AMD Ryzen Threadripper CPU's

[Patrick Derbidge]

1 hour ago, CosmicDolphin said:

I may well get this as a cheap base and do some upgrades

https://www.awd-it.co.uk/elite-amd-ryzen-9-3900x-4.6ghz-twelve-core-ddr4-business-and-home-pc-system.html

This is where I had the 3200g system from for the kids gaming and it's only about a half hour drive away if I need to go as well

 

The case looks familiar. If it's a mesh front to allow airflow straight through then I'm a fan of cases like that. I'm picky about the case I get and price has nothing to do with it. I look for a case that allows a lot of airflow with nice big fans so that I can get a lot of airflow with as little noise (big fans running at slow speed) as possible. If the cooling is compromised then so is your performance so I would make sure to max out all the fans. I tend to look for cases that allow at least 2 front 120mm fans, 1 back 120mm fan, 2 ceiling 120mm fans. I would also be curious to know which B450 motherboard they use.

I also prefer the Corsair RMx and HXi power supplies for Studio work since they are the most quiet and yet still reliable that you can buy.

[Patrick Derbidge]

10 minutes ago, CosmicDolphin said:

Sadly I checked the Focusrite support site and they don't support Win 10 for the Saffire series after the latest update ! Seems they changed the way the Firewire drivers work and rendered it obsolete

Ouch. Gotta love that. This is where RME has excelled. They continue support way longer than anyone else. Nevertheless if you don't need that many inputs and outputs then I think the best bang for the buck right now is this one https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/M4--motu-m4-4x4-usb-c-audio-interface

The M2 is also good but I don't like that it lacks the monitoring mix knob between playback and direct.

[Joakim Lundberg]

On 11/25/2019 at 10:13 PM, Jim Roseberry said:

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.

Clockspeed is important, but not everything. What matters is how effective the whole architecture is and the AMD 10/16 core 9-series CPU:S are already heat to head with Intel on single core performance. See this test for instance: https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-vs-intel-core-i9-9900k/

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. 

My next build will be a 3900X  or 3950X for sure. 

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

1 hour ago, Patrick Derbidge said:

I also prefer the Corsair RMx and HXi power supplies for Studio work since they are the most quiet and yet still reliable that you can buy.

Doesn't really make a huge heap of difference to me as I rarely record that much live, it's most VI stuff. I may put down a guide guitar track but the mic is not right next to the PC so it doesn't really pick it up anyway. Either that or it's a DI. The ambient temperature is fairly cool as the studio is in my garage and I don't plan to overclock so usually the stock cooling is sufficient for my needs but I do have a Coolermaster Silent PSU and a passively cooled GPU in this machine .

I only really need 1 XLR input with phantom power and a DI input..I have I/O on this Focuswrite that I've never used so the MOTU M4 is probably overkill. I have been looking at the Audient ID4 as it is sufficient for my needs, decent quality and low cost. Also I write a lot of automation and it has a feature to help with this.  

[Patrick Derbidge]

6 hours ago, CosmicDolphin said:

Doesn't really make a huge heap of difference to me as I rarely record that much live, it's most VI stuff. I may put down a guide guitar track but the mic is not right next to the PC so it doesn't really pick it up anyway. Either that or it's a DI. The ambient temperature is fairly cool as the studio is in my garage and I don't plan to overclock so usually the stock cooling is sufficient for my needs but I do have a Coolermaster Silent PSU and a passively cooled GPU in this machine .

I only really need 1 XLR input with phantom power and a DI input..I have I/O on this Focuswrite that I've never used so the MOTU M4 is probably overkill. I have been looking at the Audient ID4 as it is sufficient for my needs, decent quality and low cost. Also I write a lot of automation and it has a feature to help with this.  

I think the M4 is cheaper than the ID4. The M2 is even cheaper.

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

10 hours ago, Patrick Derbidge said:

I think the M4 is cheaper than the ID4. The M2 is even cheaper.

The ID4 is £99 whereas the M2 is £159 here

Edited January 1, 2020 by CosmicDolphin

[Jim Roseberry]

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.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Jim Roseberry

[Starise]

It seems things are changing with new introductions, yet nothing has really changed. Avoid headaches. Buy Intel and be done with it.

[Jim Roseberry]

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.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Jim Roseberry

[craigb]

So, I should be able to get through all the drivel in the Coffee House forum much faster with an AMD, ya?  (It's heavily multi-threaded, no? ?)

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

I can't wait until I can afford to have Jim make me a new machine... *Sigh...* ?

[Jim Roseberry]

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

Competition drives performance... and keeps cost down.

[Patrick Derbidge]

Unfortunately,  the Ryzens don't overclock well but 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 and the only reason the 9900k pulls ahead is because you can overclock it. The results also depend on the memory speed and type of memory used since AMD's Infinity fabric benefits from faster memory.  I have not benchmarked this myself, I'm only going off of the reviewers I followed during the 3rd gen launch. Perhaps newer tests have been done to show differently but like I said, the memory modules used will have an effect on those benchmarks. I haven't paid attention since I built my system. Nevertheless, for DAW use I doubt you'd see much difference between a 9900k and a 3950x. Your money is better spent on SSD's and more memory.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Patrick Derbidge

[Patrick Derbidge]

2 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

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

This is highly dependent on the silicon lottery and cooling with AMD. Some have successfully done this without any issues. I was able to do this after going through 3 cpu's. The first 2 would not. With Intel there is almost 100% chance you can hit at least 4.9ghz on all cores.  

[Patrick Derbidge]

3 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

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

Actually, go look at the DAWbench results. That's another place you'll see a 3950 beat the 9900k so I assume the same would be true of a 3970x and it's not just the multithreading that's creating those results. 

Edit: It's actually the 3900x, not the 3950x. The 3950x had not yet been released. The 3900x beat the 9900k in both the DSP Vi tests.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Patrick Derbidge

[Jim Roseberry]

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.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Jim Roseberry

[Patrick Derbidge]

7 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

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

Ok, but the point was at clock for clock speed AMD is pulling ahead. Imagine what they could do if they can get to the point of matching Intel's high clock speed.

7 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

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

True and that's really cool but some people are nervous about doing this and run their systems at stock speeds. In that case I'd say AMD has a real value prop. I think the 3600 is a price per performance that's hard to beat. Once you start looking at the 3700x and up then depending on your mobo choice it's a tougher choice and a 9900k is enough in the ballpark price wise to consider.  

 

7 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

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.

I don't have a 3970x and haven't read much about it but I do know that with a 3700x you can get 4.2ghz on all cores stable with vcore between 1.35v and 1.4v depending on your chip and cooling situation. 1.4 seems high and there's been a lot of debate about this but it seems they are designed to handle such high voltages.

7 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

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

True but high clock speeds is not the whole story and neither is core count. What AMD has been able to do with their Performance Boost technology is eek out maximum cpu performance through boosting and throttling the cpu core speeds in conjunction with utilizing the infinity fabric for communication between cores to get impressive results. Intel's speedboost, for example, doesn't come close to way AMD's Performance Boost technology works. The downside to this was at first launch people's cpu coolers were spinning up and down like crazy which didn't make for a quiet system. A bios update released within a month or two after launch took care of this.

7 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

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

Of course not. You seem to be fixated on clock speed but that's missing the point of what Ryzen3 is all about.  There are other performance benefits as I explained with Performance Boost, not to be confused with Performance Boost Overdrive. 

 

7 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

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

 

I don't know much about the 3970x but my 3700x runs quieter than my i7. That's mainly due to a better case, cpu cooler (air cooler) etc...

7 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

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. 

Your own tests is the only one that matters because that's real world scenario for you. I don't have a 9900k to test against my 3700x but I already know that it will beat it but we're talking beating it in terms of milliseconds. In the real world you'd hardly notice.

 I will say that you might not have won the silicon lottery with your 3970x.  The issue I have with benchmarks is that 90% of them are focused on gaming which is different than audio so I go off of DAWbench benchmarks and according to DAWbench the 3900x beats the 9900k in both DSP and Vi tests. The Vi tests being the most relevant to me because I use Kontakt alot. If cpu performance were my bottleneck in music production then I would have gone with a 3900x but I chose to go with a 3700x and spend the difference on SSD's and more memory where I'd see a bigger improvement in audio production.

7 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

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

That's a given with its higher core count and Intel can already do this if they choose to add more cores to their desktop chips. I think the real story is how AMD has been able to compete even though Intel has the advantage of having over 80% of developers optimized for Intel architecture. That's really saying something about the new Ryzen architecture.

For me, the only desktop chip I'd recommend from Intel is the 9900k. For everything else I think the cost per performance currently goes to AMD. This is coming from a long time Intel fan. I haven't owned an AMD since the P4 days til now.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Patrick Derbidge

[Jim Roseberry]

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.

[craigb]

Since all of the above are still in the realm of Unobtanium for me, how many cores do you really need if you don't do video rendering?

 

[Patrick Derbidge]

On 1/1/2020 at 10:45 AM, CosmicDolphin said:

The ID4 is £99 whereas the M2 is £159 here

That makes sense then. It looks like the ID4 and M2 are the same price here in the US.  I think I just like the low latency numbers I'm seeing with the new Motu's and I'm all about low latency when it comes to audio interfaces. ID4 latency got really good after the last driver update though. Before that they weren't that great.

[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).