Ryzen 3000 Vs I9 9900K for music production

Ryzen 3000 is available today, and some review too! So final verdict is Zen 2 architecture good for music production, or I9 9900k still top notch?

(If EvilDragon could participate and give his opinion it will be very nice because his processor's knowledge with audio production is very valuable for me :thumbsup: cheers!)
 
OP
S

Solarsentinel

Member
We all are! All the regular reviewers would never test for low latency audio scenarios.
Thanks for your participation EvilDragon!

For now depends on benchmarks but:
i 9 9900k seems to have keep the best single thread score
ryzen 3900X outperform 9900k on multithread and is very close on single

The new X570 chipset comes with PPI express 4.0 wich seems to be best for SSD, and has thunderbolt 3.
 

Ben J

New Member
(Thread Subscribed)

I'll wait a couple more months for the Ryzen 3950X (16-core) to come out before I get serious about a new build. But even if it isn't well suited for audio work, I'd have a MONSTER gaming machine for relatively little expense. Hopefully early adopters will report good news for us VSTi people, though.

In the meantime, my 4790k/Asus Z97 is still performing admirably for audio.
 

zolhof

Active Member
We ordered a 3900X mainly for video and post, so I'll probably won't be able to toy around with it as much as I want. I was told by a BH rep that they will ship out on 7/11. If scan audio does not review it soon, I'll try to put something together for you guys.

I'm really curious about the 3700X though. For 329 bucks, it's going to be hard to beat it. If the audio reviews are positive, I'll finally retire my trusty FX8350 -- seven years and still holding strong. 65W TDP is something that I need in my everyday life.
 

JohnG

Senior Member
In the meantime, my 4790k/Asus Z97 is still performing admirably for audio.
Yes that is an excellent combination. I was going to replace my 4790k with a 9900k but actually the benchmarks (and real world performance) of the former made me change my mind. The 9900k is a little better but surprisingly marginal. Not worth the hassle to me.
 
OP
S

Solarsentinel

Member
We ordered a 3900X mainly for video and post, so I'll probably won't be able to toy around with it as much as I want. I was told by a BH rep that they will ship out on 7/11. If scan audio does not review it soon, I'll try to put something together for you guys.

I'm really curious about the 3700X though. For 329 bucks, it's going to be hard to beat it. If the audio reviews are positive, I'll finally retire my trusty FX8350 -- seven years and still holding strong. 65W TDP is something that I need in my everyday life.
Thanks! we waiting gor your feedback :thumbsup:

(Thread Subscribed)

I'll wait a couple more months for the Ryzen 3950X (16-core) to come out before I get serious about a new build. But even if it isn't well suited for audio work, I'd have a MONSTER gaming machine for relatively little expense. Hopefully early adopters will report good news for us VSTi people, though.

In the meantime, my 4790k/Asus Z97 is still performing admirably for audio.
I don't know if a 16 core will be better than a 16 core with DAW performance. i've read that sometimes there's a limit of the number of core for good performance in the DAW. But i maybe wrong, because on the papers more core with same frequencies are better.
We'll see.
 

Shad0wLandsUK

Senior Member
The more I think about this, plus the growing number of benchmarks and real-world tests that are being done on the two platforms....

I wonder if the perfect Composing Setup would be an Intel DAW Machine and AMD VE Pro Slave(s)

You would have the high single-core performance of Team Blue for your DAW and therefore the real-time processing would be great, but you would get the benefits of the multi-core strengths of AMD for your VE Pro Servers :)
 

Shad0wLandsUK

Senior Member
(Thread Subscribed)

I'll wait a couple more months for the Ryzen 3950X (16-core) to come out before I get serious about a new build. But even if it isn't well suited for audio work, I'd have a MONSTER gaming machine for relatively little expense. Hopefully early adopters will report good news for us VSTi people, though.

In the meantime, my 4790k/Asus Z97 is still performing admirably for audio.
I am also waiting for this one :rolleyes:
 

Pete Kaine

New Member
If scan audio does not review it soon, I'll try to put something together for you guys.
We’re currently carrying out the testing, although there has been a slight delay. You may have read that the chip samples went out late and that reviewers got them in the week leading up to release. We only saw the 3600 in the week prior to release and then the rest of the stock is slowly appearing this week. Needless to say, it's not the 3600 that everyone's excited about through!


I’m trying to get it tested as it lands, so just give me a day or two to get it all sorted and we’re looking to publish as soon as possible and certainly before the end of the week. One good thing with having to hold off is that we’ve managed to start the AMD testing with the launch day BIOS updates in place, which has (we’ve noted here) allowed us to ensure better clocking, so the delay has been positive for AMD in regards to smoothing out early performance results
 

chimuelo

Star Of Stage & Screen
Yes that is an excellent combination. I was going to replace my 4790k with a 9900k but actually the benchmarks (and real world performance) of the former made me change my mind. The 9900k is a little better but surprisingly marginal. Not worth the hassle to me.
I’m using my last i7 4790k from a build 4 months ago, and the spare has 2 years of excessive use.
For 6 years these CPUs were exposed to high heat, and already being inside of a 1U Chassis means cooling has to be really good.
The Z97 has less PCI-e lanes but I’m using 4 x SSDs and an NVMe for sample loading, not streaming.

I wanted a new AMD and they are excellent CPUs for so many games, video rendering, etc.
But Cinebench Single Core benchmarks are for ball park estimations.
They look really good so far, but on the Intel’s you can Overclock all cores at percentages that exceed the turbo boost maximum.
I don’t want to go that far but with exotic cooling you can get insane FPS for gaming.
I would want an AMD to OC all cores just by 500MHz, not even the maximum turbo boost on a single core. 2 different reviewers couldn’t get 500MHz on all cores, and one CPU was burned up and destroyed.
Granted these could be great for audio in a studio scenario where editing, programming recording can be forgiving.
I’m using mine for live performance where I’m pegging the Max polyphony for hours everyday and night.

I’m thinking AMD already has these CPUs near their threshold so even if they do perform as well as an Intel they lack the headroom I often enjoy.

I’m using 18 x Analog Devices ADSP-21369 Chips that combined use 40%, my 4790k hovers @60-80%.
According to AMD their CPUs lose performance if the DRAM is too fast, and 500MHz before crapping out means there’s little headroom.

Again, this is fine for projects, etc.
For live work I’m too accustomed to the safety margins where my profit margins are. A crash at one of my gigs is on par with death by hanging.
No Union protects me, and several performers and other groups are right behind me ready to cherish my demise.

Intel CPUs will be even better in 2020.
I git all kinds of time thanks to the i7 4790ks.
Bought 4 of these 6 years ago.
In 2020 I’ll buy 4 of Intel’s i10’s or whatever the new number is.

AMD is getting money from Me though as I admired their comeback and we need them.
So go buy a Ryzen 5 3600 or 7 3700X and be impressed with these incredible values.
 
Last edited: