Threadripper first look

Configure and optimize you computer for Audio.
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

andre h wrote: is this the cause of the underwhelming 1950X DSP results?: https://helpcenter.steinberg.de/hc/en-u ... CPU-setups
Nope because it would also affect the 7820X & 7900X results too, which it doesn't.

I'm running on Cubase 8.5 still as my testbench hasn't been updated since then and I'm trying to keep the playing field level currently. The reported issue doesn't seem to affect revisions prior to C9 or not in the testing I've done anyway.

Bugs aside Cubase can do 32, Reaper can do 32 although some others were limited to 24, but nothing I'm aware of should be below that now, so I guess 12 cores with threading would be where it starts to become questionable.

Post

I dunno about anyone else, but I feel it never ends. It's always something.

My old 4770k and cubase/bitwig are doing well enough with absolutely no stability issues. I guess I'll just keep it that way :shrug:

Post

Kaine wrote:
andre h wrote: is this the cause of the underwhelming 1950X DSP results?: https://helpcenter.steinberg.de/hc/en-u ... CPU-setups
Nope because it would also affect the 7820X & 7900X results too, which it doesn't.

I'm running on Cubase 8.5 still as my testbench hasn't been updated since then and I'm trying to keep the playing field level currently. The reported issue doesn't seem to affect revisions prior to C9 or not in the testing I've done anyway.

Bugs aside Cubase can do 32, Reaper can do 32 although some others were limited to 24, but nothing I'm aware of should be below that now, so I guess 12 cores with threading would be where it starts to become questionable.
"... some others"? Just out of interest, did you try FL?... "FL Studio can use as many cores as your CPU has." ? If it works then you could see where the OS differences are a little better perhaps, and if not, then it's bollocks. Could be interesting wither way.

... and just how wise and highly intelligent is my idea about integrated cpu/memory module? Quite good, I think. Let' think outside the box everybody.

Yes - I don't know the first bloody thing about chipset manufacturing and mechanics, but at least my inner child seems alive and well. I need him.

Post

If I wanted to think outside the box I'd be trying to run linux :hihi:

Post

Debutante wrote: "... some others"? Just out of interest, did you try FL?... "FL Studio can use as many cores as your CPU has." ? If it works then you could see where the OS differences are a little better perhaps, and if not, then it's bollocks.
AFAIK the 32 thread limit is more a restriction of how MS has implemented the MMCSS handling as performance drops off past that point or so I've read. That said I don't know how accurate that information is so either the information is wrong, or FL hasn't tested systems with more than 32 threads available or they've found some way to work around MMCSS handling which to be fair I believe a number of firms are working towards currently.
Debutante wrote:Could be interesting either way.
Yeah, we're all sat here wondering now too. I need to go obtain a licence and see if it holds up to those claims.

Post

So if I was to build a new Threadripper based system today August 22 to use Cubase 8.5 and RME raydat PCIe cards

1. Which threadripper would make the most sense from a performance point of view (if money wasn't the issue)
2. How many tracks could I run at 32 samples before I hit a bottleneck due to Ryzen's design?
3. At which latency (32 samples, 64 , 128? ) does the Threadripper system audio latency issues that have been discussed in this thread even out and become a non issue?

These are the questions that are on my mind... I have been using an overclocked 3930K system at 4.2 to 4.5 ghz - liquid cooled (6 physical cores = 12 threads) for 4+ years now and I am still looking for another system that would give me at 2 times the performance I have now ... ideally 3 times.

When I last posted about my system (pre Ryzen) the latest I7 would have likely given me only 10% to 20% increase in performance.





Kaine wrote:
Debutante wrote: "... some others"? Just out of interest, did you try FL?... "FL Studio can use as many cores as your CPU has." ? If it works then you could see where the OS differences are a little better perhaps, and if not, then it's bollocks.
AFAIK the 32 thread limit is more a restriction of how MS has implemented the MMCSS handling as performance drops off past that point or so I've read. That said I don't know how accurate that information is so either the information is wrong, or FL hasn't tested systems with more than 32 threads available or they've found some way to work around MMCSS handling which to be fair I believe a number of firms are working towards currently.
Debutante wrote:Could be interesting either way.
Yeah, we're all sat here wondering now too. I need to go obtain a licence and see if it holds up to those claims.

Post

Scotty wrote: 1. Which threadripper would make the most sense from a performance point of view (if money wasn't the issue)
1950X on the money no object front, but then more is more.

Unless you need a good 128 buffer or lower; then I wouldn't go with Threadripper.
Scotty wrote: 2. How many tracks could I run at 32 samples before I hit a bottleneck due to Ryzen's design?
Depends on the plugins being used.
Scotty wrote: 3. At which latency (32 samples, 64 , 128? ) does the Threadripper system audio latency issues that have been discussed in this thread even out and become a non issue?
It was seeing 90% cpu usage around the 256 buffer. 256 was also where it pulled ahead of the 7900X.
Scotty wrote: These are the questions that are on my mind... I have been using an overclocked 3930K system at 4.2 to 4.5 ghz - liquid cooled (6 physical cores = 12 threads) for 4+ years now and I am still looking for another system that would give me at 2 times the performance I have now ... ideally 3 times.

When I last posted about my system (pre Ryzen) the latest I7 would have likely given me only 10% to 20% increase in performance.
With your overclock in place the Geekbench 4 score should be just north of 20,000. The highest threadripper is about 30,000 at 4GHz, so the best you're going to see currently is around a 50% gain.

Post

Thank you so much Kaine... That really puts things in perspective.

So the follow up question would be :

if I needed to track 24 tracks at 32 samples with:

compression and eq on each channel
four amp sims (Amplitube 4)
and 1 Global Reverb (even a cheesy one would do)
2 Kontakt instruments

Could the Threadripper 1950x manage that at 32 samples with RME raydats?

Usually I replace tracks as needed (redo the vocals for example or layer in more instruments) at whatever latency I can get away as I have usually started the mixing process. If the latency is too high to track comfortably .. I use zero latency monitoring tools for vocals or bass or if necessary bounce out a stereo mixdown and then replace tracks and fly them back in .

After that I get into heavier mixing and can ramp up my latency to as high 1024 to get the headroom I need to complete a mix without excessive bouncing.

That describes my typical process. If the threadripper can manage the initial load as described above at 32 samples then having the superior performance for mixing tasks may make the threadripper better for my purposes.

Does my reasoning seem solid based on my process as descibed above?

And thanks again Kaine. I get more direct information on this topic from you (via your KVR posts and website) than any other source and believe me I look.

Post

Thank you so much Kaine... That really puts things in perspective.

So the follow up question would be :

if I needed to track 24 tracks at 32 samples with:

compression and eq on each channel
four amp sims (Amplitube 4)
and 1 Global Reverb (even a cheesy one would do)
2 Kontakt instruments

Could the Threadripper 1950x manage that at 32 samples with RME raydats?

Usually I replace tracks as needed (redo the vocals for example or layer in more instruments) at whatever latency I can get away as I have usually started the mixing process. If the latency is too high to track comfortably .. I use zero latency monitoring tools for vocals or bass or if necessary bounce out a stereo mixdown and then replace tracks and fly them back in .

After that I get into heavier mixing and can ramp up my latency to as high 1024 to get the headroom I need to complete a mix without excessive bouncing.

That describes my typical process. If the threadripper can manage the initial load as described above at 32 samples then having the superior performance for mixing tasks may make the threadripper better for my purposes.

Does my reasoning seem solid based on my process as descibed above?

Although I am disappointed that we haven't reached a doubling point in sheer processing power in 4 + years ... a 50% increase in cpu power over my overclocked 3930k is probably more than enough to make it worthwhile. And yes I do hit the cpu wall now even at 1024 sample latency.

And thanks again Kaine. I get more direct information on this topic from you (via your KVR posts and website) than any other source and believe me I look.

Post

Scotty wrote:Thank you so much Kaine... That really puts things in perspective.

So the follow up question would be :

if I needed to track 24 tracks at 32 samples with:

compression and eq on each channel
four amp sims (Amplitube 4)
and 1 Global Reverb (even a cheesy one would do)
2 Kontakt instruments

Could the Threadripper 1950x manage that at 32 samples with RME raydats?
That's a very specific request and I'm not sure I can give you a complete answer. 64 buffer was using about 55% of the CPU being used before the audio fell over (this scaled to almost 90% at 192), so I fully expect it to be breaking up below 50% load on a 32 buffer. If that allows enough channels for you to complete your requirements? I simply have no idea.

Does your current Intel do what you need? From what I've seen the AMD at a 32 buffer is going to handle slightly less of a load than your current system, so I suppose that's one way of figuring it out.
Scotty wrote: Although I am disappointed that we haven't reached a doubling point in sheer processing power in 4 + years ... a 50% increase in CPU power over my overclocked 3930k is probably more than enough to make it worthwhile. And yes I do hit the CPU wall now even at 1024 sample latency.
Yeah, the thing is since x58 (so 7 generations) Intel has been on the same tech, and AMD have only recently made the same leap that Intel managed with that old chipset. Intel has been in a refine and shrink cycle for the last decade without anyone to really push them, they chose to go with the optimization route and the aim to make them more power efficient whilst forever cramming more features into the chipset.

Of course the first thing to go out of the window in the attempt to extract more power is efficiency and we've seen that with the temperature jumps in the last 6 months. Since your generation the has been minimal gains on chip but we've gained with things like M.2. and Optane (I guess someone, somewhere is using it...) in the newer chipset releases, without them concentrating on improving the chips in the middle other than reducing the power draw where they can.

The problem is that this tech is already pretty mature and we've got maybe another 2 or 3 die shrinks now until it's going to get really hard to go any smaller. They've been working on new tech like optical processors for well over a decade now and of course, the is the dream of mainstream Quantum computing that is forever on the horizon. Maybe I'm wrong and they'll come up with a new design process over the next two or three shrinks, but I suspect the next major leap forward we're going to see will come from an alternate tech design be that a full reimagining of what we have currently or by taking a step back and starting again with something new.

Post

If one needs such crazy processing power, why not get a multi-CPU server? 8)
Maybe people should try to trim down their projects. If that TR chip is not enough for making music, maybe they are using too many tracks with too many plugins. Oftentimes less is more. Think of what talented musicians created on old 8-track machines.

Post

fluffy_little_something wrote:If one needs such crazy processing power, why not get a multi-CPU server? 8)
Uh, that's what Threadripper is, right?

Post


Post

You make a good point and I could use fewer tracks and groups but I find automating and mixing is much easier and leads to better results for me personally if I can separate vocal and bass parts in particular at specific song sections and not automate EQ and dessers through a sections.

fluffy_little_something wrote:If one needs such crazy processing power, why not get a multi-CPU server? 8)
Maybe people should try to trim down their projects. If that TR chip is not enough for making music, maybe they are using too many tracks with too many plugins. Oftentimes less is more. Think of what talented musicians created on old 8-track machines.

Post

If you're hammering a system so hard that you need to freeze or bounce anything, and expecting a solution anytime soon, then you're in for heartache and misery. It won't be here for the foreseeable future, the tech's way off.

What you need to do is slave one or two systems running VEPro and farming resources. That's the way people get a working DAW with everything loaded and ready to the touch. No faffing with freeing resources because you want one more plug instance.

Post Reply

Return to “Computer Setup and System Configuration”