Ryzen or Intel? I need a new PC

[bigjoe]

Hello folks,
I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to computer hardware and I need a new workstation for my studio.
My dealer came out with two solutions and i need to choose:

AMD based system

CPU: Ryzen 7 3700x
MoB: MSI MPG x570 gaming plus
GPU: Radeon RX550
SSD: Samsung 970 EVO nvme m.2
RAM: 16x2 Crucial Ballistix Sport AT 3200mhz
PSU: Corsair CX550M

INTEL based system

CPU: i7-8700K
MoB: ASUS Prime z390A
GPU: Radeon RX550
SSD: Samsung 970 EVO nvme m.2
RAM: 16x2 Crucial Ballistix Sport AT (3200mhz)
PSU: Corsair CX550M

What do you think about theese configurations?
What will you choose and why?
What will you change and why?
My budget is around 1200,00 euros (about 1300,00$)

Also i have another question:
The main reason for the Ryzen configuration is because of the 2 extra cores... i have read somewhere that extra cores does not impact Realtime performance while is a good thing for offline processes (such as video/audio/3d rendering.
The main reason i'm skeptical about Ryzen is because i already know that i can't use my UAD PCI-e card on the new machine, which is a bummer, but a lot of people are telling me to go Ryzen...and so i'm asking here too

Thank you in advance

[mschnell]

Just my opinion:

I would not use a laptop. (These are optimizes mainly for long battery live.)
I would not have an internal hard drive but an SSD (preferably m2).
I would use a NAS with mirrored disks via Ethernet cabel for storing any Data I produce.
-Michael

[bigjoe]

Yes, i never used a laptop!
Theese are custom builds! Also i already have External storage ang Backup.
SSD (nvme m2) is just a system disk for operating system and applications and is just what i listed in the two configuration.
I’m a professional since ten years, and used laptops ONLY when touring and recording live shows, never in the studio.
Thank you for your reply but i don’t think you understood what my doubts are

[bigjoe]

I just edited the main post, configuration description was a mess!
I hope is more clear now 😀

[Glennbo]

The things that make me keep looking at the Ryzen 3700X after building nothing but Intel based machines for thirty years are Meltdown, Spoiler, and ZombieLoad which are exploitable vulnerabilities exclusive to Intel.

Add to that Spectre which does affect both AMD and Intel CPUs, then apply the microcode updates and Intel gets a bigger performance hit, since there are more things to patch.

A couple of articles about the vulnerabilities and the fixes.

https://venturebeat.com/2019/05/14/i...formance-hits/

https://www.extremetech.com/computin...wn-mds-patches

[mplay]

If I understand correctly, the latest Intel 9700/9900k does partly address meltdown and Spectre on the hardware level and would have less of an performance impact. What's a big plus for ryzen is that you can upgrade to a 16 core if you need more power down the road. It does seem you need to carefully select a motherboard, many of them have a hard time dealing with the heat of the 12 core already. I'd head over to gearslutz and read ryzen thread there, lot's of information in it.

[blumpy]

The 8700k has a slightly high clock speed but with the 3700x you get 2 more cores/4 more threads.

I'd do the AMD. 4 more threads will make a much bigger difference in processing than the slight clock speed difference.

Why can't you use a UAD PCIe card with Ryzen? This sounds like one dude build a PC and didn't understand how many PCIe lanes worked with his chipset and motherboard and posted it on a forum somewhere not realizing he was the mistake.

The only reason your UAD PCIe card would not work is if there were a driver issue with Ryzen and UAD stopped supporting the card and refused to update drivers

[XITE-1/4LIVE]

The best part of the 3000 series chips is the way the Infinity Fabric DRAM really boosts performance.
Add the extra large cache and you've got a powerful audio workstation.
The CPUs are pretty much as good as they're going to get. More than one reviewer has burned up their Engineering Sample chips by overclocking past 4.27GHz.

Then some reviewers, like ScanAudio are getting great results at 4.3GHz.
But these chips were not designed to be overclocked.
Still a crap shoot getting a good chip where all cores clock more than 3-400 GHz.

I got to use my ZebraHZ test on a 3700X and it handled 4 DIva Filters easily, then max ployphony and sustain PianoTeq, and ran 4 instance of each maxxed out.
A crude test but Single Core performance can be detcted with ZebraHZ since its core locked, and PianoTeq is a good way to check multicore stability.
Stock speeds with stock DRAM was plenty powerful but as a gamer he can call up his gaming profile where the RAM goes to DDR4 3632 C18 and the CPU at 4.1+ GHz.
He claims theres a 15% increase which is substantial but I was fine @ stock speeds.

I know they work great and can chew up everything I threw at them but temperatures flucuate at stock speeds and Im just not sure of the chips durability yet.

I know Intels do what I want and my Rigs are offline so Im not concerned with spectre, etc.
Ive got several different rigs and even the PCs I have online never displayed any performance hits and they're all older i7 4790k workhorses.
Ive got an 8086k that runs @ 4.4GHz, its delidded and high binned, runs cool and is way overkill for my needs.

3700X is nice though, not argument there, but no guarantee yet if it will hold up for years like Intels do.
But thank you if you buy an AMD.
You're helping us out because Intel will drop prices.
Their i9 10000 CPU is so expensive they'll need to drop prices to stay competitive.

[SmajjL]

If both Intel and AMD has broke through the (how much you really need) barrier then maby the choice is simple(r) and AMD is back!(?)

Intel is not such of an "ofc" anymore I feel and they should be wewvy scared.
*me hides*

[blumpy]

agreed with the poster above... I would not manually overclock.

[lb0]

I just built an AMD 3700X based system - and so far I'm hugely impressed. Upgraded from an old i7 2600K - and the difference is night and day - it flies.

I went for a gen3 compatible MSI B450 (Carbon Gaming AC) motherboard - way cheaper than the X570 boards and I didn't require any of the extras you get on the X470/X570 boards. The only requirement was that it had FlashBIOS so I could flash the bios to cope with the 3700X chip before installing the CPU.

3200MHz Vengeance RAM.

I also got a BeQuiet Dark Rock 4 CPU cooler - as the Wraith cooler that comes with the CPU is not considered that great.

Anyway - for me - this was amazing value - and the system runs so quick - and my projects which used to max out my old system - barely touch this one...

[nait]

I used to be really big into AMD, back in the day (that's going pretty far back) - both for CPU and GPU. Then a couple/few years ago, it was time for a PC upgrade. I had been having the odd troubles with my AMD hardware, such as heating issues, and at the time of upgrade, it felt like AMD was lagging behind a bit. So..... I go Intel and NVIDIA - i7-6700k and a GTX 1070ti. Really happy about both right now.. but guess what.. things swing the other way now, and AMD is doing very well again. If I had a do over right now, I'd probably grab an AMD Ryzen CPU.. but I don't think you're going to be unhappy with either choice, to be honest.

The base clock speed difference between the AMD and the Intel is fairly small, but those extra cores/threads on the AMD can make a big difference for anything that takes advantage of the extra cores.

[blumpy]

One advantage of the X570 motherboard and chipset on AMD is thunderbolt. A lot of audio interfaces use thunderbolt for lower latency and there's not a lot of PCIe options out there for audio. Some people are fine with USB too and I've read that the USB C interfaces are much quicker than previous generations.

[bigjoe]

Originally Posted by blumpy

The 8700k has a slightly high clock speed but with the 3700x you get 2 more cores/4 more threads.

I'd do the AMD. 4 more threads will make a much bigger difference in processing than the slight clock speed difference.

Why can't you use a UAD PCIe card with Ryzen? This sounds like one dude build a PC and didn't understand how many PCIe lanes worked with his chipset and motherboard and posted it on a forum somewhere not realizing he was the mistake.

The only reason your UAD PCIe card would not work is if there were a driver issue with Ryzen and UAD stopped supporting the card and refused to update drivers

It’s a known issue, Universal Audio say that on their website

[Billy M]

I just completed a build about a month ago with the Ryzen 3700X and couldn't be happier. It kicks major ass. I was also considering the 8700k but finally decided on the 3700X because of more cores and i got a great deal on it. I don't think you'd go wrong with either one. Both are great CPUs. If you choose Ryzen, i would recommend going with a x570 motherboard for future upgrading.

My build specs post is linked below. I ended up spending about the same amount as you've specified.


https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...9&postcount=55


Good luck!

[bigjoe]

Thanks to everyone, your’re great guys.
I’m really not that great with computers �� you’re helping me a lot!
So i have another question: more cores and threads affects realtime performance in a good way? And are softwares ready to take advantage of this structure?
My actual machine is almost 8 years old (yes, and still works great but it’s limited nowdays).
it’s an i7 3820 3.6 ghz (2012) and i still use it.
I really need something that lasts for another 7 years ��
There’s someone who had success running an UAD pcie card on 570 chipsets? ( i’m still trying �� )

Also: i choose AMD gpu instead of Nvidia because nvidia drivers in some case scenarios cause dpc latency spikes (and my current Quadro 600 does too, but in a limited way after a lot of tweaking).
Is this issue solved? Or it’s better to stick with AMD gpu?

Sorry for this load of questions

[Dr Bob]

I have had my 8700k system for nearly 2 years now. 32gb ram, M2 ssd.

Passive graphics card (not in to gaming etc)

2 * 2 TB WD black hard drives.

Fantastic performance with Reaper.

Now that SSD's are much much cheaper, I would go for a bigger system/programs SSD and another big SSD (or more!) for samples and data - shovelling off crucial data to external disks.

So far so good, and I am very pleased with it - and I do think others here who have gone down this similar route are also very happy.

dB

PS Fast core for realtime rendering (always a good thing) ;lots of cores for multiprocessing of those FX chains across your tracks. Reaper only pushes all my cpu's when doing renders. Otherwise, it just ticks over!

[multibody]

I recently built a 3700X System. While I am very pleased with the mixing performance I found an issue concerning real-time audio:

Using benchmarks I found out that my processor can boost to 4050MHz in multithreaded tasks (all cores) and to 4250MHz in singlecore-tasks with latest abba-bios (obviously no win in the silicon-lottery).

To achieve the best real-time performance I want the processor to boost the cores that process tracks with monitoring enabled to the max when needed.

Unfortunately this does not happen in my configuration (AMD-precision boost activated).

As a simple test I created a project that has only one track. I added Waves-Abbey-Road-Plates-Plugins (cpu-hog) until I got Audio-dropouts. These start to happen with 7-stereo-instances at 64 samples buffer in 44.1 kHz-Mode.

When analyzing the core-clock speed in the the AMD-Ryzen-Master program I can see that the utilized core only runs at 3300MHz at this point.

I have to add at least 3 more plugin-instances (producing constant crackling and dropouts) until one core reaches 4250MHz.

From my current understanding this means that 25% of the real-time processing power is not utilized because the core speed is boosted too late, when dropouts are already happening. That's unsatisfactory.

I tried several buffer-settings in Reaper but I found no way to change this behavior significantly. Do other Ryzen 3000 owner see the same behavior? Did you find a way to change this?

[n997]

Originally Posted by multibody

I tried several buffer-settings in Reaper but I found no way to change this behavior significantly.

Have you checked whether activating "Allow live FX multiprocessing" and setting it to maximum number of cores or threads has any effect? (Preferences > Audio > Buffering > "FXprocessing/multiprocessing settings")

And does realtime performance graph give any hint about the point at which boosting starts? (Performance Meter right-click > "Display realtime (RT) CPU on graph")



I'm not a Ryzen user (yet) but generally, if I was having same problem, I'd just try to lock the CPU permanently to maximum clockspeed, either in Windows or BIOS settings or both.

Also, very small buffer settings are a case of diminishing returns, sometimes it may not be possible to get rid of dropouts entirely no matter how fast the processor is.

[cremationritual]

Originally Posted by bigjoe

Hello folks,
I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to computer hardware and I need a new workstation for my studio.
My dealer came out with two solutions and i need to choose:

AMD based system

CPU: Ryzen 7 3700x
MoB: MSI MPG x570 gaming plus
GPU: Radeon RX550
SSD: Samsung 970 EVO nvme m.2
RAM: 16x2 Crucial Ballistix Sport AT 3200mhz
PSU: Corsair CX550M

INTEL based system

CPU: i7-8700K
MoB: ASUS Prime z390A
GPU: Radeon RX550
SSD: Samsung 970 EVO nvme m.2
RAM: 16x2 Crucial Ballistix Sport AT (3200mhz)
PSU: Corsair CX550M

What do you think about theese configurations?
What will you choose and why?
What will you change and why?
My budget is around 1200,00 euros (about 1300,00$)

Also i have another question:
The main reason for the Ryzen configuration is because of the 2 extra cores... i have read somewhere that extra cores does not impact Realtime performance while is a good thing for offline processes (such as video/audio/3d rendering.
The main reason i'm skeptical about Ryzen is because i already know that i can't use my UAD PCI-e card on the new machine, which is a bummer, but a lot of people are telling me to go Ryzen...and so i'm asking here too

Thank you in advance

After being strung out on MAC for 13 yrs I finally had enough with that garbage and built my first PC.
Ryzen 7 2700x
two 1tb samsung SSD's and one TB external SSD
Radeon 580 Graphics
32 gig RAM.
It runs circles around any mac you can buy for under $3000
I can have 40 plugins going and not even come close to 40% cpu usage.

[snooks]

AMD is more environmentally friendly, using less power and not forcing swapping motherboards with every meaningful upgrade.

[Glennbo]

I've read that the M.2 NVMe SSDs made for PCI-Express 4.0 show impressive benchmark performance increases, but with real world random access reads are not yet massively faster.

Still, I'm looking at X570 Asus mobos because they will likely improve the random access performance over time, and I want a mobo with the little "gum stick" 4.0 slots.

Anybody here using M.2 NVMe SSDs?

[lunker]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

Anybody here using M.2 NVMe SSDs?

Yes, I put one in for the OS drive of the new DAW PC I built a few months ago.

You are right -- blazingly fast on benchmarks, but I don't think I can really perceive the difference in day-to-day use.

I used SATA3 SSDs for the VST & Sample Library drive and the User Data drive (including Reaper projects), and am quite happy with their performance.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by lunker

Yes, I put one in for the OS drive of the new DAW PC I built a few months ago.

Cool. Did it show up like any other drive for partitioning and formatting, or were there any initial issues getting it recognized? Things like needing to flash the BIOS or anything is what I'm getting at.

You are right -- blazingly fast on benchmarks, but I don't think I can really perceive the difference in day-to-day use.

I used SATA3 SSDs for the VST & Sample Library drive and the User Data drive (including Reaper projects), and am quite happy with their performance.

I expect that we'll see big improvements in NVMe SSDs now that PCIe 4.0 is on X570 motherboards.

Good article here benchmarking PCIe 4.0 and PCIe 3.0 SSDs against each other.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1893...vs-pcie-3-ssd/

[Reason]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

I've read that the M.2 NVMe SSDs made for PCI-Express 4.0 show impressive benchmark performance increases, but with real world random access reads are not yet massively faster.

Still, I'm looking at X570 Asus mobos because they will likely improve the random access performance over time, and I want a mobo with the little "gum stick" 4.0 slots.

Anybody here using M.2 NVMe SSDs?

Went from a 480gb sata3 drive to a 1tb nvme drive a few months ago. From button press to usable desktop went from about 45 seconds to about 33. Didn't do much other testing, since my main priority was capacity and boot time.

Used Clonezilla which has always worked great for me. Did have an issue that required some googling and trying a few things. Don't remember the specifics now although I did post something on another thread here. Got it sorted and all has been well since about May, I think.

[lunker]

Originally Posted by Glennbo

Did it show up like any other drive for partitioning and formatting, or were there any initial issues getting it recognized? Things like needing to flash the BIOS or anything is what I'm getting at.

I installed the NVMe SSD on a Z390 board (which has M.2 slots) with the latest BIOS, and I didn't need to do anything special to make it recognize/format the drive.

There might be extra steps if putting it on an older board that isn't M.2 ready and you need to install it in a PCI slot, but it's a little over my head to know if there would actually be extra steps or not.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by lunker

I installed the NVMe SSD on a Z390 board (which has M.2 slots) with the latest BIOS, and I didn't need to do anything special to make it recognize/format the drive.

There might be extra steps if putting it on an older board that isn't M.2 ready and you need to install it in a PCI slot, but it's a little over my head to know if there would actually be extra steps or not.

Thanks, I kind of figured that if the BIOS was up to date on a newer board then it would appear the same as any other SATA or PATA drive.

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by Reason

Went from a 480gb sata3 drive to a 1tb nvme drive a few months ago. From button press to usable desktop went from about 45 seconds to about 33. Didn't do much other testing, since my main priority was capacity and boot time.

Used Clonezilla which has always worked great for me. Did have an issue that required some googling and trying a few things. Don't remember the specifics now although I did post something on another thread here. Got it sorted and all has been well since about May, I think.

Thanks for that info. Samsung doesn't have any PCIe 4.0 drives out yet but have announced an enterprise drive that can't fail, so the consumer products shouldn't be that far off. I still gotta build a new machine and will use my existing SATA EVOs initially.

[lunker]

Originally Posted by Reason

Went from a 480gb sata3 drive to a 1tb nvme drive a few months ago. From button press to usable desktop went from about 45 seconds to about 33.

Yeah, me too. I forget the exact number, but from press the "On" button to being able to start Reaper is somewhere around 20-30 seconds.

EDIT: OK, so I got home, and timed it. By a freaky (I think) coincidence, I also got 33 seconds.