# AMD FX-6100 vs Intel i7 2600



## torqueofficial (Feb 23, 2012)

Hey guys,
I'm trying to find the right pieces to build my custom computer. This computer will be especifically for recording. 
I guess this is one of the most difficult decisions. The AMD FX-6100 is a Six core @ 3.3GHz, while the Intel i7 2600 is a Quad core @3.4GHz. 
What would you guys recommend me? My sessions usually have about 15-20 tracks with a lot of VST's. Let me know your opinion .


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 23, 2012)

I'm not entirely informed about the AMD, but the i7 2600k has hyperthreading, which is good for your purposes.


----------



## xeonblade (Feb 23, 2012)

If you are building a new pc (which I think you are) you might wanna go with AMD for the price of Intel equivalent with AM3+ motherboard. Intel kinda changes socket with every new series of processors. You can replace AMD later for another AM3+ since I dont think there will be AM4 anytime soon.

You can get AMD FX-8150 a bit cheaper than i7 2600. AMD FX-8150 is 8 core.

I suggest you google that a bit also.

Edit: As Adam said, google hyperthreading.
P.S. You have an error in thread title.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-12.html

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...sk=view&id=831&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=4
Well, still, seems like Intel has won the battle.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 23, 2012)

Also, I'm not sure if I got the reasoning straight enough to accept this as truth, but a friend of mine explained to me how the i7 2600k is effectively running 8 cores anyway, despite only being a quad core. Maybe somebody can clear that up.


----------



## xeonblade (Feb 23, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Also, I'm not sure if I got the reasoning straight enough to accept this as truth, but a friend of mine explained to me how the i7 2600k is effectively running 8 cores anyway, despite only being a quad core. Maybe somebody can clear that up.



It have 4 PHYSICAL cores, but due to Hyperthreading technology it appears as 8 Threads (virtually 8 cores)
AMD I suggested have 8 Physical cores but seems to be a bit behind i7 2600k

Here is the article you should read: Hyper-threading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Spiff (Feb 23, 2012)

AMD's Bulldozer series was supposed to be a great contender to Intel's Sandy Bridge series, but sadly they failed to deliver on the performance part, lots of reviews will tell you that. I'm not updated on the current pricing, but if your retailer is asking the same for those two processors, the Intel one will give you better performance in most if not all applications. Hyperthreading can sometimes be a bonus, it basically means that each processor core can run two executions in parallel and can push the processor a little bit further.

I wouldn't worry too much about motherboard sockets going out of date, usually by the time it's time for a processor upgrade, you can benefit just as much from changing your motherboard too.

Intel is releasing the new Ivy Bridge series in the beginning of april, it's not a radical upgrade from the current platform, but it might be a little more future-proof. I would also look into what kind of features your motherboard has, for example USB 3 and SATA 3 are relatively new features that will be nice to have in the next couple of years.

Hope it helps!


----------



## sh4z (Feb 23, 2012)

I would recommend the Core i7 2600 in my opinion. Simply because of the Performance gains. 

The AMD is a strong contender having 6 Physical Cores (Having physical cores is marginally better than hyperthreading cores the Intel still has 8 processing units so it is slightly better although as mentioned it only has 4 physical cores) 

Check out here: PassMark - AMD FX-6100 Six-Core - Price performance comparison
PassMark - Intel Core i7-2600 - Price performance comparison

Depends on your budget too... Find out how much you can spend and stick to it  I always find this part difficult >_<


----------



## klutvott (Feb 23, 2012)

Don't let the number of cores or clock frequency fool you. The sandy bridge architecture is much better than bulldozer. Bulldozer failed and amd has now decided to stop competing with intel and focus on the mobile market instead. Go with the 2600 or 2600K if you're going to overclock it.


----------



## KingAenarion (Feb 24, 2012)

Basically hyperthreading on Intel processors divides up tasks within a processor. So each processor can be doing 2 sets of calculations at once. Therefore takes on twice the workload.

They also run cooler and are more power efficient.


Make sure when you build your new computer, you read up on CPU power management functions and what might interfere with your audio.


----------



## Napalm (Feb 24, 2012)

If you go with the i7 go with the 2500k or the 2600k The K stands for unlocked. They run 3.4 out of the box but will run easily at 4.0ghz on moderate cooling.


----------



## sh4z (Feb 24, 2012)

Napalm said:


> If you go with the i7 go with the 2500k or the 2600k The K stands for unlocked. They run 3.4 out of the box but will run easily at 4.0ghz on moderate cooling.


+1

I wasn't going to go into overclocking but yes... I would recommend this also


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 24, 2012)

I used to be a major AMD fan until Intel came out with the i7 series. I switched over and holy crap are they powerful, and now they have the SandyBridge. I like supporting the little guy when they are actually better but being eclipsed by a bigger brand name. But when the big name brand does indeed come out with a better performing product, well then that is what I will use. I switched over to an Intel i7 and still come nowhere near maxing out my CPU, matter of fact my electronic industrial project uses all VSTi synths and VST effects and I haven't even passed 50% usage and one project I have has over 18 VST synths and dozens of effects running.

I'd personally go with the new Intel chips. Hopefully some day AMD will have a break through and keep the field progressing, challenging, and interesting as they used to. If that happens then I will be an AMD user once again. Not for now though.


Rev.


----------



## sh4z (Feb 24, 2012)

Competition is good it drives prices down  and everyone likes cheaper + better products  I for one hope AMD stick around and make better stuff!

sorry offtopic a bit


----------



## velvetkevorkian (Feb 24, 2012)

I have the previous AMD 6 core flagship in my current PC. If you can get them for the same price, I'd go with the i7 (although do factor in the motherboard too- when I last built a PC, the Sandy Bridge compatible mbs were significantly more expensive than the AMD compatible ones.) That said, once they're in use, I really doubt you'll notice a lot of difference- the benchmarks will show some differences but you're going to have to work pretty hard to max out either of those CPUs in recording.


----------

