unaware of some information? I read the Phenom II 980 (or the Phenom II 970) Processor would beat any of the FX Series Processors in about all marks.
 
Am I unaware of some information? I read the Phenom II 980 (or the Phenom II 970) Processor would beat any of the FX Series Processors in about all marks.
Click to expand...
The Phenoms generally only beat FX series CPUs in poorly threaded benchmarks, once you get to using applications that actually utulise all the cores the Phenoms get beat pretty soundly (assuming a core count advantage).
 
Plus you have to remember, all are unlocked. The FX can overclock way better then the Phenom II to make up the difference in IPC and then some. But even that, I would rather have a Phenom II X4/X6 then a FX 4000 series.
 
Last edited:
yes, i kow exactly what im talking about....do you have both CPU's to compare side by side?...i do so look...bottom line is this...unless you have actualy used both processors using the programs talked about, you really CANT comment....i have both i5 and 8120, and being the film editor that i am using adobe, i can say without a doubt that the i5 quad beats the 8120 hands down....even though it has half as many cores....its all about the way sse instruction is utilized.....programs arnt up on the module design....neither is windows 7......intels instruction set and the way it is implemented has been around for a long time and is a standard...which is why programmers and programs default to that standard when writing.....and youu did comment, when you said you werent going to....

and we arnt talking about the phenoms beating the fx's or vice versa....the op wants to know if he should get a 8120 over the i5....the i5 is in his favor for the programs that he wants to use....lets stay on topic forum
 
Last edited:
kdfresh09 said:
yes, i kow exactly what im talking about....do you have both CPU's to compare side by side?...i do so look...bottom line is this...unless you have actualy used both processors using the programs talked about, you really CANT comment....i have both i5 and 8120, and being the film editor that i am using adobe, i can say without a doubt that the i5 quad beats the 8120 hands down....even though it has half as many cores....its all about the way sse instruction is utilized.....programs arnt up on the module design....neither is windows 7......intels instruction set and the way it is implemented has been around for a long time and is a standard...which is why programmers and programs default to that standard when writing.....and youu did comment, when you said you werent going to....

and we arnt talking about the phenoms beating the fx's or vice versa....the op wants to know if he should get a 8120 over the i5....the i5 is in his favor for the programs that he wants to use....lets stay on topic forum
Click to expand...

My God, what is all the .... .... .... for. You got a thing for periods? I have owned or built probably all AMD made since the K5 and Intels since the Pentium 1.

It has nothing to do with the way instruction sets are implemented or the way programs use the cores. The reason it has a hard time is WINDOWS does not know how to apply threads to the cores. Any thing over one thread, windows doesnt know if it should send the thread to another module or double them up on a single module. Even if it does spread them out, when you hit 5 threads it doesnt know the best module to start doubling them up on. Or even if it is more then 2 threads if it should double them up on a module so turbo can kick in. The best thing to do with a FX is disable anything to do with cool and quiet and Turbo and overclock it. It will perform better then any benchmarks claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top