How well you can spread work across cores depends on how complicated your dependency chains are.

On any given track, every plugin needs to wait for every plugin above it before crunching numbers. If you have 12 plugins on a single track, that's a pretty long list of work that needs to be done sequentially, and more often than not, effect plugins are single-core (for the DSP part).

Invariably, your reverb sends must wait until all the tracks they are receiving from are done computing.
If you have many tracks that do not depend on one another, you'll get more out of your extra cores.

There's no definitive answer here because of the many variables, including choice of OS, DAW(!), plugins(!), and workflow (how many sends, length of plugin chains on tracks). Whatever you buy now will be plenty fast for years to come in any case.

AMD -> less power, new socket.
Intel -> cheaper for the same level of performance.

 

Choosing a Ryzen processor may not be the best decision due to the implementation of Infinity Fabric and CCD's. To reduce production costs, AMD utilizes separate core chips (e.g. 4 cores on one chip and 4 on another) along with an input-output chip and a memory controller on another. Such technical manipulations can lead to increased inter-core delay and memory timing delays.

In contrast, Intel consolidates everything on a single chip, leveraging their experience and expertise in this area. You pay for productivity rather than reducing production costs and consumption.

Regarding my own setup, while I have an expensive ASUS Crosshair VIII HERO (WiFi) motherboard with 300A+ power, it doesn't fully unlock the potential of my Ryzen 7 2700X processor and Fractal Design ION+ 560W Platinum PSU. If you desire genuine energy efficiency, investing in a better PSU rather than downclocking or undervolting your processor for lower current is recommended. Making drastic adjustments can negatively impact performance, so it's better to try slight adjustments and test in benchmarks.

 

Last edited: Apr 19, 2023

Could you please define which Intel CPUs are cheaper than AMD with the same performance ? For example 10900k is the same with AMD 5800 ( its an example of course not the truth just to show you what do i want ) . In order to examine them .

 

Individuals who claim that Intel processors are very expensive likely have not used an Intel processor before.

 

I9 12900k is better overall than 5800X3D to the same price. Single Core performance + Multicore (Not in Shitty Games for FPS junkies)

 

What's the point of buying a powerful processor like Ryzen 9 7950X and using it in an economic mode? By purchasing such a processor and artificially limiting it to the performance of a Ryzen 3000 series processor, you are not utilizing its full potential.

There may be several reasons why someone would want to use a powerful processor like Ryzen 9 7950X in an economic mode. For example, they may want to reduce the power consumption and heat generation of the processor, which could extend its lifespan and reduce the cost of cooling.

However, if you purchase a powerful processor and then limit its performance artificially, you are essentially wasting its potential and not getting the most out of your investment. In this case, it may be more practical to purchase a less expensive processor that meets your needs, rather than investing in a high-end processor that you don't plan to use to its full capacity.

 

13900: 594€, 7950X: 595€, (+10% single-core for Intel, multi-core same)
13700: 419€, 7900: 429€, (+10% multi-core for Intel, single-core same)
13600: 302€, 7700X: 327€ (+10% multi-core for Intel, single-core same)

I'd probably still pick AMD. Getting an older generation of CPU is a valid choice of course.

Ref:
https://www.computerbase.de/thema/c...hlungen_die_schnellsten_cpus_fuer_anwendungen
https://www.scanproaudio.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/DB-DSP-7000X3D-Site.jpg
https://geizhals.de/

 

Thanks guys !!

 

However, it is worth noting that older CPU generations such as the Ryzen 7 2700X or the first and second generations may have had technical issues that were later resolved in the newer generations.

 

I have a Asus Z490-f With TB3 CPU 10700 k and a Quantum 2626. I like it a lot. Speed is really good for latency I record live guitars a lot..
I got a Apple fire wire adapter to hook up my old Safire pro 40 to the other port. All is working good.

TB is expensive and Asus, Abit, etc all have different cards. I am not sure if they will work in each others PC headers are different.
Some say you can just short out 2 wires and get it to work I was not willing to do so. I purchased a Asus EX3-TR card. Either way
if you can afford it I would say yes it's a great option. Now be careful with the PCI lanes and bifurcation. More lanes the better.
If you keep your rig simple bifurcation is not an issue. I agree with SineWave that PCIe card and a unit is a good option.
From what my research it was equal to getting a TB card and a TB interface.

 

Intel pretty much killed AMD with their latest architecture.
Single core power is where its at when dealing with plugins, effects and these also have a powerful multi core architecture for massive handling many libraries and any ( 13600k, 13700k, etc...) will have you flying.

 

Last edited: Apr 19, 2023

You never specified your DAW! Cubase for example is bad performing with the latest Intel 12 and 13 ;)

https://helpcenter.steinberg.de/hc/...2-Generation-oder-neuer-mit-Hybridarchitektur

 

I suppose that it uses e cores for lighter tasks inside the DAW and as all of us have written the most used cores is .... a single core !! Multicores rarely used and maybe Intel knew that and start to use e cores to drop the power usage .

 

Ryzen 5950x is great for audio!!

I run 3950x in my studio and have been since it was released many years ago. The one saying you should go for Intel does not know the actual numbers you get, comparing Intel vs AMD. Look at what you actual get inside your DAW. How many plugins you can etc. The person is talking about a very old 2700x that was indeed not that good. It wasn't until the 3000-series AMD started to win.

AMD is the best option atm (price/performance for DAWs), and has been since the release of 3000-series. Just don't invest in a "3D" version because it is aimed for gamers.

Be sure to get a good motherboard with good power components. My AMD 3950x-based DAW is silent, actually the most silent computer I have ever had since the 90's...

 

Intel for work, AMD for games, especially they always have problems with drivers.

 

I'm not a total expert, but I've been researching a lot because I too want to build a new PC for music production.
From what I can tell the difference is mostly that Intel CPUs tend to run hotter than AMD and therefore require a bit more cooling, which might only be a problem if you want your PC to be very quiet. And if you overclock them they tend to beat overclocked Ryzen.

Take this with a grain of salt though. I'm currently getting really frustrated trying to assemble a good value build with my limited knowledge.

 

So, locally I have been offered a Ryzen 5950X CPU with a Gigabyte X570 board and 32GB RAM for £550 (probably about 600-625 Euro/USD) that's tempting me to bite. Alternatively, I have been offered a 5900X with X57p and 64GB RAM that's new for £650 (about 725-650 Euro/USD).

Is that a good deal? Comes with a 24 month warranty for full refund or like for like replacement, so not too much risk in terms of it being used components.

 

Yeah, I think for price the 5950X and 13700K seem to be the two I'm likely to try and decide on, and the 5950X is probably where I'm leaning to.

 

Thats a fantastic deal and honestly would last you an incredibly long time, the 5950x also thrives in large projects so you'd have a lot of room to grow.