AMD (Ryzen) usually has better value proposition, but the most important factor (for music) is single-thread performance. Right now, I'd argue that the differences in offerings are minimal between Intel and AMD, and you will be best off going with whatever hits your budget the best. A lot of the 3D cache AMD chips are on sale right now, and are worth looking at.

As user tzzsmk said, future-proofing doesn't exist with computer hardware. AM5 is a new platform, though; and I wouldn't expect it to go away any time soon.

 

@DiabeticAnna Sorry, you are wrong. Single-thread performance IS NOT the most important factor for music production. Its the opposite: it's about multithread performance! At least when working with a modern DAW which splits the workload evenly over all threads.

 

This is so true. I don't upgrade SUPER often, but I upgrade often enough, and generally speaking, it is always cpu+mobo upgrade for me because the slot type changes often enough, not to mention other newer chipset benefits, and such. I personally have not upgraded CPU without a mobo change. And well, frankly, it tends to be CPU+MOBO+RAM all together, because I tend to like the fastest, affordable ram as well.

That isn't to say you can't get a computer that will last a long time, depending on what you do.. I'm just saying that I agree that you aren't going to be able to buy a motherboard (for example) that will be current for years and years. That super expensive computer will eventually not be able to take advantage of newer tech too (ex. a new bus / version), and at the same time as the more value-priced computer, assuming you don't seriously cheap out on said value computer. Of course, a higher-end CPU will likely not need an upgrade as quick though for other reasons (i.e. sheer performance differences), however, but that's a different thing.

This is kinda why I like to aim for mid-high computer parts rather than very high-end, in most cases. I prefer a combo of good performance and value over highest performance and getting absolutely raked over the coals $-wise. The former results in being able to more easily upgrade frequently and stay quite current, whereas the latter gives me a computer that kicks supreme ass from the start and then peters out before I can replace it at the same cost.

I don't think most people realize the large performance difference between computers 3-5 years old either. It's large. So that's why I often wonder just how much of a jump in performance someone needs from the old computer they've been using to this point.

Different strokes for different folks. I just see people hang on to expensive computers for a long time (because they can't afford the next mega-upgrade, not because they don't need/want to upgrade), but my approach tends to be to go a bit more affordable route, but still get quite good performance. Anyone who's done this long enough knows there's typically a bit of a sweet spot in this market where you can buy something that will do the job very well, but at a much better price (resulting in more upgrades, resulting in staying more current, imo). And, I don't think most people's audio processing needs tend to push the boundaries of computing either (stress on "most").

 

Last edited: Apr 18, 2023

Not a lot of VST plugins are actually multi-threaded. Only a handful of the better ones have multi-threaded modes, like Repro/Diva etc. But not stuff like Cherry Audio GX-80. And DAWs can't do anything to force it to be. Though to be fair you're talking about the DAW's internals I'm guessing, which usually is multi-threaded.

 

Multi-threading is a concept not well understood by most, but something that sounds easy enough to spew nonsense about. Sorry, but you're wrong.

Multi-threaded performance is still bottlenecked by the system actually assigning work to the different cores. It is almost NEVER evenly split, there will ALWAYS be overhead necessary for coordinating the spread of computing. If you're using a modern DAW and avoiding 3rd-party VST's entirely, you can get significantly better multi-threaded performance, but it's still not going to be perfect or even; and that's IF you're using strictly stock plugins in Reason or whatever DAW you prefer, on a session under 20 tracks.

However, almost nobody uses strictly stock plugins. A lot of 3rd party plugins run in a wrapper in your DAW, which won't always be able to assign the processing to other cores, because it could mess with plugin compatibility/cause bugs. This is exceptionally true for older plugins. On top of that, as tracks increase in complexity the overhead for assigning workloads increases exponentially, where you will again hit the dreaded single-core bottleneck. Even grouping tracks in Live completely messes up the multi-thread workflow.

You can see my screenshot, this is a project during playback with around 80 tracks containing a mix of plugins, audio, instruments, etc. It's NOWHERE near even. And this is on a Mac, where multi-threaded processing is much more tightly integrated; and it's still not that great.



This isn't to say that you should get a single-core CPU, but there's a reason why people don't use Threadrippers as their "music production beast" PC. I would know, I have done it. It's not common, and doesn't provide the performance benefits you would expect/hope for. I work in industry, and design/install these systems. An 8-core CPU at 4.5 Ghz vs. a 16-core CPU at 3.8 Ghz would undeniably be in the 8-core CPU's favor.

 

I disagree with you. It's not about the workload being spread evenly, it's about how many times it can be devided… and the more threads you have, the more it can be split. The more it can be split, the more headroom you have before hitting a single-core's limit. So therefore, I am pretty sure that the 8 core CPU you're referring would crap out sooner than the one with 16 threads. Because there are less "buckets" available for distributing the workload before reaching the single-core's limit. However, as a comprimese, we could say that there has to be a good balance between max ferquency and the number of available threads.

 

Heh-heh, regarding single-core vs multi-core performance, I've debated that a lot with myself and funnily enough my decision what's more important depended on what plugins I was using. If I was using several DSP56300 Viruses and u-he Divas I would prefer single-core performance, but when I was using lighter on CPU synths I would prefer multi-core performance. Go figure, lol. Since differences aren't that huge these days... I guess it doesn't matter that much anymore.

However, I'm using Osirus, Diva, Repro a lot in every project so it makes sense for me to look for a processor with better single-core performance, eh?

What matters is not suck your wallet/card dry or double the electricity bill for something that you won't find useful e.g. a super-high-ultra-latest CPU with 20 cores and 200W consumption that costs $800 whilst you can get a perfectly great CPU with 8 cores and 16 threads for much less money and it will use much less energy, too. As naitguy eloquently put it - there is a sweet-spot in computing where you get a lot for not that much money and you save the rest of the money for future upgrades. Yay to that!

 

If I was assembling a computer on a low budget right now I would go with either AMD R5 5600G (~130E!) or a second hand Intel i7 9700K, 10700K, 11700K with an appropriate Asus Prime xxx A Pro motherboard and 32Gb (2x16GB) of fast G-Skill DDR4 RAM.

If I was assembling a computer for audio on a moderate budget right now I would go with AMD R7 5700G (~200E) because I hate graphic cards and I think they're a waste of perfectly good money I could put into bigger SSD or NVMe, for example. The rest of the components would be the same as the budget version and I would never skimp on a good power supply which is the most important component in every build, so at least Corsair TX750(M) or RM750(M).

If I was assembling a higher-end computer for audio right now, I would go with AMD R7 5800X or R9 5900X (~350E) with a cheap AMD RX560 4GB GDDR5 graphic card and put the rest of the money into a big NVMe and even bigger SSD for samples and a good PSU like Corsair RM750M PSU. 4x16GB of low latency 3600Mhz or better DDR4 G.Skill memory would round-up this really nice and not wasteful assembly well. Gosh, porn takes a lot of archiving space... HDDs will do for that. :P

Cheers!

 

Last edited: Apr 19, 2023

My concern for an update would be Thunderbolt connectivity
Currently rocking a 5950x on Pro Tools (so more or less worth case scenario) and performance has been fantastic (overclocked to a steady 4.7Ghz). air cooled and average of 50° during load!
So my guess is that Ryzen or Intel of current gen or even next gen will equally or much superior to what I am experiencing -> don't worry about it, just depends on energy efficiency, bang for your buck and so on, I'd say you can't "lose", check the other posts.

That being said, I am regretting not putting too much thought for an TB header or direct integration, I might consider an Intel build as TB seems to be much much much much easier to deal with, albeit not quite perfect. That's just my case, ymmv, but TB seems to be getting more and more popular and "needed" for some applications. Time will tell

 

And only SSD's will make an huge difference too !
For loading up big Kontakt libraries and such

 

TB is very tricky, indeed. TB3 is not always backwards compatible so you're left wondering what to buy to be 100% sure and the answer with TB is - not sure. I wouldn't buy anything TB, to be honest, just USB-C. Hell, PCIe card is still the best option. I'm still rocking good old RME HDSP9652 PCI and I'm going to replace it with RME RayDAT in my next build... errr in a couple of years the soonest judging by my financials lately... Anw, my computer is still rocking nicely! (i7-6700K) I'll probably buy a 7700K in the mean time.. lol not much money, not much upgrade either, lol

 

Last edited: Apr 19, 2023

Totally agree, assembled one for a friends low budget gaming needs and thing turned out to be amazing for audio too (very low DPC, tested it for days), Gigabyte B450 DS3H V2, Ryzen 5 5600G, 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3200mhz, Seasonic S12 III 550W, modest MS Industrial case and he got SSD and other stuff, build wasn't more than 500 euros back than, works like a charm, runs all his games better than he expected, ultra silent too.

Wanted to do same thing for my partner, but local dealers can't score most of the parts anymore and for some stuff they ask even more, CPU got cheaper tho, also folks ask too much money for their second hand parts, so after some research we settled on second hand HP Elitedesk 800 G4 with i7 8700, 32GB DDR4 2666Mhz, 512GB SSD for 270 euros, which is nice deal, considering what some expect to get for their second hand stuff here.

 

That HP is really great value for money, Melodic Reality. Only 270 euro, wow. great buy! I'm a big fan of great buys!

I upgraded my old AMD rig with this i7 6700K, new mobo and RAM 2 years ago for about 300 euro. My Corsair TX750 PSU is still fine. This thing + Linux, using generally u-he plugins and hardware, runs like a rocket.

 

You should know that audio programs ( and almost all programs ... ) hardly use multicores . You need a cpu that is the fastest by using one core . Intel is the winner in one core performance and 13900kf ( its the one without graphics card for lower price ) is one of the fastest so stick with it ( im on the same path building new pc ) .

" As of January 2023, the Intel Core i9-13900KF processor achieved the best average single-core performance with a score of 2,222 from the Geekbench benchmarking tests " .

 

Seeing that, I would ask myself which AMD or Intel 9/10/11 gen CPU comes nearest to that score in Geekbench and buy that.

The answer is AMD R9 7950X. However, it's a rather costly thingie at 700 euro with 170W TDP (around 300W in reality). I would take AMD 7700X or 5900X with 105W TDP any time for 350 euro instead. That's my philosophy - for maybe 10-20% difference in performance you get a much cheaper CPU that consumes much less watts so it's easier and less noisy to cool. win on all fronts. Simple.

p.s I've been researching a little... 7700X 8/16-core is another excellent mid-high end choice for audio WS because it has an internal AMD graphics card. That thing must rock. New AMD 7xxx CPUs come with graphic cards by default and that's great! 350 euro, 105W TDP. Great for a fast new DDR5 build.

 

Last edited: Apr 19, 2023

Check this also for an alternative in power consumption

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5022vs5154/Intel-Core-i9-13900K-vs-Intel-Core-i9-13900T

 

I think I am looking more likely at a Ryzen, but just need to decide which one. I have never bought an AMD CPU, so will be new territory for me. I will likely buy with a new motherboard and RAM, and transport over my Corsair H150i Elite CPU cooler and my GTX 1080Ti, probably upgrading the GPU in the near ish future too. My audio interface is an Audient ID14 MkII.

I mainly produce techno and house, primarily using Ableton and Push 2 with a heavy lean to MIDI and VSTs rather than recording anything in, using things like Sylenth, Serum, FM8, Korg VSTs, GForce stuff, D16 VSTs, Plugin Alliance stuff, Waves stuff, and so on. However, I do every now and again record some guitar based ibdie/folk/alt style music and make MIDI film score style mockups using Kontakt libraries. Therefore, it's probably an all round kind of setup I'm looking for without gaming needs, hence why I'm happy to stick with my GTX 1080Ti for the short term.

Therefore, my original question is in this context, to reply to any comments around this

 

then make sure to have/obtain compatible mounting bracket for whatever cpu socket your chosen motherboard will have

I happen to still use 1080Ti too, it's a fantastic dead silent graphics card, even with default fan curves, fans don't spin until reaching 60°C

 

E cores use is for background tasks or tasks that require less power and to save energy consumption . So the thermal throttle is not a big problem .