# Time for me to get Serious about Switching to AMD



## José Herring (Oct 2, 2020)

Wanted to start and new thread and get some input. In the next couple of days I will begin building my new DAW machine. My policy has always been to use Intel as a DAW and use AMD as little minions.

After building my latest minion I realized that it is powerful and does well. But.... I'm still hesitant to trust the whole shebang on AMD.

I'm leaning towards AMD and I've followed with interest every thread relating to AMD build. What I don't see much of is what happned after the build. How is your AMD machine performing? Any hickups, BSOD, ect? What if any problems did you experience audio wise? Dropouts, incompatible drivers, ect?

One last thing, in the case of me not wanting to build a machine, who makes the best prebuilt machines using AMD?

Thanks,

José


----------



## José Herring (Oct 2, 2020)

Now I'm leaning back towards Intel 10900k because of the high single thread CPU numbers.


----------



## Technostica (Oct 2, 2020)

I have been reluctant to fully recommend AMD for DAWs due to the latency issues that their Zen architectures have. 
But based on the info of the Zen 3 architecture which is being formally announced in 6 days time I think they may well overtake Intel. 
The caveat is that the latency issues may well only be fully addressed in the 8 core or under versions. 
Above that core count and they use multiple chiplets which is where the latency may still be an issue. 
I suggest waiting until next Thursday when it seems as if they will be revealing a lot of info. 
They may be on sale by the end of this month seemingly.


----------



## Damarus (Oct 2, 2020)

Honestly this is the worst time to buy any tech. If you can wait close to the end of the year so you don't miss out on getting your moneys worth with new products.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 2, 2020)

Damarus said:


> Honestly this is the worst time to buy any tech. If you can wait close to the end of the year so you don't miss out on getting your moneys worth with new products.


Yeah maybe but that's true of any time. I'm willing to wait until next week when Ryzen 5000 is announced but beyond that there's always going to be a new release.


----------



## Damarus (Oct 2, 2020)

José Herring said:


> Yeah maybe but that's true of any time. I'm willing to wait until next week when Ryzen 5000 is announced but beyond that there's always going to be a new release.



Well specifically this time of the year is what I mean. New tech is usually announced around the end of the year. 

For processors specifically we *should *see more than just a marginal gain from the previous generation.


----------



## SergeD (Oct 2, 2020)

Perhaps should you care about how much help on forums you will find if something goes wrong with AMD, like having German car in Japan. Just a detail among others to consider.


----------



## Alex Sopala (Oct 2, 2020)

SergeD said:


> Perhaps should you care about how much help on forums you will find if something goes wrong with AMD, like having German car in Japan. Just a detail among others to consider.



There's quite a lot of info out there at this point in time, considering AMD started showing some dominance about 2 years ago, ramping things up last year; it's had a good bit of time to mature as a platform. And there's a good number of people on this forum who I know use AMD, in addition to other forums and Youtube tutorials. As far as the latency thing, there'll likely be enough early adopters for the next gen who are willing (hopefully) to figure these things out and run tests on the chips to see how they perform with our specific workloads. Considering a lot of what we look for in CPUs at this point in time parallel that to what many gamers are looking for (such as stability and good DPC latency, with the added caveat that we want way more cores than many gamers as well), I don't think it's as much of a far-flung difference despite our different use cases. If an issue arises, it's likely people will figure it out. 

Even more so now that Intel is losing ground, Mac is switching to ARM instruction sets, and AMD is taking over the market share. Intel-based computers were mostly the main ones tested from my understanding both because Macs used them, which is going to change in the coming years; and AMD processors used to suck for years until the company got new management, and here we are now. I think if audio companies haven't started testing with AMD processors yet to ensure stability, they likely will start very soon.


----------



## stixman (Oct 3, 2020)

Just got my new build i9 3950X creator X570 with Presonus Quantum 2626 for hopefully very low buffer and starting to install so early days...


----------



## Loïc D (Oct 3, 2020)

SergeD said:


> like having German car in Japan


Hmmm, japanese are fond of German cars and there’s a huge community for expert garages and spare parts, even for the oldest models.


----------



## SergeD (Oct 3, 2020)

Loïc D said:


> Hmmm, japanese are fond of German cars and there’s a huge community for expert garages and spare parts, even for the oldest models.



Well, then let's say American instead of German


----------



## Ben (Oct 3, 2020)

There are some leaks out there about the performance of the next Gen of AMD CPUs. If these are true it will be an awesome CPU, also for audio. 
Lower memory latency, 20-30% higher IPC, 50% higher flops... 
I'm already excited - looking forward to upgrade my setup


----------



## markleake (Oct 3, 2020)

José Herring said:


> Now I'm leaning back towards Intel 10900k because of the high single thread CPU numbers.


As Ben and others have said, this statement may no longer be true shortly.

From the leaks we have so far, the AMD 5000 series could put their CPUs ahead of Intel in terms of single threaded workloads in games. And this may translate to audio also. It always depends on circumstances, but it's worth waiting for the comparison benchmarks when they come out, and looking at price/performance comparisons.

If this really is the case, there's fewer reasons left to consider Intel CPUs.


----------



## Pictus (Oct 3, 2020)

José Herring said:


> Now I'm leaning back towards Intel 10900k because of the high single thread CPU numbers.



Are you sure? 





Cinebench R20 (Single-Core) CPU benchmark list


Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)




www.cpu-monkey.com


----------



## easyrider (Oct 3, 2020)

Pictus said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So they are not called the 4900 x?


----------



## José Herring (Oct 3, 2020)

Pictus said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No.

I went up on Daw bench and saw some specs. Intel is killing it in sample streaming and Ryzen is doing better with plugins which is completely oposite of what I have set up. 

So now I am thinking I will sell my 3700x chip and get the 3950x for my sample slave. And then get Ryzen 5000 for my DAW.


----------



## Pictus (Oct 3, 2020)

easyrider said:


> So they are not called the 4900 x?



No, the name will be 5000 series.








Alleged AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12 Core & 24 Thread Zen 3 CPU Benchmark Leaks Out - Up To 15% Faster In Multi-Threaded & 25% Faster In Single-Threaded Tests Versus Ryzen 9 3900X


Alleged benchmarks of AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12 core & 24 thread Zen 3 CPU have leaked out which show up to 25% improvement over Ryzen 9 3900X.




wccftech.com


----------



## easyrider (Oct 3, 2020)

Pictus said:


> No, the name will be 5000 series.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They must be keeping the 4xxx series naming for the laptop sector then?


----------



## Pictus (Oct 3, 2020)

easyrider said:


> They must be keeping the 4xxx series naming for the laptop sector then?


Yes.


----------



## Technostica (Oct 3, 2020)

easyrider said:


> So they are not called the 4900 x?


They seem to be aligning the desktop and mobile chips. 
At the moment the 4000 series APUs are still Zen 2, so releasing Zen 3 as yet another 4000 series is odd. 
So I suspect that all Zen 3 will be 5000 as that seems more consistent.


----------



## Technostica (Oct 3, 2020)

easyrider said:


> They must be keeping the 4xxx series naming for the laptop sector then?


No, the desktop Zen 2 APUs are also 4000 series. Still OEM only at this point.


----------



## novaburst (Oct 3, 2020)

I think one of the important things to look out for is wattage, in MHO intel is the way to go for speed and maybe latency as there only seems to be a difference of 1 or 2 milliseconds, 

I think where AMD plays a great part in this game is that they are getting great CPU speeds with very low wattage meaning less cooling headache and a more efficient machine as of now.

Intel have the edge on speed and latency if you like or if you use for your DAW but Intel cant seem to get their wattage under control seems that the faster the CPU the higher the wattage.

At average Intel Base clock speed is higher than AMD but AMD is able to over clock with ease without raising the wattage and heat and still gives a rock solid performance.

If your not concerned about high wattage then i would opt for Intel,


----------



## markleake (Oct 3, 2020)

To be honest, wattage doesn't really matter for desktop. TDP yes, but really only in terms of the CPU efficiency for performance.

What matters is the speed and latecy, and these two may well improve by a big jump in the 5000 series. We'll have to wait and see, but I'm getting a bit excited.

AMD have a better pricing structure and upgrade path, so I'm watching to see if now is the time to get new gear.


----------



## Alex Sopala (Oct 3, 2020)

markleake said:


> To be honest, wattage doesn't really matter for desktop. TDP yes, but really only in terms of the CPU efficiency for performance.
> 
> What matters is the speed and latecy, and these two may well improve by a big jump in the 5000 series. We'll have to wait and see, but I'm getting a bit excited.
> 
> AMD have a better pricing structure and upgrade path, so I'm watching to see if now is the time to get new gear.



Adding onto that, AMD and Intel (and Nvidia, for that matter) all measure TDP differently, so it's difficult to do apples-to-apples comparisons on paper without actually testing the chips and seeing the results.


----------



## markleake (Oct 3, 2020)

Alex Sopala said:


> Adding onto that, AMD and Intel (and Nvidia, for that matter) all measure TDP differently, so it's difficult to do apples-to-apples comparisons on paper without actually testing the chips and seeing the results.


Yep, exactly. TDP improvements do matter, but it's more useful between CPU generations. You can't compare them between AMD and Intel, and really it's only the performance that matters for desktops.


----------



## Technostica (Oct 3, 2020)

Read real world reviews where they measure the actual power consumption under a full and continuous load.
AMD 16 core hits around 150W whereas Intel 10 core hits around 250W.
This is with all cores fully loaded at stock clocks/voltage so no over-clocking.
These figures will vary depending on the software used which is partly due to the types of instructions that are being used.
Not sure that a DAW will hit such figures as the workload isn't as consistent as something like video encoding.
Power consumption does matter in a desktop beyond a certain point for various reasons:
1. More expensive cooling solution required.
2. More difficult or impossible to cool silently/quietly.
3. The extra heat output is no fun in the summer in a room that is already hot.
4. More expensive to run.
5. Ecology.
6. Higher wattage power supply and more case fans required.


----------



## markleake (Oct 3, 2020)

Not to be contrary, but I think these point are a bit of a myth. Sure, they can matter a bit sometimes, but in practice pretty much all those points are moot.

If you go watch all the gaming channels, even they will freely admit these factors don't matter for most people. They only matter if you are pushing the envelope (overclocking), or really need to get your PC down to as silent as possible. And in my experience, getting a PC to be silent isn't so much about the power consumption and TDP, it's about being smart in what you put in it - e.g. use good quality quiet fans, etc.

No one really cares about a PC costing a few extra cents to run, or putting out warm air. What people care about in a desktop is the performance.


----------



## novaburst (Oct 3, 2020)

markleake said:


> No one really cares about a PC costing a few extra cents to run, or putting out warm air. What people care about in a desktop is the performance.



The question then is where do we as individual place performance at or what is good performance,

Do you really notice 1 or 2 milliseconds i think its very hard to notice, so am i prepared to have an extra 100 watts for a millisecond or higher heat levels and cost because these equations matter over time.

So i do think its what the individual wants if your not a gamer then i think production is key and that is not to say AMD are not great for gaming because the stats are very close in comparison


----------



## markleake (Oct 3, 2020)

Yes, agreed. Diminishing returns. Same goes for $$, if you give up just a smidge of performance for saving some cash, many people will chose to keep the cash.


----------



## Henrik B. Jensen (Oct 3, 2020)

I read somewhere that Intel uses a lot of ”unnecessary” power in order to get the last few % performance gain. So if you reduce vcore or something, you lose only a little bit performance-wise, but lower the power draw considerably.


----------



## GtrString (Oct 4, 2020)

I have had computers since the beginning of time, and despite all «advice» out there.. overspec is important. You need at least 20-30% more hz, ram, disk, power than you possibly can use. Its the overhead that keeps your computer neat, smooth and running.

I think it matters less what brand of anything you use. Just maxxx it!


----------



## easyrider (Oct 4, 2020)

Pictus said:


> Yes.


https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-cezanne-and-lucienne-to-both-power-ryzen-5000u-series:shocked


----------

