I'm yet to see ANY 7/7 days DAW running on ryzentosh.
And compare audio LATENCY and STABILITY between 10900K and 5950x.
Real world you know ... not BENCHMARKS

It is clearer now ?

 

No fanboyism here. Seriously.

I my old DAW *WAS* an overclocked i7-4790 and I saw improvement in my own real life project by 4x when I got the Ryzen 3950x!

That dude above must be doing something really wrong. Seriously. Or can it be that his DAW sucks monkey balls at handling multi-cores? Did he forget to activate the Ryzen Power Scheme or something?

EDIT: Wait a minute, he actually DID forget to activate the Ryzen power Scheme (he says he is using "Abletons power scheme" or something.

And most importantly: he is looking at the wrong CPU meter. Cubase CPU meter does not work properly when using many cores. You must look at the WINDOWS CPU meter. You can go to 90% CPU-usage, according to Cubase, but you can still add hundreds of VST plugins and your project will not stop working, playback will still work without problems!

So there is a simple explaination for all of this.


And I am still up to the challenge btw! Goto www.dawbench.com and download the test, a real world test.

HERE'S THE RESULTS FROM THE DAWBENCH-TEST

Processor: AMD Ryzen 3950x (no OC)
OS: Windows 10 (1909) with Ryzen Power Scheme activated
DAW: Cubase Pro 10.5.0 (with ASIO-guard level: Normal)
Memory: DDR4 3600 MHz with CL17 (no OC)

Results

Test 1:
DAWbench-DSP-C7-1566 @ @ 44.1 kHz / 128 samples (all 320 instances of SGA): 74.4% CPU Usage. Screenshot:

Test 2:
DAWbench-DSP-C7-1566-EXT @ 44.1 kHz / 128 samples (all 320 instances of reaXcomp): 10.7% CPU Usage.

Test 3:
DAWbench-DSP-C7-1566 @ 44.1 kHz / 32 samples (all 320 instances of SGA): 75.6% CPU Usage.

Test 4: trying to maximize CPU usage
DAWbench-DSP-C7-1566 @ 44.1 kHz / 128 samples (404 instances of SGA): 91% CPU usage.

Test 6: trying to maximize CPU usage with SGA set to High Performance Mode (same as Scan Pro Audio did in their other Ryzen 3000 tests)
DAWbench-DSP-C7-1566 @ 44.1 kHz / 128 samples (): Here's comes the "problem" with lower single core speed (ie one core is "full" with 7 instances instead of 8 instances = stutter).

Test 7: "Real-world test"
I opened up a project of mine which took about 95% CPU usage on my overclocked Intel i7-4790k Quad Core @ 4.6 GHz, at 256 samples. Result: Same project took only 25% CPU usage on Ryzen 3950x with 128 samples. So that's 4 times as fast in this case and with lower latency."


... so now, anyone still doubting, just to do the same tests and see what results you get with your CPU (and don't look at Cubase meter).

 

Last edited: Dec 9, 2020

Hi, Yes I'm running a 5950X with G.Skill 64GB 3600 Trident Neo RAM. I moved up from a 3900X which ran very well. I use Cubase and some high end orchestral plugins like Spitfire BBC SO Pro which allows you to put more pressure on the CPU so as to save RAM (yep, even 64GB isn't enough sometimes!). With my 3900X it did an admirable job in large projects but it was getting pushed sometimes, with my 5950X, it just shrugs everything off. It's superb in Cubase, even the ASIO meter idles at 0 whereas with the 3900X it always sat at about 5% before I even did anything. I think this is in part due to the latency improvements in Ryzen 5000 series. Nothing else in my system has changed other than the CPU, there is a considerable improvement in general with plugins and even Cubase itself loads up much quicker.
In general use 5950X is very noticeably nippier than the 3900X, so even from that it's a considerable step up. If you can find a 5950X then you certainly won't be disappointed, I was fortunate enough to get one in the 2nd batch.
TL:DR, yes, it's a beast both in general and with audio, I've not noticed limitations or issues even in a pro setting.

Hope this helps.

 

Ryzen 5000 is awesome if you can get your hands on one and it will be even better with Precision Boost Overdrive 2.

 

@Xupito Remember this one ? I quote myself so i can remind you of what was the past and here is now. AMD has filed for a CPU patent where the CPU contains a F(ield) P(rogrammable) G(ate) A(rray):
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-patent-shows-CPU-FPGA-integration
This can be a game changer for the aging x86 architecture, since it means the cpu will be able to run custom instructions not included in the cpu's orginal instruction set. Which brings AMD one step closer to Risc5.
Thing is FPGAs are widely used everywhere, including music production. One good example that comes to mind is Antelope Audio. Lately known as an audio interface company they are actually excellent FPGA designers and makers, their Master Clock series is what put 'em on the map in some of the most expensive studios. And their Discrete series of audio interfaces has easily the best pre-amp to my ears of all interfaces regardless the price, although of course this is subjective. Their FPGAs contained in the audio interfaces provide DSP plugins ala UAD although their interface and software connectivity is still clunky compared to UAD. The important thing though is the plugs exhibit almost 0 latency due to their proprietary FPGA technology. Their driver interface/console behaves better on the Mac but still clunky and idiosyncratic although beautifully crafted. Irrelevant but you get a lot more for your money when compared to UAD imho, the Discrete comes with 16 free plugs+ a tuner plug, including a full array of guitar amps and cabinets simulation.
So back to AMD, i wonder if does this signal a cpu that can be programmmed and tailored to specific workloads like music making and providing dsp ? The future will show hehehe
Cheers mate

 

Adding my 2¢, if you are on Windows platform, look into Sysinternals Autorun application. This can pinpoint what applications/services may run in the background which can have a huge impact on DAW performance. BUT PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE TOUCHING SYSINTERNALS. YOU CAN BREAK YOUR COMPUTER IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING.

 

Here is Linus Linux's rant, absolutely none of which of the technical jargon I understand, but here it is. He basically gives the finger to Intel and flames them by lighting up their own mind farts.

https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/linus-torvalds-tears-into-intel-favors-amd/

 

I just got it!
Always a bit of mish getting and setting up a new computer. Installing all your old drive etc. I had a look at there cables to try put in all my hard drives now I can't close the case lol. Least it turns on lol.
Anyway so far so good!
Scary thing I opened a project and all my sister site Plugin Alliance plugins needed re activation!
It still doesn't like Diva, about 20 playing a chord and it peaks. My old i7 four cores could handle 20 as well so that was a let down. But a project from my old computer that was maxing out peaking at 100% reaches around 50% on this so that is mint!
Still plenty to test and hopefully make those cables fit tomorrow.

 

Ryzen offers amazing multi-core performance per price. However, every Ryzen prior to 5000 series is too expensive in regard to single core performance per price, when compared to Intel counterparts.
For instance, Intel i5-10600KF ($200) is significantly faster than Ryzen 3900XT($700) in single core performance.
Single performance in music production is still very important nowadays as it was in the past. Even more important, I would say.
The problem is that DAWs haven't change much in terms of multi-core utilization. Still unable to spread one signal path processing to more than one core. When one core can't keep up with the task, the whole audio processing gets compromised while the other 64 cores have a nap.
That said, in practice it heavily depends on how you make music and personal affinities.
For instance, I'm interested in modular systems, not owning hardware modules. Quality modular software emulations are very demanding on CPU. I want some of VST FX I use regularly to have less aliasing with oversampling. Add DAW automation, side chaining and send FX, and watch one core of your expensive Ryzen CPU easily taking 40-50% of overall audio processing bandwidth. Yes, that's just one signal path.

Gear geek doesn't need powerful system since hardware is doing most of the processing. But I still recommend the best you can get so it lasts longer. If I had to choose, I would buy Ryzen 5600X. Incredible single core performance, respectable multi-core, very good price.
5600X can easily be future proof for the next 10 years unless something dramatically happens in the DAW technology (didn't happen so far).

 

Last edited: Apr 1, 2021

Yes, it's an interesting move. I think the future will likely require specialized chips (be it coprocessors/chiplets/FPGAs or whatever) because it's one way to improve performance. Like the famous Apple M1. One number-crunching, other for audio, other for AI, crypto,...
The important thing is that every one would only have the bare minimum of instructions and resources to do their thing and nothing else. So RISC makes a lot of sense. Cool things could come from that.

How to implement RISC chip communication with a main x86 based beats me big time.

I don't think RISC-V just because AMD also wants to make money just as much as Intel. But who knows...

 

Two references for tweaking BIOS settings accurately & safely using PBO along with ASUS Dynamic OC Switching.

How to get the most out of third-gen Ryzen CPUs and the X570 platform (article)

Ryzen 9 5950X Overclocked to 4.65 GHz With ASUS Dynamic OC Switching (video guide)

Timestamps:
00:00 Introduction
01:36 System Specifications
02:23 AMD Zen 3 Constraints
04:04 Stock Performance
04:48 Step #1: Enable PBO
06:01 Step #2: 4325 MHz Prime 95 Stable
08:03 Step #3: 4650 MHz All-Core Maximum
09:16 Step #4: ASUS Dynamic OC Switching
13:40 How To Set Up Dynamic OC Switching
15:06 Wrap Up

Hope this helps!

 

I don't think that all-core OC is worth sacrificing single-core performance for the audio processing.
Let's emphasize some of the key points in "...get the most out of third-gen..." article:
1. $400 Motherboard
2. $430 water cooler
3. About 300Hz all-core gain, 100Hz single-core loss.
4. Silicon lottery.
5. Benchmark tools: Blender, Handbrake, JetStream.

Now, if you're lucky enough to win the silicon lottery, have plenty of money to spend, and your not-so-usual workflow gets all cores tanked most of the time, than you may benefit from all-cores overclock. But then, why not just get a more powerful processor?
In most cases though, a single-core performance is going to be the weakest link/limit so it doesn't make sense compromising single core performance for all core boost. Audio processing is not just merely the operating frequency. If that was true, we wouldn't see CPU barely touched in the Windows task manager and 70% in DAW's CPU meter.
One more thing to consider is the "preferred core pair" Windows algorithm. https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dzjs7i/fastest_cores_is_windows_right_or_ryzen_master/

The RAM tweaking part in the article is more likely to make a difference in audio processing because of Ryzen's infinity fabric.

That's just my extrapolation from the overclocking infos on the internet I've read and watched. I could be wrong and I'm open to reasonable arguments.

 

Last edited: Apr 3, 2021

That can say only man who never works with large projects with high CPU hungry plugins on 96K samplerate 64 bit double precision mixing engine. And yes - those who never work on quality analog gear. I'm not saying anything like "the expensive = better". No way! But in some cases there's are no shortcut. RME (notice i don't say Lavry!) better than Presonus, SSL clone better than Original Behringer, 5950X better for full circle audio production (mix and master with AD\DA round trip back to DAW to master on the run with ability to change anything instantly. Instead of spent extra time to go back and re-print mix. I hope you feel what i'm saying.
Yes 5950X is too much for another frootyloops trap "producer".
But every tool have right work for it.

 

It was just a joke

 

You want something with a good ratio of multi-core and single-core for VST instruments. Multiple cores above 4 almost never get used because the way most stuff is programmed.