# Which cpu



## MdeWind (Aug 27, 2019)

Hello all,
I AM building a dawcomputer. I am trying tot decide which processor i should use. I have a x299 motherboard, 64 GB ram, expandaple to 128 GB, graphics card for three monitors; 3 ssd's. 
Now I have to choose cpu. I was recommended i9 9900 x 10 cores. Because this is An expensive cpu, I also thought about the I9 9900k 8 cores. Which one to go for and why. 
Regards, Marco


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Aug 27, 2019)

There is no 9900k 10 core chip at this point.

If you can wait, the best will likely be the 3950x - but also most expensive. Also if you can wait, I bet once that chip is out there’ll be more BIOS and driver work done and maybe more motherboards with fans built in for AMD. In other words, waiting a couple months and I’d recommend an AMD 3800x or 3900x over Intel anything.

If, like me, you need something this week? Well... it depends. 😀 Don't mind a bit more risk/adventure but think things will work out (very likely), go AMD. Low risk tolerance and already familiar with Intel? Go 9900k or maybe 9700k.

Edit: wait - you already bought a new x299? In that case you're locked in with Intel. The more real cores the better, followed by cores plus threads.


----------



## kitekrazy (Aug 27, 2019)

So now you realized Intel is pricey? Set a limit on what you want to pay. More cores are great for video but audio higher clock per core is better. Hopefully Intel doesn't change its platform again where an upgrade requires everything new.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Aug 27, 2019)

9900k is the end of the line as far as I know. The next cpus will also have a new chipset.

More real cores with a higher clock is better than cores with lots of threads. That's a better way to say it.


----------



## MdeWind (Aug 27, 2019)

Thanks for your answers. I did not buy the the motherboard yet. Should have written planning to buy. A 9900x cpu 10 cores does exist has 3,5 GHz with turbo 4,5 GHz. The 9900k cpu 8 cores. 3,6 GHz with turbo 5 GHz. The reason for choosing intel was stories about compatibility problems between amd and some daws. I don' t know if this is a fable. And i chose Intel because if i understood correctly. Intel can use thunderbolt 3, Amd not.


----------



## pderbidge (Aug 28, 2019)

A 9900x would outperform a lot of cpu's except for the AMD 3900x which is a lot cheaper than a 9900x. The 3900x will fit into x570 motherboards however Asrock is currently the only manufacturer taking advantage of Thunderbolt that AMD recently added support for on their x570 chipset. The good news is that Asrock makes good motherboards. 

The downside to these x570 boards is the fan on the chipset instead of a heatsink. The good news is that the fan on my board is barely audible. The bad news is that it's just one more thing to possibly go wrong. Given we've had fans on graphics cards for decades now with very little issues I think the industry knows how to make these little fans more reliable than ever before. 
Another positive for x570 is the support for pcie4.

I obviously was not afraid to go AMD on my latest build however I would not fault anyone for going with Intel for these reasons:

1. No chipset fan.
2. More motherboard options with Thunderbolt support.
3. A lot of software coded to take advantage of Intel architecture.
4. Intel is a trusted company that makes a great product.

The truth is that AMD has become just as reliable as Intel but only now have they come up with a generation of CPUs that has Intel on the defensive.


----------



## rgames (Aug 28, 2019)

Any Intel chip with at least 6 cores at 4 GHz or greater is perfectly fine for DAW use.

CPU really isn't much of a factor these days. Spend the money on a bunch of SSDs. Those matter vastly more than the differences among the last several generations of CPUs.


----------



## ltmusic (Aug 29, 2019)

rgames said:


> Any Intel chip with at least 6 cores at 4 GHz or greater is perfectly fine for DAW use.
> 
> CPU really isn't much of a factor these days. Spend the money on a bunch of SSDs. Those matter vastly more than the differences among the last several generations of CPUs.



What is the benefit of more cores for a Daw ?


----------



## rgames (Aug 29, 2019)

ltmusic said:


> What is the benefit of more cores for a Daw ?


For music production, I haven't seen any indication of value beyond 6-8 cores. If you're pegging your CPU usage (not ASIO usage) then more might help. But I've not seen that in probably 10 years. For example, I have a benchmark full orchestra Cubase project that I have been using for more than a decade. It ran on a 4-core, 6-core and 10-core at exactly the same minimum latency (~ 3 ms). Anything below that and crackles started to appear. The CPU usages were different, of course, but that doesn't matter if you're not maxing out the CPU.

What I have seen fairly regularly is DAW performance that degrades with dual-CPU setups. They're usually still "good enough" but you can get the same/better performance for a lot less money. What I have also seen is a steep drop in performance when max clock speed gets down to 3 GHz and lower (e.g. on some Xeon chips).

For benchmarks or video rendering, there is value to more cores. But even for video I haven't seen much benefit for anything over 10-12 cores or so. In some cases performance actually gets worse. This behavior has been documented a number of times - take a look at the Peuget Sound benchmarks.

rgames


----------



## ltmusic (Aug 29, 2019)

rgames said:


> For music production, I haven't seen any indication of value beyond 6-8 cores. If you're pegging your CPU usage (not ASIO usage) then more might help. But I've not seen that in probably 10 years. For example, I have a benchmark full orchestra Cubase project that I have been using for more than a decade. It ran on a 4-core, 6-core and 10-core at exactly the same minimum latency (~ 3 ms). Anything below that and crackles started to appear. The CPU usages were different, of course, but that doesn't matter if you're not maxing out the CPU.
> 
> What I have seen fairly regularly is DAW performance that degrades with dual-CPU setups. They're usually still "good enough" but you can get the same/better performance for a lot less money. What I have also seen is a steep drop in performance when max clock speed gets down to 3 GHz and lower (e.g. on some Xeon chips).
> 
> ...




Many thanks!


----------



## MdeWind (Aug 29, 2019)

MdeWind said:


> Thanks for your answers. I did not buy the the motherboard yet. Should have written planning to buy. A 9900x cpu 10 cores does exist has 3,5 GHz with turbo 4,5 GHz. The 9900k cpu 8 cores. 3,6 GHz with turbo 5 GHz. The reason for choosing intel was stories about compatibility problems between amd and some daws. I don' t know if this is a fable. And i chose Intel because if i understood correctly. Intel can use thunderbolt 3, Amd not.





MdeWind said:


> Thanks for your answers. I did not buy the the motherboard yet. Should have written planning to buy. A 9900x cpu 10 cores does exist has 3,5 GHz with turbo 4,5 GHz. The 9900k cpu 8 cores. 3,6 GHz with turbo 5 GHz. The reason for choosing intel was stories about compatibility problems between amd and some daws. I don' t know if this is a fable. And i chose Intel because if i understood correctly. Intel can use thunderbolt 3, Amd not.


R


MdeWind said:


> Thanks for your answers. I did not buy the the motherboard yet. Should have written planning to buy. A 9900x cpu 10 cores does exist has 3,5 GHz with turbo 4,5 GHz. The 9900k cpu 8 cores. 3,6 GHz with turbo 5 GHz. The reason for choosing intel was stories about compatibility problems between amd and some daws. I don' t know if this is a fable. And i chose Intel because if i understood correctly. Intel can use thunderbolt 3, Amd not.


----------



## MdeWind (Aug 29, 2019)

Thanks guys for your help


----------

