Hi, I'm thinking about putting together a new computer, and the two processors mentioned above would be suitable so that I can have a few years of peace and quiet again.
I just can't find any proper DAW benchmark comparisons for the two, at least not for the x3d.

What do you think would be the better choice here?
I mainly work in Cubase with lots of VSTs, buses, and weird routings.
I don't do much live recording, but I do a lot of MIDI recording.

 

You should try to find someone on this forum who has the same processors. Ideally, they should also work in Cubase so that you can run a test.

 

I'm thinking about this Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX

 

Go for the "Ryzen 7 9800X3D." The "3D" suffix gives you extra power, which is reflected positively in the overall performance.

The base clock speed is responsible for consistently stable performance, preventing dropouts and glitches. Forget about the maximum clock speed and turbo mode; they're great for games and video editing, but not for music production.

Please note that you may need to perform a BIOS update.
Get yourself a very good CPU cooler because the AMD generates a lot of heat. (Noctua NH-D15 G2)

Base clock speed: 4.7 GHz
L3 cache: 96 MB

AMD says: With the second-generation AMD 3D V-Cache in the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, we've completely redesigned the architecture. Because the additional memory is now positioned beneath the processor cores, these cores have direct access to the cooler. And when a chip is cooler, it can run faster. That's exactly what happens here.

As a result, the base clock speed of the new Ryzen 7 9800X3D is 500 MHz higher than its predecessor, and the maximum boost clock speed is 200 MHz higher. Combined with the enhanced new "Zen 5" processor architecture, you get a legendary gaming powerhouse.

 

If the choice you want to make is exactly between these two, I recommend you get the 9950x. You have 16 cores and 32 threads with a base clock of 4.3Ghz. It's always preferable to have many more cores for DAW use. With 3d cache you have better performance when there are many kontakt instances but worse DSP performance and so you have to take into account that when you get to having to use thousands of kontakt instances at once you will almost certainly also have many active DSP plugins and so it's a bit of a trade-off, you gain on one side but lose on the other. That's why I recommend you take the 16 cores and don't think about it. You have the best compromise. Of course, if you want to use the computer occasionally for games too, the situation could be different, but I assume you mean a PC dedicated only to music, also because that's the only way you'll be able to get the best DAW performance and a lot of RAM (which with games is counterproductive to have)

So more cores are better, within certain limits naturally, because at some point as the number of cores increase you also need more bandwidth to the RAM and not just this, also pciex lanes start to become important for the system to be balanced, and then you have to switch to the Threadripper which obviously would be always the best from the beginning for a DAW, price apart.
In any case, 16 cores work more than well with the dual channel RAM of the AM5 socket. Also keep in mind to install as many ram as you can. So forget about big speeds or particularly high overclocking if you opt for 256GB of RAM with all 4 slots used.

I have two 5950Xs both with 128GB of RAM and I assure you that to date they are two little "monsters" in DAW performance. You can load hundreds of kontakt instances if you want without any problems. So with the latest and fastest 9950x you can rest assured it will be fine for many years.

 

Last edited: Nov 15, 2025 at 2:43 PM

in that case definitely 9950X, you want more cores because you seem to be running complex projects where you can make use of parallel processing better,
if you think 32 threads is too much, you can disable hyperthreading and just have 16 cores non-split (that might help with latency and task scheduling too),
3D vcache with X3D series is nice for gaming, but you're not asking for 9950X3D which is way more expensive anyway,

actually 9955WX (16C/32T) or 9970X (32C/64T) are worth considering if you need more PCIe lanes (more nvme ssds) and quad channel memory support, threadripper platform is great and motherboards have nice features without being too pricey, but phew those CPUs are way too expensive for a hobbyist

 

there are higher density 2x64GB DDR5 kits on the market now, not sure if 256GB (4x64GB) is stable yet on AM5

 

Let me put it this way. I have done a ton of research into processors. And whilst I'm still trying to piece together my ideal package, the 9950x is what I'm basing the whole build around.

I too want it for mainly DAW use, with several tracks that contain many instances of Serum/ Omnisphere etc.

I should point out. In gaming terms the 9800x3D will win, but you will be annoyed with yourself if you choose gaming abilities over DAW use, when to have a smooth working DAW is your aim for this machine!

I just want to add. Make sure you go for as much RAM as you can. I'm looking at Motherboards that house 256gb RAM (not so much for now, but to future-proof for as long as possible!

 

Last edited: Nov 15, 2025 at 1:05 PM

We would all LOVE one of those, but unless you have won big on the lottery, or you have just won the rights to mastering Beyonce's new Album. It's a little out of most of our reaches!!

 

A friend built a rig around a 9900X, cooled with Noctua NH-D15S chromax black. Motherboard: MSI MAG B650 Tomahawk WiFi - ATX. Memory from crucial (apparently these CPUs work best with 2 sticks instead of 4) - 2x64 - CP2K64G56C46U. A 5000 nvidia for stem splitting and a Fractal Design Define 7 Black - Solid - ATX case. Splits any full song in 10-15s in UVR. He runs acoustica plugins and generally no issues with anything he throws at it. I want to built the same rig but ffs the DDR5 prices doubled.

 

Next year, Intel and AMD will release new models or improved versions. Rest assured, many users will buy them, even if the performance increase is only 4 to 15%. Do you already drive a Porsche?

The cause is apparently the AI boom. The demand from data centers and similar sectors is driving up the demand for high-speed LPDDR5X RAM to an extreme. RAM manufacturers have already raised their prices and shifted production schedules. This is affecting the entire market. No improvement is likely in sight for the time being.

 

you are absolutely right it was a typographical error of mine I corrected it thanks for reporting it.

Actually I wanted to write 256GB since I intended to recommend installing the maximum amount of ram.
As I wrote some difficulty exists in occupying all the slots with high density modules but the result is worth the difficulty. In fact I too had to compromise to maximize the quantity of ram but I don't regret it in fact I don't even notice it in the daily use. You almost certainly need to choose motherboard carefully and stick to the dimm module compatibility list (=less speed) or at least the exactly identical type of ICs present on the modules, but I wouldn't even think about it too much and would do everything I could to get the 256GB, also the AM5 platform it's even more stable than AM4 so probably it's also a bit easier than it was for me.

If you use large orchestral kontakt libraries having more ram always helps no matter the speed of the nvmes or the kontakt cache setting, the more ram you have, the better it is in my experience.

Maybe also the "little" 9965WX isn't "bad" with its more than 11000 instruments active at 256 latency bus on a project (thats insane!!), at 4 times less $$$ (but still too high for hobbyists)

 

Last edited: Nov 15, 2025 at 3:11 PM

Yes, I agree with you. When you're doing video editing and film music like Hans Zimmer, maximum RAM is always a good thing. Hans Zimmer commissioned a motherboard company to build him a motherboard with 128 GB of RAM. Today, it would certainly be 256 GB. I only have 16 GB of RAM because I only work with presets, i.e., sound design. Of course, I recommend that anyone asking about a new PC or laptop get 32 GB or, even better, 64 GB of RAM. The more tracks with samples, the more RAM you need.

 

It's true that it's very expensive for amateurs, but for someone who knows what they’re doing and loves working with sample rates of 96kHz and above, it's a sexy option for real-time work.

we can think about it and wish for it and daydream about it

 

even my old GTX1080Ti can split songs in UVR within 30-40 seconds, make sure "GPU conversion" is ticked in UVR if you have nVidia gpu

 

Exactly. A little tip for anyone thinking of having less RAM and making heavy use of the freeze function. Remember that it's inversely proportional to the skill of the user. In the sense that it's simple for those who are very capable of showing "miracles" with very little RAM but this is only possible because they need to do much less editing on the tracks (they already have in mind what to do and how to do it). The more hobbyists you are the more you need ram.

 

That is very true!

 

I have both 9950x and 3950x, both using Cubase. 16 cores works great of course.

HOWEVER, unfortunately Steinberg's cpu scheduler is somewhat sub-optimal in some scenarios.
So you can go with a CPU that is faster in frequency but with fewer cores, but that is depending on your workflow and needs. Check out the 9800X3D for example. If you're using a lot of insert fx on a lot of channels and then route these channels to each other (fx groups, groups, audio routing, side-chaining: only 1 of 16 cores will be working to process ALL the channels that are connected somehow. And very too few plugins have multi-core support themself so if they are 4x oversampled etc they might spend 25% of 1 core. And that 1 core will have to deal with all the other channels if you have done the above. And Steinberg Nuendo/Cubase doesn't always take the fastest core or a core that is not doing anything else...
This works better in DAWs that handles thread scheduling better (like letting the latest AMD Drivers take decisions instead of Steinbergs own!!!). Some DAWs are worse though (Ableton and StudioOne last I checked).

You CAN of course set up in BIOS that you want to prioritize some cores with higher frequency in 9950x, but that often requires a reboot (maybe not, but I havent found a stable software that can do this without reboot) and config change each time and Steinbergs scheduler is stupid sometimes and doesn't always select the best core(s).

Since 9950x is more expensive you might be better off with a cheaper CPU with better cache and higher frequency per core (like 9800X3D or 9900X3D).

 

This will give you a factual look at their performance along other CPU's.
https://www.scanproaudio.info/2025/...3d-tested-has-x3d-finally-struck-studio-gold/

There's VSTi, total project DSP and bus DSP (single core) benchmarks.

Relating DAW performance, there's this channel which compares them on Apple hardware.

The relative scaling is very similar according to the guy running the benchmarks on scan pro audio. It should give you an idea, or you could consider using MacOS if you'd prefer that.

 

Ryzen 7950X