Wow! Best ever low latency perf on Ryzen with Win 10 1903

[Bill Ruys]

So I read yesterday that one of the changes in Windows 10 build 1903 was that there was a change made to the Windows scheduler to better operate with Ryzen CPUs.  I wondered if this might help with the latency issues I have always had on my 1st gen Ryzen 1800 (8-core, 16-thread CPU).

I have a MOTU 896 Mk 3 and have never been able to use the lowest latency for the last couple of years.  I upgraded to Win 10 build 1903 tonight and loaded up a couple of projects that always glitched badly at the lowest couple of latency settings (64 and 96 samples per buffer).  Holy cow!  I am seeing the best performance I have ever seen - zero glitches on these projects!  The difference is night and day.  And, CPU usage is super even among the cores and lower than ever.

I am absolutely blown away in how much better Sonar runs on the Ryzen with this particular Windows update.  All I can say is that you have a Ryzen-based DAW, do yourself a huge favor and upgrade to build 1903!

I was thinking seriously about going back to Intel for my next DAW.  I am now convinced that my next rig will be Ryzen based.

Edited June 13, 2019 by Bill Ruys
fixed typo in title

[Jim Roseberry]

When it's time for your next CPU, keep mind that many operations in a DAW can't be multi-threaded.

ie: Playing thru an AmpSim plugin at a 32-sample ASIO buffer size is not something that lends itself to being heavily multi-threaded.

Highest clock-speed is still the most important factor for DAW purposes.

There's good competition from AMD... and that's pushing Intel to release faster/less-expensive CPUs.

 

The i9-9900k (~$500) is a great example. 

• 8 cores (can all be locked at 5GHz)
• 16 processing threads
• With quality air-cooler, it runs near dead-silent

For most purposes, it takes about a $1400 CPU to best the 9900k.

 

My long-winded point is that (whenever the time is right), I'd examine what's available from both companies.

Just make sure you don't sacrifice significant clock-speed to gain more CPU cores.

We run into many folks who've mistakenly assumed the Xeon CPUs (because more expensive and used in corporate servers) are a better choice for a DAW.

With significantly slower clock-speed, a Xeon CPU results in a significant performance hit (for DAW purposes).

 

Glad to hear performance is smoother with the Ryzen 1800.

I built an 1800 based machine (for test purposes) a good while back.

Noticed small issues from software not being fully optimized for AMD.

ie: Boost 11 (in one of the Cakewalk demo projects) was causing a clicking noise that almost sounded like digital-clipping.

Same exact project... played off the same hardware (using Intel CPU/motherboard) had no issue with clicks/etc.

 

[Starise]

I once read about the "k" designation behind chip ID info. Unfortunately I've forgotten it..How does the 9900 differ from the 9900k? My build was a 5820"K" which I think mean't less threads.

[Starship Krupa]

Good to hear the news about Ryzen optimization.

Also good to get the word on clock speed being the better thing to seek than number of cores.

I'm trying to help a buddy spend some money on a Windows notebook, and he wants to run Cakewalk on it, he identifies as a comp-u-phobe and I figure that if he ever works his way up to 4 simultaneous tracks of audio that'll be pretty neat.

He's been sending me iPhone Voice Memos of band practice jams that I've had fun seeing how good I can make sound using the tools I have available to me. I've been trying to ignite his interest from there by telling him that all he needs is a not-even-that-powerful notebook computer (I usually work my "magic" on my #2 system, an aging Core 2 Quad that just loves CbB), and he can get miles better audio quality even if he only just sets up a couple of dynamic mics into a mixer so he can give me a stereo recording to work with using the onboard sound chip.

I know that anything that can boot Windows 10 would work for him, but I'd like to minimize his investment and maximize his gain. Keep it under a grand I guess.

My hunch was AMD processor, go for clock speed, last year's technology? Optical drive might be nice to have for burning band CD's.

[mettelus]

3 hours ago, Starise said:

I once read about the "k" designation behind chip ID info. Unfortunately I've forgotten it..How does the 9900 differ from the 9900k? My build was a 5820"K" which I think mean't less threads.

The K means that over clocking can be configured. The non-K variants have the clock speed locked.

[Grem]

12 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

but I'd like to minimize his investment and maximize his gain. Keep it under a grand I guess.

Erik, I got something like this and the recordings with it are digital, and they are really good. I can then d/l them to CbB and do what I want with them. Really good for what your talking about with minimum investment. Learn how to use it, hit start, set the level, record the whole jam, d/l the file, send it to you! The mics on it will surprise you!

[Starship Krupa]

Funny you should mention it, Grem, he already owns a Tascam Digital Portastudio, which he hasn't gotten around to using due to technophobia.

I'm suggesting a workflow of tracking to the Tascam, then transferring to the notebook, where he can either work on it himself or pass it along to me.

A friend bequeathed to me his Zoom Q8 camcorder with the X-Y mic pair and I did a band video shoot for some friends' 4-piece rock band using just the built-in X-Y pair and a single dynamic for the lead singer, and we were all very happy with the result.

Now you know what my living room looks like. And my 1970 Slingerland New Rock kit (that's not me playing it).