# AMD Threadripper or Intel i9?



## Paul T McGraw (Jan 10, 2019)

I am in the process of building a new PC for music. I am considering the new I9 9900k or perhaps the AMD Threadripper 2950? The biggest question in my mind is RAM. I think 64gb is more than enough RAM right now. But will it be enough in 3 or 4 years? I would like this system to last 5 to 8 years, so I like the idea of being able to increase RAM to 128gb if I ever need it. 

Also, the Threadripper 2950 has more cores and threads 16 and 32 respectively. Will that be a big help when using a DAW? I don't know.

So, what to do, Intel or AMD?


----------



## Sami (Jan 10, 2019)

9900k, no discussion about it. Can take 128 GB (don't let anyone tell you otherwise). Also: 5 to 8 years? Are you kidding?

http://www.scanproaudio.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Dawbench-Vi-Test-Chart.jpg


----------



## Tim_Wells (Jan 10, 2019)

Sami said:


> 5 to 8 years? Are you kidding?



Why not? My i7-2600K is well over 7 years old and going strong.


----------



## whiskers (Jan 10, 2019)

Sami said:


> Also: 5 to 8 years? Are you kidding?


that's not at all unreasonable. That being said newer softwares' requirements may dictate a sooner upgrade; it's really hard to predict what will be required of newer software as far as resource needs. But 5-8 years doesn't seem _too_ unreasonable for a CPU. My processor is almost 5 years old and is still going strong. Granted, I'll probably upgrade this or next year, but still.


----------



## Sami (Jan 10, 2019)

I would be upgrading every 3 months if I could be bothered :D


----------



## kitekrazy (Jan 10, 2019)

Paul T McGraw said:


> I am in the process of building a new PC for music. I am considering the new I9 9900k or perhaps the AMD Threadripper 2950? The biggest question in my mind is RAM. I think 64gb is more than enough RAM right now. But will it be enough in 3 or 4 years? I would like this system to last 5 to 8 years, so I like the idea of being able to increase RAM to 128gb if I ever need it.
> 
> Also, the Threadripper 2950 has more cores and threads 16 and 32 respectively. Will that be a big help when using a DAW? I don't know.
> 
> So, what to do, Intel or AMD?



This was brought up on another forum and a DAW builder recommends Intel. AMD would be a better choice if you are a video person. Also using AMD eliminates the possibility of using Thunderbolt. Not all software is capable of using a lot of threads.


----------



## kitekrazy (Jan 10, 2019)

Sami said:


> 9900k, no discussion about it. Can take 128 GB (don't let anyone tell you otherwise). Also: *5 to 8 years?* Are you kidding?
> 
> http://www.scanproaudio.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Dawbench-Vi-Test-Chart.jpg



There are some on this forum getting that out of their Mac 6 boxes.


----------



## tack (Jan 10, 2019)

If you're ok with higher ASIO buffers (preferably 256 minimum, ideally 512) the 2950X would make a fine choice. If low latency is important, Intel is still king.

I moved from an 8700k at 4.8GHz to a stock 2950X and the tradeoffs were in line with my expectations.






To be clear, the 9900k would make a fine choice too. 

The 2950X would squeeze out more VI voices, but single core constrained tasks like recording and certain synths will still do much better with the 9900k. All depends on what aspects are most important to your work.


----------



## Damarus (Jan 12, 2019)

tack said:


> If you're ok with higher ASIO buffers (preferably 256 minimum, ideally 512) the 2950X would make a fine choice. If low latency is important, Intel is still king.
> 
> I moved from an 8700k at 4.8GHz to a stock 2950X and the tradeoffs were in line with my expectations.
> 
> ...



This looks pretty misleading. Most of those tests are irrelevant for real world DAW performance, which historically has shown us that higher clock speeds are better for overall performance (ideally a good mix between multi-core and single core, favoring single core).

If you look at a 2950x and a 9900k or even the 8700k in per-core performance, the 2950x is much further behind. Not to mention the Intel can overclock far better.

The 2950x is made for applications that can utilize as many cores as you can give it (rendering and other modeling applications).


----------



## tack (Jan 12, 2019)

Damarus said:


> This looks pretty misleading. Most of those tests are irrelevant for real world DAW performance, which historically has shown us that higher clock speeds are better for overall performance (ideally a good mix between multi-core and single core, favoring single core).


I did those benchmarks for the things that were important for me. For DAW use, look at the Reaper tests only. I assumed this would be obvious to readers here?



Damarus said:


> If you look at a 2950x and a 9900k or even the 8700k in per-core performance, the 2950x is much further behind. Not to mention the Intel can overclock far better.


Whether this is the most important consideration depends: do you want to maximize VI voice count? Or do you want the lowest possible latency for live recording, or use demanding single-threaded synths?

This is the point, isn't it. You can't generalize, it comes down to specific priorities. The 2950X has lower single core performance, yes, but it's absolutely not further behind when it comes to voice counts on large projects. Whether or not that's important to you is another matter.


----------



## steveo42 (Jan 12, 2019)

Intel, Intel and Intel.... I've been building my own PC since the early 80's where my first IBM PC was assembled on a piece of plywood due to no aftermarket cases being available yet.... I've lived through AMD, Cyrix and so forth and over the years Intel has always been the best overall. The software manufacturers write code for Intel.
For a general purpose computer, yea AMD might be a better value, but for a DAW, I would go near AMD. It's simply not worth the minor cost savings for me.


----------



## markleake (Jan 12, 2019)

The traditional pick is Intel, if your ONLY need is music work. Especially because of Intel's better single core performance. But like @tack says, that may not be the most important factor, as even though the AMD single cores are slower, overall the AMD CPU is more powerful at the same price point. AMD is competing better with Intel now, and the larger multi-core chips are becoming the norm (even for Intel), so the software writers will continue to move to better multi-core performance, even if it takes them several years. Looking ahead it's pretty clear that single core performance will continue to become less of a factor.

Besides, AMD just announced their new Zen 2 CPU lineups, and they look fantastic (on paper).

Anyone building a new PC should wait for mid-year when AMD releases these, and then either take advantage of better deals on the now older chips, or get the newly released AMD chips. Single core speed seems as though it will be similar or better (!) compared to Intel with the new chips (again, on paper, real performance comparisons will need to wait).

The important thing to make sure of is your motherboard and CPU both support 128 GB of RAM.


----------



## Pictus (Jan 17, 2019)

The AMD does not do well for Kontakt workloads :(
http://www.scanproaudio.info/2018/0...bench-just-a-little-bit-of-history-repeating/
Maybe the next generation ZEN 2
https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-3000-zen-2-desktop-am4-processors-launching-mid-2019/


DAW Bench VI = Kontakt
https://techreport.com/review/34192/intel-core-i9-9900k-cpu-reviewed/6


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 18, 2019)

How could you get 128gb ram with a 9900k?


----------



## whiskers (Jan 18, 2019)

jamwerks said:


> How could you get 128gb ram with a 9900k?


x4 32gb sticks


----------



## OleJoergensen (Jan 18, 2019)

4 years ago I bought an Intel i7 5820K Haswell 3.3 Ghz 6 cores 12 threads, 64 GB Ram, 4 SSD (one of them pci). Every time I use it Im amazed how powerful it is. It is only used for sample streaming.

At the moment, a part of a composition, it handels:
7 woodwinds 2 mics (OT)
10 Brass 2 mics (OT)
5 Strings 3 mics (SSS)
4 Strings 4 mics (SSS)
Timpani 2 mics (OT)
3 x perc 3 mics (Hollywood)
and the Cpu doesn’t reach 50 %!

If you use serveral mic positions, 64 GB Ram is fast used.....


----------



## JohnG (Jan 18, 2019)

OleJoergensen said:


> It is only used for sample streaming



Sounds great.

What is your buffer setting?


----------



## OleJoergensen (Jan 18, 2019)

JohnG said:


> Sounds great.
> 
> What is your buffer setting?


At the moment it is 256 but tomorrow I will try 128.


----------



## tack (Jan 18, 2019)

Pictus said:


> The AMD does not do well for Kontakt workloads :(


At lower buffers. At 512 the 2950X comfortably slaughtered my 8700k.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 18, 2019)

quite interesting. I'm focused on lowering buffers this month. Next month, maybe fixing Brexit or something easy.


----------



## OleJoergensen (Jan 19, 2019)

JohnG said:


> Sounds great.
> 
> What is your buffer setting?


I tried 128 buffer on my Mac Pro ( 4 core, 3.7 Ghz)
-Playback works fine. Cpu on PC reaching 56% at max. Few times, max spikes on few cores on the Mac Pro.
-Surprisingly recording a new track while the template plays back, works fine.
-I had to reduce the 4 Strings instruments from 4 to 3 mics due to disk streaming overload at the climate on the composition (quite annoying half of the strings players suddenly goes for coffee brack), which I dont understand. Is 5 string instruments x 3 mics + 4 string instruments x 4 mic with Spitfire symphonic string Performance Legato to much for a Pci ssd (1700 Mb/s)?


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Jan 19, 2019)

whiskers said:


> x4 32gb sticks


I did not know the 9900K chips will support 128GB of RAM
All the boards i have found only do 64GB

But I also have a slave machine when it's Cubase that would be my 12-Core 2012 64GB MP
When I am running Logic Pro X the slave is my i7-4770K 2011 32GB PC

I am likely looking at i9 9900K, ASUS Maximus VI Formula, 32GB (for now) Corsair LPX RAM and a 512GB NVMe 970 Pro PCIe SSD
Already got the cooler, PSU, drives and the Case


----------



## JohnG (Jan 19, 2019)

Shad0wLandsUK said:


> 32Gb (for now)



Your system looks very impressive!

If you're planning to spend that much on a system I wouldn't settle for any less than 64GB.


----------



## whiskers (Jan 19, 2019)

Shad0wLandsUK said:


> I did not know the 9900K chips will support 128GB of RAM
> All the boards i have found only do 64GB
> 
> But I also have a slave machine when it's Cubase that would be my 12-Core 2012 64GB MP
> ...


What case did you get? I'm casually looking at the moment


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Jan 20, 2019)

JohnG said:


> Your system looks very impressive!
> 
> If you're planning to spend that much on a system I wouldn't settle for any less than 64GB.


Thanks man.

Yeah, I will be using it for work running Virtual machines and likely testing ESXi too. So will be good to see what you can get out of these new chips.

A friend of mine who is an IT Contractor just built an AMD Threadripper rig and so I was looking at that, but oddly came here to see that Intel is still what DAWs are optimised for.

Which makes sense. Apple use Intel only, so macOS DAWs will be optimised for Intel there too. From the little I understand about coding and development that is.

The reason for only 32GB right now is the insane RAM prices, which are rumoured to drop in a few months.
I was going to get 32GB on building it and then 32GB next paycheck


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Jan 20, 2019)

whiskers said:


> What case did you get? I'm casually looking at the moment


I have a Fractal Design Define R5 Blackout Edition. Then the R6 released only a couple of weeks later 

So I would recommend that or an NZXT case. Personally my R5 is whisper quiet like my FD R4 Black Pearl was though


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 20, 2019)

Shad0wLandsUK said:


> The reason for only 32GB right now is the insane RAM prices, which are rumoured to drop in a few months.


Wouldn't that be great!


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Jan 20, 2019)

jamwerks said:


> Wouldn't that be great!


Like Christmas 2019 in January!!


----------



## tack (Jan 20, 2019)

Shad0wLandsUK said:


> Intel is still what DAWs are optimised for


It might be less that DAWs are specifically optimizing for Intel, but more that:

Single core performance is a significant factor for low-latency realtime performance and at the moment Intel still has a handy lead on AMD in that department.
The majority of desktop software just weren't prepared for the sudden leap in core counts that occurred since Ryzen entered the market (and we can all thank AMD for forcing Intel's hand with some healthy competition).
This is equally true for Windows itself whose scheduler couldn't cope well enough with asymmetric NUMA architectures (which was especially problematic with AMD's 24- and 32-core Threadrippers). Meanwhile the symmetric architecture of Intel's higher core count processors worked better on Windows.

My 2950X vastly outperformed my 8700K on Kontakt voice count across many tracks, but by pretty much every other measurement the 8700K was better for DAW use. (That's not to say the 2950X was bad -- it was good enough for me that I still switched over to it.)

These are actually really exciting times for PC enthusiasts. Finally we're seeing some competition in the market, and AMD is continuing to push things forward to try to close some of those gaps with Intel. AMD is in the process of lapping Intel on fabrication (they've moved to 7nm for this year's products, while Intel will mostly still be releasing 14nm chips this year and we aren't expected to see products using their 10nm process until later in the year) which will bring higher clock speeds and/or lower power consumption (with the trade-off between those factors varying by SKU); operating systems will improve their schedulers to work better with asymmetric NUMA; application developers will enable their software to work better with drastically higher core counts.

I'm really interested to see what these kinds of conversations here look like later in 2020.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 20, 2019)

tack said:


> My 2950X vastly outperformed my 8700K on Kontakt voice count across many tracks, but by pretty much every other measurement the 8700K was better for DAW use



Interesting, tack. In what way did the AMD machine outperform? More voices, but higher latency? That's what I think I keep reading.

John


----------



## tack (Jan 20, 2019)

JohnG said:


> Interesting, tack. In what way did the AMD machine outperform? More voices, but higher latency? That's what I think I keep reading.


It's encapsulated on the chart in this post, but that's the crux of it: at an ASIO buffer of 512 (what I normally keep my DAW at), DAWBench VI's results are significantly higher on the 2950X. I didn't properly test all buffer sizes (since my benchmarking was for my own decision-making purposes between the two platforms and 512 is what I run at), but in casual fiddling with DAWbench VI the performance drop-off slope of lower buffer sizes was much steeper with the 2950X than with the 8700K. I'm afraid I don't have proper data with that so those are really just informal observations. 

But it does at least make sense: as buffer size lowers, we become increasingly reliant on faster single core performance to keep those buffers full at all times.


----------



## kitekrazy (Jan 20, 2019)

Shad0wLandsUK said:


> Like Christmas 2019 in January!!



Still waiting for the graphic cards for gaming to come down to what they were before. I'll hang out with Charlie Brown in the pumpkin patch.


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Jan 20, 2019)

kitekrazy said:


> Still waiting for the graphic cards for gaming to come down to what they were before. I'll hang out with Charlie Brown in the pumpkin patch.


For GPU I was looking at the Sapphire AMD Radeon 580 Nitro+ about £190

I was told a while ago by someone who worked with AMD in the past and is a long-time Apple user. That the Reference designer for AMD are Sapphire and so they should ahve the closest to the original design of the card!

Currently have a Sapphire 7950 Mac in the Pro and it is nice and quiet


----------



## BradHoyt (Feb 10, 2019)

I'm curious to know what the performance of the new AMD Threadripper 2970WX 24 Core processor is like with a heavy Kontakt load. A 512k buffer doesn't bother me. This machine I'd build would be mainly for virtual instruments. (I have a separate rig for audio recording) Any thoughts are appreciated!


----------



## kitekrazy (Feb 11, 2019)

BradHoyt said:


> I'm curious to know what the performance of the new AMD Threadripper 2970WX 24 Core processor is like with a heavy Kontakt load. A 512k buffer doesn't bother me. This machine I'd build would be mainly for virtual instruments. (I have a separate rig for audio recording) Any thoughts are appreciated!



That would be killer for video. I hope AMD keeps getting better since I still think Intel is pricey. Rumor has it Apple may be doing their own processor instead of Intel.


----------



## synergy543 (Feb 11, 2019)

Paul, I hope both you and the new build are doing well. It would be great to hear how its going and what you settled on. Or what you're still deciding on. Whatever you decide, it sounds like you'll have quite a beast in the end!


----------



## JohnG (Feb 12, 2019)

I don't know if AMD is superior or not. I went for two i9-9900k CPUs in slave PCs and was able to drop my buffer from 512 to 128 on one. The strings still between 128 and 256, depending on whether there's a lot of Spitfire's more heavily scripted strings (i.e. "performance legato"). 

Those patches are great but demanding. Like children, or high-strung dogs.


----------



## Manaberry (Feb 22, 2019)

I'm waiting for the 3rd gen of Threadripper. It seems it will blast away actual Intel's CPU. Intel is stuck making their 10nm process while AMD already got the 7nm process in the pipeline on their GPU and now their CPU.

Next AMD TR should be way more powerful, better TDP, with unbeatable price per core.

I've been using Intel for almost 15 years now, but it might go for AMD this year :D


----------



## Ben (Feb 22, 2019)

Manaberry said:


> Intel is stuck making their 10nm process while AMD already got the 7nm process in the pipeline on their GPU and now their CPU.


That's not accurate. You can't compare these numbers because they are not representing the same and pure marketing driven naming. Intel's 10nm process is comparable to AMD's / TSMC's 7nm process. Intel's 10nm should be slightly higher clockable and the used architecture will have at least the same IPC as AMD's 7nm (IPC -> Instructions per Cycle; the reason why a Intel 3GHz CPU is still faster in single core performance than one from AMD).

I am really intersted to see whats AMD coming up with. It is good for a healthy market and will push innovations. But I would not go so far to say "it will blast away actual Intel's CPU".
We have to wait until they are out and someone benchmarks them.


----------



## Manaberry (Feb 22, 2019)

Ben said:


> That's not accurate. You can't compare these numbers because they are not representing the same and pure marketing driven naming. Intel's 10nm process is comparable to AMD's / TSMC's 7nm process. Intel's 10nm should be slightly higher clockable and the used architecture will have at least the same IPC as AMD's 7nm (IPC -> Instructions per Cycle; the reason why a Intel 3GHz CPU is still faster in single core performance than one from AMD).
> 
> I am really intersted to see whats AMD coming up with. It is good for a healthy market and will push innovations. But I would not go so far to say "it will blast away actual Intel's CPU".
> We have to wait until they are out and someone benchmarks them.



I do agree with you. I've been talking a bit too fast. Let's wait for AMD to release the 3rd gen first as you mentioned, and a tier to try it out.

I just hope AMD will release something that will kill Intel's prices. I want a fair match between the two manufacturers.

EDIT: I expect a CPU with competitive TDP, good frequency and high number of cores for a fair price. A CPU that last for years. And not for $2500.


----------



## Pudge (Feb 23, 2019)

Intel = lower buffer low latency recording / better single core / pricey / thunderbolt / better for audio. Period. 

AMD = medium buffer acceptable latency recording / slower single core / cheaper / no thunderbolt / better for Productivity tasks (3d rendering, video encoding)


----------



## Manaberry (Mar 4, 2019)

It's rumors but here is some news: https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-3000-cpu-specs-prices-online-retailer-ryzen-9-3850x-leak/

Time will give us an answer.


----------



## Damarus (Mar 6, 2019)

Manaberry said:


> It's rumors but here is some news: https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-3000-cpu-specs-prices-online-retailer-ryzen-9-3850x-leak/
> 
> Time will give us an answer.



Even though I've always preferred Intel, I'm hoping this is not all talk from AMD. I'd love to see them really close the gap with Intel on this one.


----------



## Damarus (Mar 6, 2019)

Pudge said:


> Intel = lower buffer low latency recording / better single core / pricey / thunderbolt / better for audio. Period.
> 
> AMD = medium buffer acceptable latency recording / slower single core / cheaper / no thunderbolt / better for Productivity tasks (3d rendering, video encoding)



This.

USB4 is on the horizon, but Thunderbolt will still be king for a while.


----------



## Ben (Mar 6, 2019)

Damarus said:


> This.
> 
> USB4 is on the horizon, but Thunderbolt will still be king for a while.


Nice to have, but for audio USB 3 and even USB 2 is good enough. Mass-storage is another thing. Let's see what latency USB4 drives will have.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 6, 2019)

AMDs wouldn’t be as good as Intel at the moment.

But their 3000 Series Matisse CPUs from CES were impressive.
They tied the 8 core Intel in MultiThread Cinebench, and at 35 watts less.
Their new cores @ 7nm are a success, but when there’s no single Core testing it makes me curious as they’re well aware that Intel is single core king.

Intel octa cores will definitely drop prices once July rolls around and the new AMDs hit the shelves.


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Mar 6, 2019)

SOme interesting changes could be coming soon though. As there are patches coming that improve the performance hits to systems that Spectre caused. Though MS so far are only rolling it for 1809 and Upwards currently.

Also as the for single-core King. I have been keeping up with Level1 Techs and he and a Sys Internals guy have found that NUMA plays a large part in the performance hit for AMD, multi-core and single-core. So it could be that this changes the game again as kernel improvements come out over time.


----------



## mixtur (Apr 23, 2019)

To follow up to on this, thread-ripper appears to have issues with DPC spikes which causes dropouts and glitches with lower buffer settings. I’ve read several threads about this on other forums using tests with the dpclatency checker tool (https://www.thesycon.de/eng/latency_check.shtml).

I haven’t tested myself but this might be something to investigate if you’re planning to go AMD.

Likewise, NVIDIA cards (or rather their drivers) tend to have the same issue, while AMD seem to be a better choice if you really need a discrete video card at all


----------



## shomynik (Apr 23, 2019)

jamwerks said:


> Wouldn't that be great!





Shad0wLandsUK said:


> Like Christmas 2019 in January!!


I thought they're down. I recently picked up 64gb for around 300eur.

EDIT: Well they are... I paid 650e for the same capacity a year ago.

https://www.mindfactory.de/Hardware/Arbeitsspeicher+(RAM)/DDR4+Module.html/31/1158/listing_sort/6


----------



## Pictus (Apr 23, 2019)

mixtur said:


> To follow up to on this, thread-ripper appears to have issues with DPC spikes which causes dropouts and glitches with lower buffer settings. I’ve read several threads about this on other forums using tests with the dpclatency checker tool (https://www.thesycon.de/eng/latency_check.shtml).
> 
> I haven’t tested myself but this might be something to investigate if you’re planning to go AMD.
> 
> Likewise, NVIDIA cards (or rather their drivers) tend to have the same issue, while AMD seem to be a better choice if you really need a discrete video card at all



dpclatency does not work for Windows 10, but this works https://www.resplendence.com/latencymon

BTW, I hope the new AMDs spanks Intel https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-ryzen-3000-release-date-price-specs-and-everything-we-know/


----------

