A kick-a** system is going to be considerably cheaper in the near future. Intel has gotten worse and worse to deal with as AMD struggled. Hopefully, they'll be nice again as they were after the Athlon first hit.
AMD's Ryzen kicks serious a**
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1996 posts since 16 Jan, 2013 from USA
Just saw our benchmark system running this. I must admit, I'd given AMD CPUs up for dead and didn't believe they could pull this off. Faster, uses less juice, and is only half the price of Intel's current best. I thought my editor Gordon was pulling my leg at first, especially about fewer watts. That's what really opened my eyes. AMD's FX CPUs were serious power hogs.
A kick-a** system is going to be considerably cheaper in the near future. Intel has gotten worse and worse to deal with as AMD struggled. Hopefully, they'll be nice again as they were after the Athlon first hit.
A kick-a** system is going to be considerably cheaper in the near future. Intel has gotten worse and worse to deal with as AMD struggled. Hopefully, they'll be nice again as they were after the Athlon first hit.
-
- KVRer
- 27 posts since 22 Feb, 2017
The single core performance is sad. The motherboard components are bottom of the barrel (look at the pathway throughput) and will be obsolete within a year. Plus, it is AMD, you will get to have bizarre problems with various software that no one will ever be able to quite troubleshoot properly.
I suppose if I were building a budget gaming system, I'd consider a Ryzen system, but not for anything else.
Plus, on the gaming front the upcoming (in about 4-6 mos) Intel on-board graphics chipset will outperform the mid-range Nvidia/AMD cards. So an Intel i7 with an SSD raid array inside all passively cooled may be the future in DAW (with some side gaming) land.
I suppose if I were building a budget gaming system, I'd consider a Ryzen system, but not for anything else.
Plus, on the gaming front the upcoming (in about 4-6 mos) Intel on-board graphics chipset will outperform the mid-range Nvidia/AMD cards. So an Intel i7 with an SSD raid array inside all passively cooled may be the future in DAW (with some side gaming) land.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 1996 posts since 16 Jan, 2013 from USA
I wasn't expecting much. I was expecting the same old AMD part. It's not. Single core performance is sad? Your definition of sad is sad. 8 cores for the current price of 4. SMT about 10% more efficient than HT. 14nm. Draws less watts. And I assume you're talking SATA RAID. I'd much rather NVMe at this point. Significantly faster.
Regardless, you should be happy. Intel is bound to drop its prices. They've been slowly increasing the prices with each frickin' tick.
Regardless, you should be happy. Intel is bound to drop its prices. They've been slowly increasing the prices with each frickin' tick.
-
- KVRist
- 52 posts since 28 Aug, 2016
https://youtu.be/3rUndzpdo1I
check out the part about multi-tasking which is the essential part of audio processing.
Still pains me how ALL these new features for gamers and video processing but no one gives a f**k about audio processing
check out the part about multi-tasking which is the essential part of audio processing.
Still pains me how ALL these new features for gamers and video processing but no one gives a f**k about audio processing
-
- KVRian
- 1107 posts since 30 Jun, 2015
Might upgrade to the 4khz version from current i5 4690k ! Also put in two 2tb samsung m.2 960 up to 3500 mb/s reading speeds! With 32 gb ram.
Throw in gtx 1080 and im set both for audio and gaming !
Throw in gtx 1080 and im set both for audio and gaming !
-
- KVRist
- 50 posts since 2 Sep, 2015
Mostly because there's not a lot to give a f**k about.SOKRVT wrote:Still pains me how ALL these new features for gamers and video processing but no one gives a f**k about audio processing
Video and especially gaming are big industries with a good amount of potential profit. Audio isn't, especially real-time audio.
Really, if you want music to become big you have to find a way to make little kids excited about coming home from school and loading up Bitwig :p
On topic, waiting to see Pete Kaine's audio benchmarks for the 1800X. Intel needs a serious competitor to get back on the tick-tock release schedule and lower prices. Exciting times ahead for sure.
-
- KVRAF
- 2945 posts since 23 Dec, 2002
So what I don't quite follow is if the stated frequency range for each Ryzen can be further increased with an overclock or is the frequency range taking overclocking into account?
SOKRVT wrote:https://youtu.be/3rUndzpdo1Icheck out the part about multi-tasking which is the essential part of audio processing.
Still pains me how ALL these new features for gamers and video processing but no one gives a f**k about audio processing
-
- KVRist
- 50 posts since 2 Sep, 2015
Overclocking is possible yet, how much is a guess at this point. Someone's done a 5.something GHz OC with 1.875V, which isn't exactly useable in consumer or audio applications.
Their XFR is essentially Intel's Turbo and is dependent on your cooling solution. So a better cooler will enable XFR to push the frequency higher. These jump however, like Turbo, are temporary.
Their XFR is essentially Intel's Turbo and is dependent on your cooling solution. So a better cooler will enable XFR to push the frequency higher. These jump however, like Turbo, are temporary.
-
- KVRist
- 52 posts since 28 Aug, 2016
In all fairness, we don't even utilize our current cpu's to their full potential like video processing does.
You'll never see your cpu go 100% or even close when doing audio production, so it doesn't even matter.
You'll never see your cpu go 100% or even close when doing audio production, so it doesn't even matter.
-
- KVRAF
- 2945 posts since 23 Dec, 2002
Sorry but you are very wrong on that point. I have a UA Octo, 12 core i7 rig overclocked to 4.5 ghz, 32 gigs of ram, dual rme raydat cards and I hit the cpu wall even at 44.1 k at 512 sample latency on most of my recent productions. I freeze tracks and use groups as necessary. I also do video production on the same rig. Real time audio can easily bring a very well spec'd pc to its knees. I can't even begin to consider tracking at 96k for any medium or larger sized project. Your requirements are being met by your current rig but there are a bunch of us who are wanting and needing more powerful systems.
SOKRVT wrote:In all fairness, we don't even utilize our current cpu's to their full potential like video processing does.
You'll never see your cpu go 100% or even close when doing audio production, so it doesn't even matter.
-
- KVRist
- 32 posts since 17 Mar, 2015
I am also looking forward to the Ryzen launch. Will consider building a new win10 machine using the 8-core 3.4 GHz, hopefully to run Bitwig smoother than my current 10 year old mac. Based on some benchmarks, the Ryzen will offer 3x the cpu power of my mac. Cannot really put an RME raydat PCIe-card into the new mac pro that costs a silly amount of money. Apple has ruined pro audio on their part.
AMD Ryzen 1700X @ 3750 MHz, 16 GB ram, RME Raydat, Win 10 Pro, Bitwig Studio 2.0
F5D @ Soundcloud: MFB Dominion 1 - Chariots, Prophet 12 Canada (BOC), DSI Prophet 12, DSI Prophet '08
F5D @ Soundcloud: MFB Dominion 1 - Chariots, Prophet 12 Canada (BOC), DSI Prophet 12, DSI Prophet '08
-
- KVRist
- 52 posts since 28 Aug, 2016
I understand, i get what you're saying and your rig is much better than mine.Scotty wrote:Sorry but you are very wrong on that point. I have a UA Octo, 12 core i7 rig overclocked to 4.5 ghz, 32 gigs of ram, dual rme raydat cards and I hit the cpu wall even at 44.1 k at 512 sample latency on most of my recent productions. I freeze tracks and use groups as necessary. I also do video production on the same rig. Real time audio can easily bring a very well spec'd pc to its knees. I can't even begin to consider tracking at 96k for any medium or larger sized project. Your requirements are being met by your current rig but there are a bunch of us who are wanting and needing more powerful systems.
I know the DAW suffers, even at 512. However, does your cpu in task manager actually ever hit 100%?
-
- KVRAF
- 2945 posts since 23 Dec, 2002
ASIO performance is positively correlated but not equal to CPU power. If I hit the wall it is a combination of factors. Since my machine is optimized and I using just about the best audio interface on the market for low latency performance and my disk speed is more than adequate, the only variable that can I modify to increase my track count on large projects without having to freeze and bounce at every turn is greater CPU power on a well tuned motherboard.
So my largest projects show cpu spikes at 70 - 80% across all cores. This has my ASIO performance going into the red (going past 100%) with audible stutters and drops outs. When I get to this point I freeze even more tracks, disable effects or increase the buffers on the interface if there is room. This is far from ideal as I am often recording parts after the mixing is underway. When recording I need to drop the latency to 32 to 64 samples for acceptable monitoring conditions and the larger projects will simply not play unless I freeze many channels. That is just my scenario.
Composers who write for picture can have upwards of 1000 midi tracks setup as a template with huge orchestral libraries loaded on remote machines using plugins that communicate to the DAW through ethernet because no single computer is powerful enough to host the plugins at acceptable latency for their work.
So there are multiple scenarios where CPU power can be the limiting factor understanding that asio performance is a function of CPU power.
The only cure when all else is equal is a faster system.
So my largest projects show cpu spikes at 70 - 80% across all cores. This has my ASIO performance going into the red (going past 100%) with audible stutters and drops outs. When I get to this point I freeze even more tracks, disable effects or increase the buffers on the interface if there is room. This is far from ideal as I am often recording parts after the mixing is underway. When recording I need to drop the latency to 32 to 64 samples for acceptable monitoring conditions and the larger projects will simply not play unless I freeze many channels. That is just my scenario.
Composers who write for picture can have upwards of 1000 midi tracks setup as a template with huge orchestral libraries loaded on remote machines using plugins that communicate to the DAW through ethernet because no single computer is powerful enough to host the plugins at acceptable latency for their work.
So there are multiple scenarios where CPU power can be the limiting factor understanding that asio performance is a function of CPU power.
The only cure when all else is equal is a faster system.
-
- KVRist
- 50 posts since 2 Sep, 2015
That's because real-time audio buffer generation cannot take longer than your set buffer size.SOKRVT wrote:You'll never see your cpu go 100% or even close when doing audio production, so it doesn't even matter.
Meaning that if your average CPU load shows up as 20% but you get regular spikes up to 80% then as far as audio is concerned your CPU is running at 80%. It doesn't matter that most of the time it's at 20%. That's why you'll never see Task Manager and DSP meter showing the same numbers.
Unless your OS is WAAAAAY better than Windows or MacOS. Linux has a shot here I think but the OS would have to be custom.
