# Ryzen 5950X Kontakt Performance



## clonewar (Apr 10, 2021)

I need a new primary system and am deciding between a 5950X or 10980XE based build. I'll be running a disabled template (or preset based workflow, I've been using S1 more lately) so 128 GB should be enough with the 5950X. 

Has anyone been using a 5950X based system 'in anger' with a large number of Kontakt instances? I know that it's a very impressive CPU, but am trying to get a feel for what to expect specifically with Kontakt and VI based projects.

BTW, very low latency performance isn't my main interest, I usually use a 256 sample buffer. 

Thanks!
Mike


----------



## easyrider (Apr 10, 2021)

5950x here and studio one best cpu I have ever owned...it’s a brilliant cpu you will not be disappointed.


----------



## clonewar (Apr 10, 2021)

easyrider said:


> 5950x here and studio one best cpu I have ever owned...it’s a brilliant cpu you will not be disappointed.


Thanks for the feedback. Can I ask how large your projects typically are? And what DAW(s) are you using?


----------



## Sample Fuel (Apr 11, 2021)

My experience has been disappointing with Kontakt.. Polyphony is quite a bit less than my much older 5960x. It is great with Cubase and some other synth instruments. I Kontakt is poorly optimized for the 5950x.


----------



## tack (Apr 11, 2021)

Sample Fuel said:


> much older 5960x





Sample Fuel said:


> the 5950x


Intel and AMD don't make this easy for us, do they.


----------



## clonewar (Apr 11, 2021)

Sample Fuel said:


> My experience has been disappointing with Kontakt.. Polyphony is quite a bit less than my much older 5960x. It is great with Cubase and some other synth instruments. I Kontakt is poorly optimized for the 5950x.


Do you mean the 3960X? This is my concern with the 5950X, it's a monster CPU, but Kontakt (and maybe other sample players? VSL VI Pro and Synchron, SINE, etc) might be better optimized for Intel CPUs, at least for now. It's the reason that I'm considering a 10980XE build instead, which would be OC'd to probably 4.3 ghz.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 11, 2021)

clonewar said:


> Do you mean the 3960X? This is my concern with the 5950X, it's a monster CPU, but Kontakt (and maybe other sample players? VSL VI Pro and Synchron, SINE, etc) might be better optimized for Intel CPUs, at least for now. It's the reason that I'm considering a 10980XE build instead, which would be OC'd to probably 4.3 ghz.


Is this something you have made up in your head?


----------



## clonewar (Apr 11, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Is this something you have made up in your head?


Maybe, but it’s based on previous experience with AMD builds and tests of older generation Ryzens. @Sample Fuel seems disappointed in his 5950X compared to his older system. Can you share some info about the project sizes and types that you’re running on yours?


----------



## Sample Fuel (Apr 11, 2021)

Old system is I7-5960x with 128 GB RAM. Huge templates didn't perform as well on the 5950x. Doing just a blank simple template with duplicating a simple Kontakt 6 instrument gave me results that couldn't even come close to the ancient Intel processor. Other instruments showed the AMD was better but not Kontakt unfortunately. I built 4 of the 5950x machines and they work great with huge power gains vs my older 9900k with Cubase. I gave up with Kontakt and just assume it is not optimized for AMD compared Intel. If you don't have a system to compare it to you will probably think it is performing well.


----------



## clonewar (Apr 11, 2021)

Sample Fuel said:


> Old system is I7-5960x with 128 GB RAM. Huge templates didn't perform as well on the 5950x. Doing just a blank simple template with duplicating a simple Kontakt 6 instrument gave me results that couldn't even come close to the ancient Intel processor. Other instruments showed the AMD was better but not Kontakt unfortunately. I built 4 of the 5950x machines and they work great with huge power gains vs my older 9900k with Cubase. I gave up with Kontakt and just assume it is not optimized for AMD compared Intel. If you don't have a system to compare it to you will probably think it is performing well.


Ah that makes sense, I thought you were talking about an AMD proc. @tack is right, they’re not making it easy!

Thanks for sharing you’re experinice, that’s the kind of comparison that I’m looking for.


----------



## colony nofi (Apr 12, 2021)

@Sample Fuel this is really interesting info. Thanks for sharing.
And its a bit of a mine-field trying to figure out where potential bottlenecks lie - and even what part of the system might be holding things back.

I must say I'm slightly surprised that the 5950X is proving problematic, but without knowing more specifics of what you are seeing (ie, some sort of benchmark that we can use to get multiple datapoints) its difficult to dissect what is going on.

I wonder if 2021 isn't the time for someone to design a new set of benchmarks for DAWS. Maybe not as full featured as DAWBench was (is), but also something that is simple enough for folks to use when they build a new system from scratch which can potentially also help identify problems (via finding outlying results!)


----------



## tabulius (Apr 12, 2021)

I appreciate that there is at least some info about these processors. It is nearly impossible to find good daw benchmarks of the "new" Zen 3 processors and the latest releases of CPUs and GPUs are hard to find in stock. I've seen a few "reviews", but most of them have been focusing more on effects and few stock synths, than orchestral VSTs.

I would hope a more detailed specs and test results tho. Just saying "it's a best cpu" or "polyphony is less than..", or "other instrument showed AMD was better" are not very helpful imo without real numbers to compare and what the other system specs and settings are. Better and worse how? By what metrics and how much? "duplicating a simple Kontakt 6 instrument gave me results that couldn't even come close to the ancient Intel processor." I wonder what results? These kinds of tests are frustrating to read, without any numbers or details to compare.

@Sample Fuel I was wondering as you are using Cubase your DAW, and I've read that Cubase drags behind supporting higher thread counts, maybe the performance drop is because of your DAW? Have you tried Vienna Ensemble Pro solution? Or other DAWs? There is a reason why Daw Bench doesn't officially support or recommend Cubase, because there are problems that are not fixed (yet?). I find it very odd that Intel 5960X beats the Zen 3. I also wonder how did you manage to get 128Gb to work, because on the Intel ARK page, it says max support is 64Gb.

I hope to build some kind of a computer upgrade by end of this year. I wish that the stock situation improves and there will be new info about Zen 3 DAW performance, new Zen 3 Threadrippers, and upcoming M1X/M2 Apple Silicon upgrades. I think the years 2021-2022 are really interesting. A lot of interesting stuff is coming, including DDR5.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 13, 2021)

clonewar said:


> Maybe, but it’s based on previous experience with AMD builds and tests of older generation Ryzens. @Sample Fuel seems disappointed in his 5950X compared to his older system. Can you share some info about the project sizes and types that you’re running on yours?


I’ve had zero issues with it. There are many factors to consider....Which Daw, speed of ram, Windows version, Temps, it’s not as simple as that. I don’t just use Kontakt my template has everything in it. I disable tracks that I don’t need and enable tracks I do.

Benchmarks show my 5950x destroy Intel in multi thread workloads.

I can certainly do some testing for you if you like....what do you want me to do? I use studio one pro....

Hard data is key here that is why I haven’t responded to

@Sample Fuel 

“system is I7-5960x with 128 GB RAM. Huge templates didn't perform as well on the 5950x. Doing just a blank simple template with duplicating a simple Kontakt 6 instrument gave me results that couldn't even come close to the ancient Intel processor. Other instruments showed the AMD was better but not Kontakt unfortunately. I built 4 of the 5950x machines and they work great with huge power gains vs my older 9900k with Cubase. I gave up with Kontakt and just assume it is not optimized for AMD compared Intel. If you don't have a system to compare it to you will probably think it is performing well.”

Because it’s bollocks....


----------



## mscp (Apr 13, 2021)

easyrider said:


> 5950x here and studio one best cpu I have ever owned...it’s a brilliant cpu you will not be disappointed.



Do you also run Pro Tools with it?


----------



## Sample Fuel (Apr 13, 2021)

easyrider said:


> I’ve had zero issues with it. There are many factors to consider....Which Daw, speed of ram, Windows version, Temps, it’s not as simple as that. I don’t just use Kontakt my template has everything in it. I disable tracks that I don’t need and enable tracks I do.
> 
> Benchmarks show my 5950x destroy Intel in multi thread workloads.
> 
> ...


Since you are so quick to dismiss the results I have seen with Kontakt specifically, I would be very curious If you have run an "apples" to "apples" test like I have on several different systems to compare the same test like I did. In other words I was able to run a test with Cubase playing a certain amount of tracks hooked up to Kontakt via VE PRO until the Intel crapped out. Then ran the exact same test hooked up to the 5950x and it could not even come close to handling the same amount of instances/tracks. I had to mute many tracks before the crackling/overload would stop on the AMD. Again this seems to be a Kontakt specific issue. 

I posted because I spent a lot of time and money verifying all of this, and I posted to help people out. Your "bollocks" comment just drives people with useful information from not posting.


----------



## Bear Market (Apr 13, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Hard data is key here that is why I haven’t responded to @Sample Fuel



I don't know what meaning of "hard data" you subscribe to, but to me that is exactly what @Sample Fuel provided. Actual empirical comparisons from a real-life use case scenario that is likely to be relevant and interesting for a lot of people on VI-C. 

I agree with @Sample Fuel that dismissing this as "bollocks" while providing no empirical findings that counter the findings presented by him not only comes off as arrogant and dripping of confirmation bias, it also discourages other members to share findings that are likely to be of interest to many others. 

Ok, so you are sceptical towards the findings presented. By all means, express that scepticism in a polite way and provide relevant empirical findings of your own that point in another direction. Dismissing it in an arrogant manner with nothing but a sweeping reference to "benchmarks" doesn't add anything in my humble opinion. What "benchmarks"? If such benchmarks are remotely applicable to the very specific use case discussed in this thread then, by all means, please do share further details.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 13, 2021)

Sample Fuel said:


> Since you are so quick to dismiss the results I have seen with Kontakt specifically, I would be very curious If you have run an "apples" to "apples" test like I have on several different systems to compare the same test like I did. In other words I was able to run a test with Cubase playing a certain amount of tracks hooked up to Kontakt via VE PRO until the Intel crapped out. Then ran the exact same test hooked up to the 5950x and it could not even come close to handling the same amount of instances/tracks. I had to mute many tracks before the crackling/overload would stop on the AMD. Again this seems to be a Kontakt specific issue.
> 
> I posted because I spent a lot of time and money verifying all of this, and I posted to help people out. Your "bollocks" comment just drives people with useful information from not posting.


Please can you clarify how you ran 128gb of ram with a 5960x ?

“64GB

Core i7-*5960X*, the *maximum* physical memory size is 64GB, in other words, it does not support 128 GB system memory, even if your mobo might support even more. Please do not confuse the *maximum* physical memory size with physical addressing space.”


----------



## composingkeys (Apr 13, 2021)

Hey Sample Fuel,

Did you try turning both on or off Kontakt's built in Multiprocessor support inside the plugin in the preferences? I wonder if that would make a difference using it inside of VE PRO especially since AMD has twice as many cores. VE PRO also has its own core management on how many threads are assigned per instance.

Thanks for sharing your findings. I have an Intel 5960x overclocked to 4.2 and was considering the 5950x AMD because of the age of my processor thinking that by now performance must be significant but seeing what you reported specific to Kontakt does make me think it may be wiser to hold off a bit longer for the next CPU and jump on then. Your experience comparing the two certainly helps me as I have the exact intel machine.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 13, 2021)

Bear Market said:


> I don't know what meaning of "hard data" you subscribe to, but to me that is exactly what @Sample Fuel provided. Actual empirical comparisons from a real-life use case scenario that is likely to be relevant and interesting for a lot of people on VI-C.
> 
> I agree with @Sample Fuel that dismissing this as "bollocks" while providing no empirical findings that counter the findings presented by him not only comes off as arrogant and dripping of confirmation bias, it also discourages other members to share findings that are likely to be of interest to many others.
> 
> Ok, so you are sceptical towards the findings presented. By all means, express that scepticism in a polite way and provide relevant empirical findings of your own that point in another direction. Dismissing it in an arrogant manner with nothing but a sweeping reference to "benchmarks" doesn't add anything in my humble opinion. What "benchmarks"? If such benchmarks are remotely applicable to the very specific use case discussed in this thread then, by all means, please do share further details.


Nothing on how many instances...buffer size...windows version....Bios used for 5950x , chipset? Memory speed....

In fact reading his post again...he actually provided us with nothing....

@tabulius raised some points that have clearly been ignored...so it’s not just me...


----------



## easyrider (Apr 13, 2021)

composingkeys said:


> Thanks for sharing your findings. I have an Intel 5960x overclocked to 4.2


Are you running 128gb of ram?


----------



## tabulius (Apr 13, 2021)

No need to get upset here, this is just computer hardware after all. All I would like to see is some numbers and details about these tests. Just telling something is worse or better is a bit vague. It would be more valuable with some more data, that's all.


----------



## composingkeys (Apr 13, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Are you running 128gb of ram?


I have 64gb of ram in my machine.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 13, 2021)

tabulius said:


> No need to get upset here, this is just computer hardware after all. All I would like to see is some numbers and details about these tests. Just telling something is worse or better is a bit vague. It would be more valuable with some more data, that's all.


Agreed....Comparing hardware needs hard data...not opinion....

I want facts not hot air....

My system before my 5950x was a 9900k.....The 5950x eats it for breakfast....

I‘ll quite happily load up Cubase and run multiple instances of Kontakt and compare with @Sample Fuel


----------



## easyrider (Apr 13, 2021)

He’s basically saying a 3.5ghz 22nm 8 core 16 thread part Beats out a 7nm 16 core 32 thread part...with 3200mhz ram...

The 5950x beats the 10980XE in countless production workload scenarios...


----------



## easyrider (Apr 13, 2021)

composingkeys said:


> I have 64gb of ram in my machine.


That because the cpu does not support any more...but @Sample Fuel does....lol


----------



## mscp (Apr 13, 2021)

easyrider said:


> He’s basically saying a 3.5ghz 22nm 8 core 16 thread part Beats out a 7nm 16 core 32 thread part...with 3200mhz ram...
> 
> The 5950x beats the 10980XE in countless production workload scenarios...


Do you run PT with it? I'm curious because I want to change it but not unless it can handle PT since I submit work to dub stages. I'd love to get a faster machine.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 13, 2021)

Phil81 said:


> Do you run PT with it? I'm curious because I want to change it but not unless it can handle PT since I submit work to dub stages. I'd love to get a faster machine.


I’m on studio one mate...

So pro tools would be fine...


----------



## colony nofi (Apr 13, 2021)

tabulius said:


> No need to get upset here, this is just computer hardware after all. All I would like to see is some numbers and details about these tests. Just telling something is worse or better is a bit vague. It would be more valuable with some more data, that's all.


And all this is REALLY difficult to do. Comparing two different machines (when workflows also are different) for DAWs is hard.

Like - full time job hard. We have people's exeriences, but no real way of knowing if it is the hardware platform, other setup issues, or specific workflows that show the results they do.

I have some ideas for a new 2021 benchmark suite, but its going to take a tonne of work. I'm going to beaver away on it in spare time in the background, and hopefully when the time comes I'll have at least the basics in place so others can help with putting it all together.

My very rough idea is to make a benchmark that is exactly the same for all machines - and takes a users DAW out of the equation. We then do a second specific DAW test (potentially there are different tests for each DAW depending on some broad brushstroke workflows), and relate that to the results of the initial benchmark.

I'm researching the different software that can be used. It has to be free / demo license (at the least) and if we want loads of people to use it, it would be good to be able to distribute the installers with the test (rather than asking people to download a bunch of things). Later, a Kontakt test will require people to have Kontakt (full) - but I'm hoping to be able to do a bunch of tests using Decent Sampler vs Kontakt so the results of a Decent Sampler benchmark would at least relate in someway to Kontakt. Not sure if that's possible or not.

I realise this is a little off topic, but it relates in as much as just talking about "this machine doesn't work well for me" vs "this machine is awesome" from different people - both who have done their own tests - really doesn't help folk. 

I personally have seen some pretty awesome results with a 5600X (far below what is possible on at 5950X) - but only mucked around for a few hours, which is no where near enough time to figure out what is going on. We also have an M1 Mini here to test - something I'm really keen to get into.


----------



## tabulius (Apr 13, 2021)

Yeah, I'm aware it is easier said than done. I have a huge respect to Gamer's Nexus reviews and alike that try to have the best and reliable benchmarks. But I'm completely fine to get even some kind of a music/audio related tests, even if they are not that scientific or apples to apples. It's great to hear that you @colony nofi have been working to get some kind of unified test setup. I also appreciate the work that Daw Bench is doing. I hope that some of these big tech review sites or Youtube channels would take Daw Bench or other solution on their regular workload tests.


----------



## Solarsentinel (Apr 13, 2021)

Hi,
I think nowadays no need to get worked up with choosing the right CPU. In fact processors are soo powerfull these days, that you can make everything you need with them, with any choice between intel and AMD.
The fact is that you could do these things even before they came out with your last computer. You had already done your work with your old computer, and now you just want to upgrade it, but it did the job... So any future hardware will done the job too.
This will just be more confortable and offer you to keep some marging of flexibility.
The only choice remain is about the price, your budget and compatibility with your setup! No need to have headache with benchmarks.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 14, 2021)

@colony nofi There are plenty of CPU benchmarks available to compare performance. The data is out there.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 14, 2021)

Solarsentinel said:


> Hi,
> I think nowadays no need to get worked up with choosing the right CPU. In fact processors are soo powerfull these days, that you can make everything you need with them, with any choice between intel and AMD.
> The fact is that you could do these things even before they came out with your last computer. You had already done your work with your old computer, and now you just want to upgrade it, but it did the job... So any future hardware will done the job too.
> This will just be more confortable and offer you to keep some marging of flexibility.
> The only choice remain is about the price and your budget in fact! No need to have headache with benchmarks.


My annoyance was the misinformation posted in this thread.


----------



## tabulius (Apr 14, 2021)

Solarsentinel said:


> Hi,
> I think nowadays no need to get worked up with choosing the right CPU. In fact processors are soo powerfull these days, that you can make everything you need with them, with any choice between intel and AMD.
> The fact is that you could do these things even before they came out with your last computer. You had already done your work with your old computer, and now you just want to upgrade it, but it did the job... So any future hardware will done the job too.
> This will just be more confortable and offer you to keep some marging of flexibility.
> The only choice remain is about the price, your budget and compatibility with your setup! No need to have headache with benchmarks.


In the past, picking up new computer parts was easy. After the success of Intel Core 2 Duo, I would just get the latest and most expensive Intel processor and I was good to go. The last time I had AMD was Athlon XP that was an awesome CPU at the time.

Sure, everything I would buy now would be an improvement to my 4-core i7, but I'm hoping to find something to serve me long term. Now the newly released Intel CPUs are actually performing worse in many cases than the previous gen, so I think some research and comparison is healthy. So just getting the most latest and expensive thing in the market doesn't apply anymore. When speaking about the price and the budget, then I really want to know what my 800 EUR CPU investment will give me with Intel vs. Amd (or Apple Silicon even). If I had an unlimited budget, then maybe I wouldn't care about this that much, but I feel it is important to spend my money wisely.

I understand that some people don't care if something is 10-15% better and just want to have something that works. That's completely fine. But these sort of tech comparisons and optimizing are actually pretty fun to me because I'm a nerd, and I actually enjoy researching this stuff and build my own PCs. But the actual data is hard to find and the synthetic CPU tests don't tell how the CPU performs in low-latency, real-time audio work. And it is frustrating to read vague results about something that is performing better in some way in some kind of a test where no numbers, settings, or details are given. But I understand that these sorts of tests take time and effort, so I'm happy for any kind of information that VI-Control community can offer.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 14, 2021)

tabulius said:


> In the past, picking up new computer parts was easy. After the success of Intel Core 2 Duo, I would just get the latest and most expensive Intel processor and I was good to go. The last time I had AMD was Athlon XP that was an awesome CPU at the time.
> 
> Sure, everything I would buy now would be an improvement to my 4-core i7, but I'm hoping to find something to serve me long term. Now the newly released Intel CPUs are actually performing worse in many cases than the previous gen, so I think some research and comparison is healthy. So just getting the most latest and expensive thing in the market doesn't apply anymore. When speaking about the price and the budget, then I really want to know what my 800 EUR CPU investment will give me with Intel vs. Amd (or Apple Silicon even). If I had an unlimited budget, then maybe I wouldn't care about this that much, but I feel it is important to spend my money wisely.
> 
> I understand that some people don't care if something is 10-15% better and just want to have something that works. That's completely fine. But these sort of tech comparisons and optimizing are actually pretty fun to me because I'm a nerd, and I actually enjoy researching this stuff and build my own PCs. But the actual data is hard to find and the synthetic CPU tests don't tell how the CPU performs in low-latency, real-time audio work. And it is frustrating to read vague results about something that is performing better in some way in some kind of a test where no numbers, settings, or details are given. But I understand that these sorts of tests take time and effort, so I'm happy for any kind of information that VI-Control community can offer.


Tbh...Picking up PC parts is easy...30 minutes of research shows that Intel have lost the top spot both in price and performance.

The current 11th Gen CPUs are slower than the 10th Gen...


----------



## tack (Apr 14, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Picking up PC parts is easy


Picking them is easy. Picking them _up_, less so. I have been waiting for the 5950X to be somewhere I can buy in Canada (that isn't absurd price gouging) since early November.


----------



## janila (Apr 14, 2021)

I did a new 5950X build yesterday. I don’t know when it will be fully up and running but it will replace a 9900K as my DAW and the 9900K will become a VEP slave. In the mean time I will transfer the Cubase sessions and VEP projects that include Kontakt, Synchron and PLAY to the new build and see how it runs. The 9900K was struggling with Task Manager CPU meter in the 97-100% territory. I’ll report back this real world example before I split the two tasks between the computers.


----------



## Solarsentinel (Apr 14, 2021)

I agree that when it is about Audio, it's a pain to find some benchmarks. When you have to choose between graphic card there is no problem, but it's very difficult when it's about audio.
And it's strange because Artist tasks with computer is a great part of using these days. There is plenty of youtube channels, and music artists who has emerged the last couple of years. But the specialized press on audio is rare, so there at least a tiny amount of person who did all the benchmarks in order to help choosing...
Perhaps it may change in the future!


----------



## Sample Fuel (Apr 14, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Please can you clarify how you ran 128gb of ram with a 5960x ?
> 
> “64GB
> 
> Core i7-*5960X*, the *maximum* physical memory size is 64GB, in other words, it does not support 128 GB system memory, even if your mobo might support even more. Please do not confuse the *maximum* physical memory size with physical addressing space.”


Probably old specs? I have 2 systems running 128 gb with 2 different motherboards. I think when it came out its specs said 64 gb but with bios upgrades later it was able to support 128 gb. Been a long time as it is old so I can't totally remember. One motherboard is an MSI and one is an ASUS.


----------



## Sample Fuel (Apr 14, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Nothing on how many instances...buffer size...windows version....Bios used for 5950x , chipset? Memory speed....
> 
> In fact reading his post again...he actually provided us with nothing....
> 
> @tabulius raised some points that have clearly been ignored...so it’s not just me...


This is my last post on this thread since I have better things to do with my time......buffer on Cubase is set to 256, VE PRO buffers set to 2. Windows 10 always the latest update.

The 5950x is awesome and I am very happy with it for Cubase. Good luck with your choices, obviously there are many factors that make one processor or another a good choice for your own personal situation.


----------



## tabulius (Apr 14, 2021)

Sample Fuel said:


> Probably old specs? I have 2 systems running 128 gb with 2 different motherboards. I think when it came out its specs said 64 gb but with bios upgrades later it was able to support 128 gb. Been a long time as it is old so I can't totally remember. One motherboard is an MSI and one is an ASUS.



What CPUs do you have? The same 5960x?


----------



## easyrider (Apr 14, 2021)

Sample Fuel said:


> Probably old specs? I have 2 systems running 128 gb with 2 different motherboards. I think when it came out its specs said 64 gb but with bios upgrades later it was able to support 128 gb. Been a long time as it is old so I can't totally remember. One motherboard is an MSI and one is an ASUS.


Even if the mobo supports 128gb the cpu can still only access 64gb of it...Even if 128 gb is reported in windows.


----------



## clonewar (Apr 14, 2021)

Sample Fuel said:


> This is my last post on this thread since I have better things to do with my time......buffer on Cubase is set to 256, VE PRO buffers set to 2. Windows 10 always the latest update.
> 
> The 5950x is awesome and I am very happy with it for Cubase. Good luck with your choices, obviously there are many factors that make one processor or another a good choice for your own personal situation.


@Sample Fuel I really appreciate the info you’ve shared! Please don’t let one person drive you away from the discussion, you’re real world tests are exactly what we need to understand the current situation regarding Kontakt perfromance.

It’s obvious that the 5950X is a monster CPU, but geekbench/cinebench/gaming benchmarks don’t necessarily translate to Kontakt/DAW performance, specifically the number of simultaneous instances, and DAW stability under heavy load.


----------



## Pictus (Apr 14, 2021)

Here http://www.scanproaudio.info/category/test-labs/
and https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/core-wars-amd-intel-cpus-tested
we can see that for KONTAKT the 3950X is not much far behind the i9-10980XE.
For a Ryzen 9 5950X not to perform better than a I7-5960x is a very odd result...
I wonder what is the culprit for this odd result...


----------



## easyrider (Apr 14, 2021)

Pictus said:


> Here http://www.scanproaudio.info/category/test-labs/
> and https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/core-wars-amd-intel-cpus-tested
> we can see that for KONTAKT the 3950X is not much far behind the i9-10980XE.
> For a Ryzen 9 5950X not to perform better than a I7-5960x is a very odd result...
> I wonder what is the culprit for this odd result...


Exactly my point. Thanks for posting hard data Pictus.

VI control is heavily Bias towards INTEL. Being a member of a number of Hardware forums I would like to say us both know a far bit about PC hardware....


----------



## easyrider (Apr 14, 2021)

clonewar said:


> @Sample Fuel Please don’t let one person drive you away from the discussion, you’re real world tests are exactly what we need to understand the current situation regarding Kontakt perfromance.


What real world tests? Musings and ramblings are not real world tests.


clonewar said:


> It’s obvious that the 5950X is a monster CPU, but geekbench/cinebench/gaming benchmarks don’t necessarily translate to Kontakt/DAW performance, specifically the number of simultaneous instances, and DAW stability under heavy load.


Questioning Facts about PC hardware should be celebrated. I should not vilified for asking for facts...


----------



## Sample Fuel (Apr 14, 2021)

easyrider said:


> Even if the mobo supports 128gb the cpu can still only access 64gb of it...Even if 128 gb is reported in windows.








You really should not assume everyone is wrong if it doesn't match up to what you think you know. I have 2 systems that run this with 128 gb and the VE PRO templates access all the memory. I will rejoin this conversation because even though you think my results are full of it I do agree with you that my results were terribly disappointing and that the 5950x should be blowing it out of the water comparing it to the 5960x.

Let's take a different approach to this conversation....

I am using the Gigabyte Auros X570 chipset.....is there perhaps something related to the motherboard chipsets that might cause an issue? Again I built 4 of the exact same computers and tested 2 of them with Cubase/VE PRO setup and got disappointing results. I completely respect PICTUS and his knowledge of this system and actually picked the parts and RAM based on posts from his suggestions. I know there is a BIOS update coming that has to do with L3 cache but I doubt that is my issue.

If by chance you could run a KONTAKT polyphony test on both your systems....5950x and your older 9900k (I think that is what you said you had) and post the results that would be helpful. If indeed your 5950x wipes it clean than I will assume there is something possibly wrong with my machines and then maybe I can trouble shoot from there. I ran my tests with Kontakt inside VE PRO connected to Cubase. I ran it at many buffer settings, etc... It didn't matter the 5950x on my builds couldn't keep up and that makes no sense to me as well. So rather than you dispute my results lets assume that there is something wrong on my end with the setup of the hardware.


----------



## colony nofi (Apr 14, 2021)

easyrider said:


> @colony nofi There are plenty of CPU benchmarks available to compare performance. The data is out there.


For DAWS? I follow a tonne of sites / talk to techs all the time, and there seems to be a lot of info for workstation workloads, but that doesn't necessarily translate to composition / DAW workflows. We run our own little benchmarks here for both post computers and composition computers. 

It is of course possible that we'll find a correlation/connection between different benchmarks you see online and our own - but until thats been made there's still work to be done.


----------



## dxmachina (Apr 14, 2021)

I was looking for results a couple months ago and found nothing beyond the stock benchmarks... so I took the plunge on a 5950x build.

Full disclosure is that I only tested direct-hosted @128 and @256... but my slightly overclocked 5950x system topped the charts that were mentioned with the DAWBench KT project. It was somewhat unclear to me which version of the test they used (the one with the convos or without?), but since my Intel system is a 10980XE (also slightly overclocked) and I was able to roughly pull in the same numbers as the chart mentioned I think it is safe to say that the 5950x beat it (here anyway). Pretty sure I got past 4000 voices @128 before I got sick of duplicating and unmuting, but don't hold me to it since it's been a couple months. I have no personal affection for either company, and my code compiles 30% faster on a fanless M1 MacBook Air than either system.

VEP added to the mix undoubtedly changes the equation and I have not objectively benchmarked beyond "it works well." The DAW itself may also have a large impact. I used the Reaper project to test at the time, but when I have a bit more free time it will be interesting to look into this again. Based on my tests, if you're seeing lackluster performance with the 5950x it may well be worth looking into further setup / analysis. As a price/performance question I have a feeling the 5900x/5800x might be the one to beat for general sample streaming, but if there is a VEP bottleneck that could still make Intel the better bet.

Anyway, just my personal experience...


----------



## Sample Fuel (Apr 14, 2021)

dxmachina said:


> I was looking for results a couple months ago and found nothing beyond the stock benchmarks... so I took the plunge on a 5950x build.
> 
> Full disclosure is that I only tested direct-hosted @128 and @256... but my slightly overclocked 5950x system topped the charts that were mentioned with the DAWBench KT project. It was somewhat unclear to me which version of the test they used (the one with the convos or without?), but since my Intel system is a 10980XE (also slightly overclocked) and I was able to roughly pull in the same numbers as the chart mentioned I think it is safe to say that the 5950x beat it (here anyway). Pretty sure I got past 4000 voices @128 before I got sick of duplicating and unmuting, but don't hold me to it since it's been a couple months. I have no personal affection for either company, and my code compiles 30% faster on a fanless M1 MacBook Air than either system.
> 
> ...


I in no way think my results are universal and it is encouraging to hear others are indeed getting the results we would expect. Interesting that you did a Reaper test and got great results. Now I am curious if VE PRO has anything at all to do with my setup results......hard to say....usually VE PRO is pretty solid. I don't use REAPER but when my schedule clears this summer it would probably be an easy test for me to download REAPER and try that test. I would love to figure out what is going on over here.


----------



## clonewar (Apr 14, 2021)

dxmachina said:


> I was looking for results a couple months ago and found nothing beyond the stock benchmarks... so I took the plunge on a 5950x build.
> 
> Full disclosure is that I only tested direct-hosted @128 and @256... but my slightly overclocked 5950x system topped the charts that were mentioned with the DAWBench KT project. It was somewhat unclear to me which version of the test they used (the one with the convos or without?), but since my Intel system is a 10980XE (also slightly overclocked) and I was able to roughly pull in the same numbers as the chart mentioned I think it is safe to say that the 5950x beat it (here anyway). Pretty sure I got past 4000 voices @128 before I got sick of duplicating and unmuting, but don't hold me to it since it's been a couple months. I have no personal affection for either company, and my code compiles 30% faster on a fanless M1 MacBook Air than either system.
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing your results. I’m also planning on direct hosting on this system (either disabled template or track presets). Have you done any testing in Cubase or S1 in the 5950X system? And could you share which motherboard and RAM you used in the build?


----------



## clonewar (Apr 14, 2021)

Sample Fuel said:


> I in no way think my results are universal and it is encouraging to hear others are indeed getting the results we would expect. Interesting that you did a Reaper test and got great results. Now I am curious if VE PRO has anything at all to do with my setup results......hard to say....usually VE PRO is pretty solid. I don't use REAPER but when my schedule clears this summer it would probably be an easy test for me to download REAPER and try that test. I would love to figure out what is going on over here.


It does seem like directly loading samples in Reaper is what @dxmachina’s tests have in common with the tests that @Pictus linked. Have you tried to stress test loading up instruments directly in Cubase?


----------



## Sample Fuel (Apr 15, 2021)

clonewar said:


> It does seem like directly loading samples in Reaper is what @dxmachina’s tests have in common with the tests that @Pictus linked. Have you tried to stress test loading up instruments directly in Cubase?


I did not test in Cubase at the time because I was building a "VE PRO" machine and that is what I tested. I can do it now as I have the machines in place to do so. I am extremely busy at the moment but when I get a free opportunity I will try a test in Cubase with one machine being the 5950x and the other being the I7-5960x.


----------



## dxmachina (Apr 15, 2021)

clonewar said:


> Thanks for sharing your results. I’m also planning on direct hosting on this system (either disabled template or track presets). Have you done any testing in Cubase or S1 in the 5950X system? And could you share which motherboard and RAM you used in the build?


I haven't done any real testing in those hosts. I'm generally using the 5950x system as a remote VEP system into Logic on my Mac. But I may be able to do some testing once I have a bit more time on my hands.

MB: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07SSM6CLC/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 (GIGABYTE X570 AORUS Master) v2
RAM is: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0861QJV67/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 (G.Skill 128GB Trident Z Neo DDR4 3200MHz PC4-25600 CL16 RGB Quad Channel Kit (4X 32GB))


----------



## clonewar (Apr 16, 2021)

dxmachina said:


> I haven't done any real testing in those hosts. I'm generally using the 5950x system as a remote VEP system into Logic on my Mac. But I may be able to do some testing once I have a bit more time on my hands.


What could you possibly be busy with? 😁

Out of curiosity, are you running VEP and Logic on your M1 Mac?



dxmachina said:


> MB: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07SSM6CLC/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 (GIGABYTE X570 AORUS Master) v2
> RAM is: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0861QJV67/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 (G.Skill 128GB Trident Z Neo DDR4 3200MHz PC4-25600 CL16 RGB Quad Channel Kit (4X 32GB))


Thanks!


----------



## dxmachina (Apr 16, 2021)

clonewar said:


> What could you possibly be busy with? 😁
> 
> Out of curiosity, are you running VEP and Logic on your M1 Mac?


I did briefly try that combination on a Mac Mini (which I ultimately returned). It did work, but it's not something I've used in production.


----------



## Hendrixon (Apr 20, 2021)

easyrider said:


> That because the cpu does not support any more...but @Sample Fuel does....lol


Depending on mobo and bios, a 5960x does work with 128GB.


----------



## Hendrixon (Apr 20, 2021)

Sample Fuel said:


> You really should not assume everyone is wrong if it doesn't match up to what you think you know. I have 2 systems that run this with 128 gb and the VE PRO templates access all the memory. I will rejoin this conversation because even though you think my results are full of it I do agree with you that my results were terribly disappointing and that the 5950x should be blowing it out of the water comparing it to the 5960x.
> 
> Let's take a different approach to this conversation....
> 
> ...


Thanks for your input buddy, its is valuable even if it's not falling in the expected outcome range.
I have a 5950X system as well, but nothing Intel to compare to, as my other pc (Intel) is even older then yours (X58/1366).

I don't doubt you're getting the kontakt performance you described.
I do think something in your setup is not right...
First of all, if this was the case, this forum and gearslutz (sorry, I'm old school) would be filled with threads about this as you are not the first one to build a 5950X system while having another Intel system to compare to.

Now, looking on the best real world comparison we do have from a reputable source (scanproaudio):





We can see that the 3950X @64 and @512 samples falls behind the 10980XE by less then 4%.
Because of L3 latency issues in Zen 2 architecture we see kontakt suffers from a performance hole @128 samples of about 23%. that hole shrinks to 13% @256, and as we know closes completely @512 samples.

We don't have quality kontakt benchmarks of the 5950X to compare, but we do know this:
1.
Zen 3 architecture addressed the fragmented L3 config of Zen 2, which was the source of the L3 latency that lead to the "performance hole" exposed by kontakt at mid buffer sizes.
That alone is enough to put the 5950X at the same level of the 10980XE at all buffer sizes (4% difference is practically nothing).

2.
My 5950X shows L3 latency at around +60ns while Intel 10th gen seem to be at +40ns.
That's a *huge* difference... yet if putting the mid buffer size issue of Zen 2 aside, we see the 3950X perform almost the same as the 10980XE (remember, just less then 4% difference).
That alone is enough to indicate the 5950X should perform as good as the 10980XE if not slightly better at all buffer sizes as its L3 latency is better.

3.
Clock for clock the 5950X is faster then the 3950X by anything form 10% to 20% just from higher IPC. adding that to the above, the 5950X has to outperform the 10980XE.

4.
The 5950X boost (not manual o/c, just its own auto boost) is +200Mhz then the 3950X for all core constant. at single core the official boost number is +200Mhz, but as shown in reviews and my chip does the same, the real world boost is +350Mhz (for 5050Mhz single core).
Add that to all the above and its safe to say that currently the 5950X is the fastest and most optimized cpu for heavy audio related work.


With all that in mind, unless the 5960x (8 core from 2013) is faster then the 18 core 10980XE, which is a monster of an audio cpu, there is no chance in the world it could outperform the 5950X.
Somewhere in your 5950X systems is not playing nice

Something to start with:
On what drive your samples reside? SSD SATA? Nvme? external platter raid?
On X570 there is an issue with sata ports and 4k random reads.
On x570 there is an issue with some Nvme controller if connected thru the chipset (forgot which one).
On x570 there is an issue with USB ports on some boards (should be dealt with in latest AGESA).


Good luck.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 20, 2021)

Hendrixon said:


> Depending on mobo and bios, a 5960x does work with 128GB.


Work yes...address all 128gb no....I said this in an earlier post. It’s well documented on the Intel website forum.


----------



## Hendrixon (Apr 20, 2021)

easyrider said:


> address all 128gb no.


Yes, all 128GB addressable.


easyrider said:


> It’s well documented on the Intel website forum.


What's documented is what was tested, validated and guaranteed to work at the time of production.
It's not the first cpu from Intel or AMD that years later was found to work above spec, be it more ram then validated or work in a dual cpu system when spec stated single cpu support only.


----------



## Sample Fuel (Apr 21, 2021)

Hendrixon said:


> Thanks for your input buddy, its is valuable even if it's not falling in the expected outcome range.
> I have a 5950X system as well, but nothing Intel to compare to, as my other pc (Intel) is even older then yours (X58/1366).
> 
> I don't doubt you're getting the kontakt performance you described.
> ...


Thanks for this post. I am aware of these benchmarks and agree that something is just not right on my side. Again.....in Cubase it performs as expected. I am slammed for a while but will do some other tests and try and trouble shoot. Perhaps it is VE PRO related? I will keep you posted as I find results.


----------

