# XMP Profiling



## mscp (Jan 21, 2020)

Does turning XMP produce positive gains in DAW performance?


----------



## Olfirf (Jan 21, 2020)

How should it? It just is a way of telling the Motherboard, what frequency to run the memory at. For modules without X.M.P you simply set that up in BIOS. There should be no difference in performance between both methods, as long as your BIOS is set up correctly.


----------



## SBK (Jan 21, 2020)

Olfirf said:


> How should it? It just is a way of telling the Motherboard, what frequency to run the memory at. For modules without X.M.P you simply set that up in BIOS. There should be no difference in performance between both methods, as long as your BIOS is set up correctly.


yes, and that is not a way to improve performance? since daw is using ram extensivly?


----------



## SBK (Jan 21, 2020)

if your cpu and ram support it, then it will increase performance.


----------



## mscp (Jan 21, 2020)

SBK said:


> if your cpu and ram support it, then it will increase performance.



But enough to cause more stress to the components?


----------



## SBK (Jan 21, 2020)

Phil81 said:


> But enough to cause more stress to the components?


surely! less lifespan


----------



## strojo (Jan 21, 2020)

Phil81 said:


> But enough to cause more stress to the components?



No. You are telling the RAM to run at it’s designed speed. It’s not going to “burn out” any of your components because of that.


----------



## Olfirf (Jan 22, 2020)

SBK said:


> yes, and that is not a way to improve performance? since daw is using ram extensivly?


No. Why should it improve performance, if both memory sticks run at the same speed? One has 3200MHz, because it supports this speed and the setting is done in BIOS, the other has automatic detection and "tells" the motherboard to run at 3200MHz. Both have the same performance, as long as they run at the same speed.
There might be something I don't know about X.M.P that I don't know, but AFAIK it just tells its speed to the motherboard so that you don't have to set it up manually. If that is all X.M.P does, please explain how that should improve performance. It doesn't make sense.


----------



## Technostica (Jan 22, 2020)

Olfirf said:


> No. Why should it improve performance, if both memory sticks run at the same speed? One has 3200MHz, because it supports this speed and the setting is done in BIOS, the other has automatic detection and "tells" the motherboard to run at 3200MHz. Both have the same performance, as long as they run at the same speed.
> There might be something I don't know about X.M.P that I don't know, but AFAIK it just tells its speed to the motherboard so that you don't have to set it up manually. If that is all X.M.P does, please explain how that should improve performance. It doesn't make sense.


If you install RAM and let the system automatically configure it, then usually it defaults to the highest JEDEC settings that all the components support; the highest common denominator. 
XMP profiles tend to be higher performance than the JEDEC ratings or those that the CPU officially support. 
Therefore to get the most out of the RAM you need to set the higher speed in the BIOS. 
You can do this manually by entering all the values individually or by just enabling XMP; assuming that is supported by the BIOS and RAM. 
Beyond that, you can try and overclock at even faster speeds than the XMP profile. 

The larger the difference between the highest JEDEC ratings and the highest XMP settings then the larger the scope for performance gains. 
Not all software scales well with better RAM.


----------



## shomynik (Jan 22, 2020)

Isn't the sample loading speed bottlenecked by hdd/ssd and not RAM? I always thought there's no benefit of faster RAM for DAW use.


----------



## Olfirf (Jan 22, 2020)

shomynik said:


> Isn't the sample loading speed bottlenecked by hdd/ssd and not RAM? I always thought there's no benefit of faster RAM for DAW use.


It certainly is. But performance is not only limited to sample loading time, but also to how many voices can be played before running into real-time-issues. Memory speed might have an influence there, but all testing I have ever done or results I have seen seem to suggest that it has very little influence.


----------



## shomynik (Jan 22, 2020)

Olfirf said:


> It certainly is. But performance is not only limited to sample loading time, but also to how many voices can be played before running into real-time-issues. Memory speed might have an influence there, but all testing I have ever done or results I have seen seem to suggest that it has very little influence.


Exactly. Voice count-wise there is again another bottleneck being cpu/mobo and not RAM or even SSDs, while, if HDDs are used, a couple of those should be involved dividing the workload.

So if there's no new tests showing it's benefits I wouldn't worry about RAM speeds.


----------



## Olfirf (Jan 22, 2020)

shomynik said:


> Exactly. Voice count-wise there is again another bottleneck being cpu/mobo and not RAM or even SSDs, (...)


Even that is questionable and very complex. Not all processors that are over all faster or have more cores (or even both) are necessarily better at handling real-time audio. It seems like this is a pretty complex equation of all of these parameters in relation to the software. One Cubase update may change the results of any test. Usually, it is not worth spending large amounts on computers. The middle class models always seem to turn out best for what they cost. But this is about to change a little with AMDs new architecture ...


----------



## shomynik (Jan 22, 2020)

Olfirf said:


> Even that is questionable and very complex. Not all processors that are over all faster or have more cores (or even both) are necessarily better at handling real-time audio. It seems like this is a pretty complex equation of all of these parameters in relation to the software. One Cubase update may change the results of any test. Usually, it is not worth spending large amounts on computers. The middle class models always seem to turn out best for what they cost. But this is about to change a little with AMDs new architecture ...


I agree except I'm not sure about high-end CPUs not being worthy - I've seen many intriguing posts as well as seen examples of XEONs doing much better then i7/i9s on high track counts - you can go check it out on Jason Graves' youtube channel. I built his template on 7820x and my cubase asio load is much higher then his on a XEON.


----------



## Olfirf (Jan 22, 2020)

shomynik said:


> I agree except I'm not sure about high-end CPUs not being worthy - I've seen many intriguing posts as well as seen examples of XEONs doing much better then i7/i9s on high track counts - you can go check it out on Jason Graves' youtube channel. I built his template on 7820x and my cubase asio load is much higher then his on a XEON.


I am always interested in finding out more about that, but unfortunately there hardly is any data to prove or falsify that assumption. If anything, there rather is some evidence, that XEONs with the more conservative frequencies compared to top-of-the-line i9s is rather not working well for bringing out more Kontakt voices. That is also what Scan Pro Audio says, and that is why they have no tests with Xeons to directly compare them to i9s. But currently, we have newer chips with higher frequencies and that might change it ...

However, I doubt a Xeon will make sense as a DAW or VEPro machine compared to the latest AMD processors or maybe the the next Generation of Intel i9s! The Price difference is to big and I would assume that for the same core count you will probably get a similar mount of voices.

I know Joason Graves Videos and I love them! But I would not be so sure that his XEONs are the best choice. He is no computer expert and those hardware recommendations were from a professional DAW-builder in the US (he mentions them in one of the videos). These guys are always interested in building Xeon workstations, as the price point of such systems is way higher and therefore their margin as well ...


----------



## shomynik (Jan 22, 2020)

Olfirf said:


> I am always interested in finding out more about that, but unfortunately there hardly is any data to prove or falsify that assumption. If anything, there rather is some evidence, that XEONs with the more conservative frequencies compared to top-of-the-line i9s is rather not working well for bringing out more Kontakt voices. That is also what Scan Pro Audio says, and that is why they have no tests with Xeons to directly compare them to i9s. But currently, we have newer chips with higher frequencies and that might change it ...
> 
> However, I doubt a Xeon will make sense as a DAW or VEPro machine compared to the latest AMD processors or maybe the the next Generation of Intel i9s! The Price difference is to big and I would assume that for the same core count you will probably get a similar mount of voices.
> 
> I know Joason Graves Videos and I love them! But I would not be so sure that his XEONs are the best choice. He is no computer expert and those hardware recommendations were from a professional DAW-builder in the US (he mentions them in one of the videos). These guys are always interested in building Xeon workstations, as the price point of such systems is way higher and therefore their margin as well ...



I agree, there's not enough data to conclude that Xeon is better, I was researching myself when buying a new master. But I haven't come across evidence that is worse either, so ...I'm just sharing my experience as I used Jason's templates that he shared on Patreon and there was a very obvious difference in terms of cubase asio load. So, if I needed more VEP connections activated and more audio returns working real-time (coming from my 2 slaves), I would put my bet on xeon and go for it as there is no other way I can think of stretching my master system's performance except cutting on tracks and audio streams. Price difference is also beside the point as I would simply need a more powerful single system and there is no alternative - it's not like I can run two masters.

If you have any evidence that my impressions are wrong, I would be very thankful to you - you would save me from needless investment.

EDIT: I think Jason bought his systems from VisionDaw. I contacted them last year asking to buy new slave and their recommendation was to go for i7/i9 for that purpose and not Xeon. But for master/daw system I believe is a different story.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 27, 2020)

Good read on Ryzen 3000’s @ 3733MHz with proper UCLK & FCLK settings.
Seems loaded DIMM’s are the way to go too.
I’m thinking Ryzen 4 w/ 64GB’s this Winter....ankyu.
Unless of course Intel has a 10nm 6 Core massive cache increased CPU w/ 4GHz base clock.,,,doubtful at this point.









Ryzen Above: Best Memory Settings for AMD's 3000 CPUs, Tested


Is Ryzen 3000 optimized for DDR4-3200? What if we want more? We examine everything from frequency to rank count to nail down optimal settings.




www.tomshardware.com


----------



## Technostica (Jan 27, 2020)

chimuelo said:


> Seems *loaded *DIMM’s are the way to go too.


What does loaded mean in this context as it's an unfamiliar term?
Do you refer to dual rank per channel?


----------



## mscp (Jan 27, 2020)

I cannot wait when buying 256ram ECC memory becomes a reality for prosumer (i.e: i9) computers.


----------



## Technostica (Jan 27, 2020)

Phil81 said:


> I cannot wait when buying 256ram ECC memory becomes a reality for prosumer (i.e: i9) computers.


Intel only offer ECC support with Xeons these days I believe but AMD will sell you a Threadripper which supports that already.


----------



## mscp (Jan 27, 2020)

Technostica said:


> Intel only offer ECC support with Xeons these days I believe but AMD will sell you a Threadripper which supports that already.



Problem is, regular intel cpu’s audio buffer already kind of sucks to be honest (thanks Windows - in part - for that). I can’t write music with AMD. The latency would be helluva annoying.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 27, 2020)

Technostica said:


> What does loaded mean in this context as it's an unfamiliar term?
> Do you refer to dual rank per channel?



DIMMs all occupied with DRAM, preferably CAS 14/3600.

Dont personally know folks with 3800X/3950X, etc.
But have a few friends, some with cheapest 3500, then two folks with the 3700X. They love it and say their latency tests show AMD 6/8 Core CPUs are twice as fast as Intel’s or 12/16 Core AMDs.

These are live performance rigs where gobs of plug ins, cathedral reverbs, etc. aren’t needed due to outboard mixing.

They just stream audio not much number crunching, but live rigs work with a score of 60 compared to the 3700X getting 25-30.

Im waiting to see Intel’s counter punch, and then AMD Zen 3 in late 2020.
Hell Im happy using i7 4790k CPU’s.
I should be thrilled with a new set up from either team.


----------

