What's new

Ryzen 3000 Vs I9 9900K for music production

pderbidge

Senior Member
So we still leaning towards the i9900k here?
9900 is a solid choice especially since I've seen the 9900kf come down to $420 recently, so if you already have a PCIe graphics card that could be an affordable option.

Personally, I've become sold on the new Ryzen so I'm going to give the 3700x a chance and the great thing is if I want to upgrade to a 3950x in the future I can. With the 9900k, you're at the end of the line and future upgrades will be a whole new platform. Honestly though I think every time I've decided to an upgrade I just built from scratch so in practice the idea of future proofing is more of a "peace of mind" thing than a reality.

The other reason I like the 3700x is the lower power draw. I've always tried to invest in CPU's that don't get as hot as the sun, which is why my last system was a 4770k. I've never had a single issue with it, and that was with a stock Cooler. This time, however I'm going with a Noctua cooler just to be able to push the CPU a little more.
 
Last edited:

zircon_st

Lead Developer
These vulnerabilities are much hyped by tech press but the real world performance impact of the fixes is minimal. And with Windows 10, patching is all automatic, not that the security issues discussed would affect everyday users (unless you are intentionally trying to get malware etc.) The workloads more affected are not the kind we deal with in the audio world.
 

chimuelo

Star Of Stage & Screen
So it seems Intel have made Thunderbolt specification royalty free in the beginning of 2019 so AMD can finally get Thunderbolt. Cool, seems AsRock were quick to implement it.
ASRock is always quick to do everything.
I never considered them as I was a Supermicro fanboy.
But when ASRock adopted NVMe and M.2’s months before everyone else I went to their website where I discovered their no frills server and Workstation boards.

Even as we speak ASRock was first to adapt the X470 chips into their ASRock Rack boards.
Everybody else uses Xeons and plays it safe with C Series chipsets, C222, C236, C246, etc.
ASRock has had no frill server boards on Z87, Z97, etc.
No other Tier 1 manufacturer does this that Im aware of, and if they were, wouldn’t use perpendicular DRAM DIMMs designed for a certain airflow associated with 1U chassis.

When I do go with AMD ASRock will be my choice again.

My 2$

Edit: ASRock Z97 matx Server-board with 4790k’s are still the best combo I’ve used ever. Never a crash, nothing but success. Polyphony extreme.
 

pderbidge

Senior Member
9900 is a solid choice especially since I've seen the 9900kf come down to $420 recently, so if you already have a PCIe graphics card that could be an affordable option.
Replying to my own post here but it just dawned on me to mention for some who aren't as into overclocking etc... that a 9900k is not the best value if you are going to just run at stock speeds on a mediocre motherboard without the best cooling solution (case and cpu coooling). In that case, there are other Intel and AMD options that would be a better value. I'd hate to see someone spend over $400 on a 9900k and get just mediocre performance boosts. The real power in this CPU is pushing it a bit and not running it stock. Even Turbo boost will only perform as well as your able to keep your entire system cooled and under control, otherwise there won't be much of a boost in performance there either. Just my 2 cents.
 

Quasar

Senior Member
Replying to my own post here but it just dawned on me to mention for some who aren't as into overclocking etc... that a 9900k is not the best value if you are going to just run at stock speeds on a mediocre motherboard without the best cooling solution (case and cpu coooling). In that case, there are other Intel and AMD options that would be a better value. I'd hate to see someone spend over $400 on a 9900k and get just mediocre performance boosts. The real power in this CPU is pushing it a bit and not running it stock. Even Turbo boost will only perform as well as your able to keep your entire system cooled and under control, otherwise there won't be much of a boost in performance there either. Just my 2 cents.
Curious, what do you mean by better value? Why would some CPUs be better suited for non-overclockers? Higher performance is higher performance after all, no?

I don't overclock, and when I bought the i7 2600 I purposely avoided the K because I didn't want to be tempted by the unlocked multiplier, even though the cost difference was negligible and there was a minor performance disparity. But wouldn't you want the most powerful CPU you can get whether you overclock or not?
 

Ben

VSL Support
You pay a higher price for these CPUs because they are designed to be overclockable. The i5 8/9600k, i7 8/9700k and i9 9900k are designed to run at higher frequencies as long as the board can deliver enougth power and the cooling is good. The base clock is a sort of guarantee for the minimum clock rate.
Of course you can have bad luck in the silicon lotery and get a chip that runs unstable when overclocking.
I run the 8600k at a fixed clock rate of 4.4GHz (disabled energy-saving and Turbo-Boost) without much testing. I think I could easily push it to at least 4.8, but then I should change the cooler.
 

Quasar

Senior Member
It seems like OC'ing used to be "edgy", but has long since become entirely mainstream. My thought a few years ago was that for running a DAW, cool and rock-solid stable at stock speeds was preferable to taking chances, however slight. But this is probably old-fashioned thinking, since many of the higher-end CPUs (presumably targeting the gamers) are clearly marketed as OC friendly, or as you say, designed to be overclockable.
 

Ben

VSL Support
Keep in mind to buy a good mainboard. With solid hardware and a good BIOS/UEFI it is really easy to overclock a CPU and it is almost impossible to break the hardware as long as you are a little bit careful and use common sense.
For example the i5 8600k has a base clock of 3.1GHz and a turbo of 4.3GHz. You will find some overclockers that push this CPU to 5.2GHz.

AMD CPUs just don't like overclocking and it is mostly not worth it to invest time and money into overclocking them. Even the Ryzen 3xxx don't overclock good compared to Intel CPUs
 

chimuelo

Star Of Stage & Screen
This guy has always been one of my go to nerds.
He’s confirmed my suspicions as I was on a short list for a DeLidded 3700X.
But once I read more than one person saying they really didn’t scale well and required top shelf VRMs I knew DeLidding was a waste of time.

Cracked me up when he added the Liquid Metal, it was obvious it wasn’t going to work as well due to it being so much shorter in height than the substrate.

OC’ing aside, the good news is the 3000’s IPC improvement are a little better than AMDs prediction @ CES.

Once they get to the point they can overclock all core’s in the mid 4.5 range the IPC will be glorious.
I wouldn’t clock these, they seem to be the CPU everybody warned us about that will melt down, like the guy I follow who Clicked his to death..
 
OP
S

Solarsentinel

Member
Curious, what do you mean by better value? Why would some CPUs be better suited for non-overclockers? Higher performance is higher performance after all, no?

I don't overclock, and when I bought the i7 2600 I purposely avoided the K because I didn't want to be tempted by the unlocked multiplier, even though the cost difference was negligible and there was a minor performance disparity. But wouldn't you want the most powerful CPU you can get whether you overclock or not?
You had probably right before, but this didn't apply anymore because on the "k" intel chips the k is no longer just a possibility of an overclok but their base frequencies are much more higher than non k processors. (exple: i9 9900 = 3.1 ghz base clock i9 9900k = 3.6 ghz base clock)
 

Mornats

Senior Member
It seems like OC'ing used to be "edgy", but has long since become entirely mainstream. My thought a few years ago was that for running a DAW, cool and rock-solid stable at stock speeds was preferable to taking chances, however slight. But this is probably old-fashioned thinking, since many of the higher-end CPUs (presumably targeting the gamers) are clearly marketed as OC friendly, or as you say, designed to be overclockable.
Yeah I remember the days when me and my brother would sweat over voltages and FSB speeds and so on, hoping we'd not done anything to fry the chip. My i7 4790k is overclocked to 4.5ghz just by selecting the smart overclock button on the bios. Where's the fun in that? :)
 

pderbidge

Senior Member
Curious, what do you mean by better value? Why would some CPUs be better suited for non-overclockers? Higher performance is higher performance after all, no?

I don't overclock, and when I bought the i7 2600 I purposely avoided the K because I didn't want to be tempted by the unlocked multiplier, even though the cost difference was negligible and there was a minor performance disparity. But wouldn't you want the most powerful CPU you can get whether you overclock or not?
I'll give you an example of what I mean. Say you buy an i9 9900K and you have no intentions of overclocking so you pair it with a low cost board like the the Asus Prime Z390-P. This board uses a 4 Phase VRM with doubling and tiny heatsinks. Since the function of the VRM is to deal with the Power Draw on the CPU it is important to get a motherboard with enough VRM capability that it can handle the heat and the load so that it doesn't end up throttling your CPU. I think you might see where I'm going with this since this particular Asus board was not the greatest of the Z390 boards. So this particular board is known not to handle overclocking well but you might think "so what?" I'm not overclocking anyways. Well, the only issue is that in order to get your money's worth from the i9 9900k you still want to benefit from Turbo Boost, which is sort of Intel's own "approved" overclocking right? The problem is, even if you have a decent CPU cooler, when turbo boost kicks in and starts to boost the core frequency of the CPU the VRMS start to heat up and since this boards VRMS arent' the best and on top of that didn't use the best heatsinks they start to overheat and in turn will throttle the CPU back down to regain stability and your Turbo boost ends up not sustaining itself for long enough periods of time to benefit from the technology. So the only thing you are benefiting from, in this scenario, is the better IPC of the i9 at "regular" clock speeds but really nothing more than that. Those benefits would be like maybe 2 to 5 percent at best improvements. You would be better off investing into a cheaper CPU with similar clock speeds and the difference into something like an SSD where you would see more benefits.

I suppose that the argument could be made for the benefit of the 16 threads but now with Ryzen's 8 core CPU's it's a harder argument to make since the 3700x is fairly close in performance until you start to overclock the i9 and even then the 3700x performance is admirable.

Even if you paired the i9 with a better board like the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro which would solve the VRM throttling issues I still think the performance increase would not be substantial. The real benefit would be to overclock or to lock in an all cores boost like what you see in the DAWbench results.

I just feel like a lot of people don't realize this and buy the cheapest Asus board and since it's Asus they think it should be good right? I know I've been guilty of this mentality so I'm speaking from experience:)

By the way, cheap doesn't always mean bad as some times there are cheap boards that do it right. Every manufacturer has these from time to time. People just need to educate themselves on these things before spending the big bucks because they might not get back what they put in.
 
Last edited:

fraz

Member
Sometimes when chipsets and CPU's are end of life - and the next hot products are out the prices can tumble and bargains can be found on older technology so some high end boards can be half price on enthusiast mainstream if there are surplus stocks.

Take Gigabyte z270 Aorus Gaming 9 that was £$ circa 450-500 was available for 210 approx, OK it was for the Kaby Lake 7700 K which came down in price to around 250 - 4C/8T but the board was loaded with VRM and integrated thunderbolt 3 so a similar offer may occur later on for the Z390 equivalent where the best CPU's are 9900 K & 9700 K -
 

pderbidge

Senior Member
So pderbidge do you have assembled your new machine? Could you give us a feedback?
Not yet. I've just put the pieces together in the case and booted to bios to make sure it all turned on. Looks like my cpu temps in the bios are 51c so my thermal spread method may not have worked the best. I'm going to remove the Noctua nh- U14s and try the pea method to see if that works better. Still a ways to go with little time to get it all done.
 

dasbin

New Member
Lots of people are encountering high idle temps (and idling at full voltage/clock) over on reddit. Seems likely a BIOS bug of some kind. Your 51c with a U14s seems to fall in line with what others are experiencing so far, unfortunately. Hopefully gets ironed out soon.
 

pderbidge

Senior Member
Lots of people are encountering high idle temps (and idling at full voltage/clock) over on reddit. Seems likely a BIOS bug of some kind. Your 51c with a U14s seems to fall in line with what others are experiencing so far, unfortunately. Hopefully gets ironed out soon.
I was wondering if it it's just the idle temps that this was an issue. I knew that overall system power was a little higher at idle with what seems to be due to the chipset, but more likely the way the bios is handling it all but didn't know if this affected the CPU temp readings. Perhaps I'll run some tests on load first before going through the whole remove and reseating etc.. If the temps are in line then I just won't worry about it. Thanks for letting me know.
 
OP
S

Solarsentinel

Member
Lots of people are encountering high idle temps (and idling at full voltage/clock) over on reddit. Seems likely a BIOS bug of some kind. Your 51c with a U14s seems to fall in line with what others are experiencing so far, unfortunately. Hopefully gets ironed out soon.
Have you tried to change your thermal paste? The Grizzly Krionaut is my favourite and work really well.
But if it's a bios problem you have to wait an update...

Lots of people are encountering high idle temps (and idling at full voltage/clock) over on reddit. Seems likely a BIOS bug of some kind. Your 51c with a U14s seems to fall in line with what others are experiencing so far, unfortunately. Hopefully gets ironed out soon.
Thanks for charing this info.

Thanks for this too Pictus! It was a big question about X570! :2thumbs:
 
Top Bottom