Jim Roseberry

If you're into extremely low round-trip latency, Presonus Quantum is hard to beat.

It'll allow you to run a 32-sample ASIO buffer size at 96k (1ms total round-trip latency).

Patrick, we really aren't disagreeing about much.  😉

 

I'm "obsessed" with high clock-speed, because at that point, Threadripper (performance wise) is superior on all facets.  

 

Keep in mind that the 10980xe is going to be on shelves soon. 

• 18-cores
• 4.8GHz max turbo
• $1000 or slightly under

That's Intel's "stop-gap" until they release a 32-core model.

3 hours ago, Patrick Derbidge said:

when comparing 9900k and Ryzen running at the same clock speed, every review and benchmark test I read showed that they did outperform the 9900k

Unless you're wanting to compare IPC, who's going to slow the 9900k down?  😉

It'll happily run all 8 cores locked at 5GHz.  It'll do so running near dead-silent.

 

To get the 3970x to run anywhere close to stable at 4.2GHz (across all 32 cores), vCore would have to be thru the roof. 

I had it at 1.26v... and it was nowhere close to 100% stability.

Even with amazing luck of the silicon draw, you're not going to achieve 4.5GHz across all 32 cores.

If you could set vCore high-enough to achieve 100% stability (4.5GHz across all 32 cores), a 360mm water-cooler isn't going to keep it both cool... and quiet at that setting. 

At stock-speed, with quality 360mm water-cooler, quiet case/fans, etc... the 3970x isn't what I'd call extremely quiet.  😉

 

FWIW, I tested the 3970x myself.

I've benchmarked it both with audio and standard tests.

In standard tests, single-core performance of the 3970x does not best the 9900k. 

In heavily multi-threaded scenarios (both standard and audio tests), the 3970x smokes the 9900k.

It's in all our best interest for AMD to be competitive.

Competition drives performance... and keeps cost down.

On 11/27/2019 at 3:47 PM, Patrick Derbidge said:

What AMD has been able to do is actually outperform Intel's IPC which means that with a clock speed of 4.6GHz it can match or beat an Intel at 5GHZ. 

AMD Threadripper bests Intel i9 in IPC... but 

If you benchmark the 3970x, single core performance does not best the 9900k.

Also, the 3970x won't get all cores anywhere near 4.6GHz.

In fact, you won't even get 4 cores to run 100% stable (vCore cranked) locked at 4.2GHz.

Where the 3970x smokes the 9900k is in heavily multi-threaded applications.

On 12/31/2019 at 6:32 PM, Joakim Lundberg said:

Moreover, AMD CPU:s are way more energy efficient and will require less cooling etc which impacts the ability to reach turbo speeds, and indirectly the speed of other components such as the M2 NVM-drives which are very sensitive to heat. 

Have you actually built a Threadripper machine and benchmarked running Audio stress-tests?

 

The 3970x will *not* run all 32-cores rock-solid at 4.2GHz.  With vCore set high (1.22v), it'll barely get to 4.1GHz.

With vCore at 1.22v, 3970x can't run 4 CPU cores stable at 4.2GHz. 

With vCore set to ~1.25v, I was able to get the 3970x thru a quick benchmark (all cores at 4.2GHz).  Just barely beat stock-speed scores...

Stock vCore is ~1.1v.  

Bottom line, if you buy a 3970x, plan on running it at stock-speed.

 

I wouldn't run a Threadripper with anything less than 360mm water-cooler.

As with previous Ryzen CPUs, there's virtually no over-clock headroom.

 

In heavily multi-threaded applications, the 3970x will smoke the 9900k.

Threadripper has better IPC (instructions per clock), but Intel bests Threadripper in clock-speed.

Keep in mind the 9900k is a quarter the cost of the 3970x, can run all 8 cores at 5GHz, and will do so near dead-silent with quality air-cooling.

At stock-speed, 3970x single core performance is slightly slower than the 9900k.

On typical project-studio projects (like the Adam Nitti demo for StudioOne), you won't notice much performance difference between the two CPUs.

 

Regarding latency, Threadripper 3970x had no issues running fairly dense audio projects using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size.

That's an improvement over past Ryzen releases.

 

Clock-speed isn't everything, but it's still the single most important factor (for DAW purposes).

As I've said many times, not all processes in a DAW can be multi-threaded (spread across cores).

ie:   Playing and monitoring in realtime (thru software) with a 32-sample ASIO buffer size at 96k isn't something that lends itself to being heavily multi-threaded.

Some virtual instruments like UVI's Falcon won't address more than one core.

In a perfect scenario, you want highest clock-speed... and the most cores available.

For the reasons above, you don't want to choose more cores at the expense of significant clock-speed.

 

Intel's 10980xe (18 cores) is going to be $1000.

Clock-speed is slightly higher than the 3970x.

Based on experience with the 9980xe, I expect it to compare well (for DAW purposes) to the 3970x.

For video rendering, the 3970x will smoke the 10980xe.

 

A note about TRX40 motherboards:

All the critical CPU tweak components are available... but the motherboards (like the original Ryzen release) seem just a bit "rushed-out-the-door".

ie: On the Gigabyte AORUS series,  there's no option to disable things like Onboard Audio, Onboard WiFi, etc.

Unlike the original Ryzen release, the TRX40 motherboards showed no signs of flaky behavior.

ie: Running faster clocked RAM isn't a problem.  

With the original Ryzen release, trying to find a motherboard that would run stable with DDR4/3200 was a quest.

 

If you're a ProTools user, Avid doesn't officially support Threadripper.

In my testing, the 3970x runs ProTools Ultimate just fine.

If you encountered any issues, you'd not have any official support from Avid.

10 hours ago, Rooooooo said:

just a quick thought,try running a Hard Drive speed test app to find the fastest drive,then install windows to that

If the OP is running disk-streaming sample libraries, he'll want to save the fastest drive/s for that purpose.

A SATA SSD is plenty fast for a boot drive.

• Conventional HDs sustain ~200MB/Sec
• SATA SSDs sustain ~540MB/Sec
• M.2 Ultra SSDs (PCIe 3.0) sustain up to 3500MB/Sec
• M.2 Ultra SSDs (PCIe 4.0) sustain up to 4000MB/Sec

500GB SATA SSD makes a great boot drive.

M.2 Ultra is overkill... and IMO a waste of that speed (use it for disk-streaming sample libraries)

8 hours ago, simon said:

FWIW some DAWS such as Cubase have support (kinda) built in. So zero config needed 

Yes, those apps that support Eucon (directly) don't need any configuration (at least for most common features).

14 hours ago, Grem said:

What's this? Never heard of Eucon. As I understand this, @Jim Roseberry this will extend the functionality of the app that Simon is talking about?

 

[edit] I see it's a Avid plugin? Correct? How would this work in CW? Mackie Control? Midi?

Eucon is a hardware controller protocol.

Thus, *any* DAW application that supports Eucon can be controlled with the Avid iPad app.  (Cubase/Nuendo, Samplitude ProX, etc)

There's a Eucon "control surface" plugin for Sonar/CbB.  Once that's installed, Sonar/CbB can be controlled via the Avid iPad app.

You have to install the Eucon software (and the Eucon plugin for Sonar/CbB).

You have to define the features/functions... so it'll take a little time/effort.

Once done, you've got an advanced wireless remote.

 

The Intel drives sustain ~1800MB/Sec

The Samsung 970 EVO sustains ~3500

The new Inland Performance PCIe Gen 4x4 sustains ~5000MB/Sec.  (Need M.2 slot that is PCIe 4.0)

If you install the Eucon plugin for Cakewalk/Sonar, you can use this app as an advanced remote.

You have to define things manually... but it can be a great help if you're working in the studio alone.

Davinci Resolve is also free... and would be more straight-forward for video editing (if that's your primary purpose).

Just checked the features... and it looks like they've added basic video editing/VFX/compositing to Blender.

Cinema 4D and Blender are 3D modeling/animation/rendering.

HitFilm is video editing and VFX/compositing (kind of like a combination of Premier Pro and After Effects).

There is some overlap... but two very different types of tools

9 hours ago, Christian Jones said:

Would you say getting the free version of DaVinci Resolve and buying this bundle would give you the rough equivalent of the paid version of DaVinci Resolve since these plugins show up in DR? Would there still be a good reason to ever buy the paid version of DR if one got this bundle? 

The full version of Resolve comes with advanced video noise-reduction.

I've not seen an OMF plugin that does the same thing.

 

The free Davinci Resolve with Ignite Pro is a formidable video editing solution.

Throw in Hit-Film Pro as a secondary option... and you'd be pretty well covered.

FWIW, From my experience using video editing software (Adobe, Vegas, Davinci Resolve, etc), it's good to have several options.

I've run into "road blocks" with each... and having an alternative was the only way to get work finished.

ie:  I've run into issues with Davinci Resolve where the timeline was fine for basic cuts/edits.  As the session grew a bit more complex, the timeline got scrambled.  Many hours of work... effectively gone.  Davinci Resolve (feature wise) is nothing short of amazing.  

If you have a new iPhone (new video and photo formats), your existing editor might not (yet) be compatible.  Ran into this a couple weeks back.

 

If you have higher-end video tools, Hit-Film is likely not going to replace them. 

ie: The Chroma Keying is basic.  It works... but nowhere close to Primatte Studio or Davinci Resolve.  You've got to have excellent/even lighting on the green-screen.

Hit-Film combines a pretty decent video editor... with After Effects like effects/compositing.

At $30, if you work with video at all, it's worth having in the tool-box.

If you use it once, it'll have paid for itself.

4 minutes ago, kitekrazy said:

A NVMe removes the use of 1 or 2 sata ports.

It depends on the motherboard/circumstances  😉

 

Some motherboards will disable a pair of SATA ports for each M.2 Ultra SSD installed.

 

Some motherboards will allow you to run a single M.2 Ultra SSD (using four PCIe lanes) without disabling a pair of SATA ports.

If you install a second M.2 Ultra SSD (using four PCIe lanes), the motherboard will typically disable a pair of SATA ports.

 

Some motherboards have three M.2 slots... and one less PCIe slot.

With these motherboards, you can typically install two M.2 Ultra SSDs without a pair of SATA ports being disabled.

 

If you've got a full-length PCIe slot available, you can put a M.2 Ultra SSD on a PCIe host card (requires a full-length PCIe slot - needs four PCIe lanes).

This provides a means of avoiding disabled SATA ports (when installing a second or third M.2 Ultra SSD).

 

In short, you've got to read the fine print.

 

16 hours ago, TerraSin said:

@Jim Roseberry what are your thoughts on the 3950X? It seems they've resolved a lot of the latency issues that once plagued them and the clock speeds seem decent and hold across the cores from what I've seen so far.

3950x is a step in the right direction... but it's not yielding clock-speeds equal to Intel's i9 series.

If you've worked with Ryzen CPUs, you know they don't have much OC headroom.

Prior to the release of the 3950x, I suspected the 3950x wouldn't be able to run all 16 cores anywhere near the max turbo frequency of 4.7GHz.

That's been the case with every Ryzen release (thus far).

 

The 9900k will easily run all 8 cores (16 processing threads) at 5GHz.

Completely stable... and with quality cooler it'll do so while running near dead-silent

 

Intel is releasing the i9-10980xe (18-cores, 36 processing threads, price will be ~$1000) and it can achieve 4.7GHz across all cores.

This is the replacement for the 9980xe (same number of cores)... but it'll be half the cost and can achieve higher clock-speed.

 

Something to keep in mind...

CPU Core performance doesn't scale 1:1

IOW, Doubling the number of cores doesn't double performance.

Having more cores is beneficial... but not at the expense of significant clock-speed.

If AMD releases a 64-core CPU... and the clock-speed is ~3GHz (meaning across all cores), that's going to be a significant performance hit compared to something like the 9900k (which is about a quarter the cost).

 

Where Ryzen shines is heavily multi-threaded applications like video rendering.

If you've got a machine doing nothing but video rendering, the 3950x is a perfect choice.

 

If you're working with audio, not all processes in a DAW can be multi-threaded.

• Playing/monitoring in realtime thru Helix Native at 96k using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size (1ms round-trip latency) is not something that lends itself to being heavily multi-threaded.  
• Some plugins like UVI Falcon only use a single core.

This is why clock-speed is (still) extremely important.

 

From our perspective (building DAWs for clients), it's not enough for AMD to release a CPU that's about the same cost and almost the same speed.

• Aside from video, Intel takes most benchmarks
• Going AMD means giving up Thunderbolt

If things are about equal, we'll stick with Intel.

If/when Ryzen (or whatever future name) is clearly superior on all facets (especially as relates to DAWs), that's when we'll use AMD.

 

 

 

If AMD really wants to compete, they have to get the clock-speed up... and not just on a single core.

i9 is besting Ryzen significantly on clock-speed.  Especially when you look at the speed across all cores.

ie:  The 9900k will comfortably run all 8 cores (16 processing threads) locked at 5GHz.

Ryzen can't get anywhere near that clock-speed... and especially not across all cores.

 

For the record, I have nothing against AMD.

If/when they're the overall better CPU for DAW purposes, we'll be happy to use them.

Read the fine print.  😉

 

"According to a leaked product slide shared to Chinese social media, the Ryzen Threadripper 3990X is expected to be a 280 watt processor with 288MB of total cache. Interestingly, that’s the same TDP as AMD’s 24-core and 32-core Threadripper chips, despite having twice the core count.

That probably means the individual CPU cores will run at lower clock speeds. But the sheer number of cores could help… VFX pros, I guess. Most users would probably be hard-pressed to find tasks that require more than 32-cores… but I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before developers come up with applications that can leverage all the resources of AMD’s new high-end processors."

 

Low clock-speed (regardless of the number of cores) makes this chip less desirable for DAW purposes.

 

@OP:

If you're going to be recording long-term, I'd suggest getting a dedicated audio interface... and using normal (not USB) microphones.

• A quality audio interface with proper ASIO drivers makes the whole process more rock-solid
• You can achieve far lower round-trip latency

Using separate audio interfaces (each on separate digital clocks) can cause timing differences.

 

USB mics are fine for PodCasts... or communication; they're not particularly good for traditional recording.

Happy Birthday!!

10 minutes ago, Bapu said:

where it is 50% less in RAM & CPU

Are you sure the project/settings are exactly the same?

In particular, it doesn't make logical sense that RAM use is 50% less.

 

Having the same CPU and Chipset (alone) does not mean equal performance.

The issue with most off-the-shelf laptops (and desktops for that matter) is that they don't expose BIOS parameters necessary to achieve low/consistent DPC Latency.

The lower the latency you want to run (smaller ASIO buffer size), the more critical it is to have low/consistent DPC Latency.

 

I'd avoid a laptop... unless you absolutely need the portability for travel.

A custom desktop has none of the limitations/issues... and is less expensive for significantly higher performance.

You can get custom laptops that run a Desktop CPU, but they're expensive ($2500+).